 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 27 May - 2 June 1999 Issue No. 431 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 27 May - 2 June 1999 Issue No. 431
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Living Features Travel Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Just one of his soldiers
By Gamil Mattar *
With the results of the Israeli elections only two weeks old, it seems too early for the Arabs to pass judgement or to adopt political decisions based on the outcome. Certain Arab circles, however, seem to hold a different view, rejecting further deliberation and manifesting an impatience which borders on despair. They believe that at last they have an opportunity which, if missed, will be snatched from under their noses by another Netanyahu or some Israeli faction. I fail to comprehend the pressures inducing such a change of heart. Close observers of the situation also failed to comprehend the statement made by the secretary-general of the Arab League a few hours after the election results were made public, in which he praised Israelis for having "voted (as though they had done so unanimously) for peace".
Without going into the details of this absurd stance, I would like to ask the secretary-general how he arrived at the conviction that, by voting for Barak and ousting Netanyahu, the Israeli people were voting for peace. Were they not rather voting against religious fundamentalism, political corruption, Netanyahu as a person and, possibly, the rapid globalisation of the Israeli economy? No doubt certain voters were dissatisfied with Netanyahu's policies, which complicated the chances for peace, although these same policies actually improved the security situation under Likud rule, mainly due to Netanyahu's liberal use of violence against the Palestinian people, but also thanks to the decisions of the Palestinian Authority, political parties, the armed resistance and its consent to a truce.
Some people would justify the secretary-general's position on the grounds that, on such critical issues, his response tends to be dictated by conditions, a justification I find difficult to accept. Both of his predecessors, Abdel-Rahman Azzam and Mahmoud Riyad, are admired because they genuinely echoed the hopes and aspirations of the Arab public. While these two men were realistic, high-calibre Arab diplomats, diplomacy being essentially a question of pragmatism and sound political realism, they never advocated a specific policy, destined to fail, citing "realism" as an excuse. I had hoped that the secretary-general would think for a moment and realise that he is the representative of a nation working toward unity. I had hoped he would not make the mistakes heads of sovereign states usually commit, since, as the leader of a regional organisation, particularly the Arab League, he certainly lacks such sovereignty. Arab countries or the Palestinian Authority may have rejoiced at the news of Barak's election for their own reasons; but these are not necessarily reasons to rejoice as far as the Arab League is concerned.
The League pulled the rug out from under its members by passing judgement on an issue which had not been tabled or discussed. Nor was the secretary-general required to express his opinion on a matter outside his competence and terms of reference. The resolutions passed in 1996 were specific and clear; not once did they say that the decision to refrain from "normalising" relations with Israel was related to Netanyahu. The rush toward normalisation has now subsided, and Arab governments have proved their ability to implement the collective will effectively, and to maintain certain stances which contributed to safeguarding the reputation of the League, albeit only temporarily. The member states never mentioned in 1996 that their commitment to the resolutions they had approved would end once Labour came to power under any leader. In fact, the understanding was that commitment to these resolutions would last as long as certain policies remained unchanged. So far, the media, Barak and Israeli political analysts have made no mention of any shift in Israeli policies -- quite the contrary.
The Arab governments should wait and stand firm. Barak's words a few minutes after he was sure of his victory smacked of contempt and racism, and confirmed his extremist position on Palestinian rights. Yet some claimed that his statements were dictated by the need to establish a new government, and that a change would be visible a month hence. Therefore, they argued, there was no need to wait and see; their commitment to peace supposedly demanded that they assist Barak, meet his obstinacy with flexibility, his fanaticism with more compromises, and his extremism with joy and applause. The day will come when Arab negotiators find themselves faced by a team of Israeli negotiators that includes members drawn from the extreme right-wing parties -- a team rooted in a grand national alliance, which has been carefully prepared to deal with the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Lebanese separately. The rest of the Arabs will have been isolated by false hope, pressure, blackmail or by the race to normalise relations with Israel.
An American political analyst predicted during the elections that important shifts would occur in Israel and Israeli politics. He predicted that any other government in Israel from now on will focus on Israel's "character" rather than its "size". Other commentators seem to concur with this view. They see the problem of greater Israel, that is the problem of Israel's survival, as related not to its enemies -- be they Palestinian or non-Palestinian Arabs -- but to the conflict within the "Jewish state" itself, between the secularists, who until recently constituted the majority, and the fundamentalists and numerous religious factions. Netanyahu, they contended, tried to divert attention from this problem by focusing on the "peripheral" issues -- Israel's geographical size and military security. I believe, on the contrary, that by attempting to expand his support base and to gain popularity among the right-wing religious factions, Netanyahu widened the gap and intensified the tensions between the various currents within Israeli society.
This development in political life in Israel, however, does not mean that the government or people are ready to set aside questions of security and expansion in order to concentrate on the question of who is a Jew. We will probably be confronted in the coming weeks with a flurry of interpretations and theories attempting to prove that the illusion of peace will widen the gaps in Israeli society, and that such gaps, coupled with further Arab concessions in terms of land, water, Jerusalem, refugees and borders, will eventually produce dividends far exceeding the cost paid or the losses suffered by the Arabs.
For advocates of this view, the proof seems self-evident. First, and most importantly, they cite the vast strategic incompatibility between Israel and its neighbours, particularly in terms of weapons of mass destruction. Secondly, they point to the incomprehensible imbalance between Israel and the Arabs at the international level, which would have grown even more pronounced had it not been for Netanyahu's foolishness and arrogance.
Unfortunately, a minority of Arabs are reverting to their old habit of underestimating themselves, their position and their potential influence. They act in the belief that, in this manner, they can curry favour with Washington and the Israeli public, even if their willingness to degrade and dismiss themselves means sacrificing their past and their aspirations for the future. This minority -- I hope that it will remain as such -- believe that praising and glorifying Barak and thanking the Israeli electorate for having chosen him will win us respect. They forget that, in all the years of conflict and "peace", the Labour party, the Israeli government and the Israeli people alike consistently failed to show respect to a single Arab, let alone an Arab state. Despite all the manifestations of respect for King Hussein during his lifetime and at his funeral, Israel never ceased to humiliate the Jordanians by denying them water Israel owed.
Ever Arab has the right to endeavour to establish true peace and justice in the Middle East, but no Arab has the right to congratulate Israel for having chosen Barak or anyone else as leader. No one can claim to speak on the Arabs' behalf. There is no lack of evidence that Barak has taught his soldiers to hate Palestinians, and instilled in them arrogance, violence and thirst for Arab blood. Netanyahu was only one of those soldiers.
* The writer is the director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Research.
