 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 13 - 19 January 2000 Issue No. 464 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 13 - 19 January 2000 Issue No. 464
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Heritage Special Books Profile Travel Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Mid-life crisis in the Arab world
By Gamil Mattar *The end of a century is a time to pause and think. Attempting to find suitable words to describe what has happened to the Arab regional system, and to qualify the irrationality of the Arabs' recent behaviour, is a bewildering exercise. Suspicion, lack of self-confidence and of trust in one's allies: this is the rule of the day. Like middle-aged people, we look back over the century, assess our achievements and failures, and wonder whether our chances for the future will be any less bleak than they have been, despite our failing health and the weakening resolve characteristic of middle age.
As the twentieth century is pushed onto the back of the shelf, we do not remember it as an "American century", although historians dubbed it that when it was still in its cradle. For us, it was a century fraught with events on the Arab scene. It was also very much a European century, witnessing two world wars instigated mainly by Europe, followed by a cold war, again fought mostly on European battlefields. Today, at the beginning of a new century, Europe is showing the world its renewed vigour, and is determined to impose its hegemony alongside the US's.
From our corner in the Middle East, the twentieth century was the century of Arabism, although Israel could also claim it was the century of Zionism. During the twentieth century, most Arabs passed from Ottoman domination to mandate government or direct colonial rule. Subsequent years witnessed the independence of Arab countries and the emergence of an Arab regional system which may be depicted as a national reaction to the unjust authoritarianism of the Ottomans and the indiscriminate racism of Turkish rule. The nationalist reaction, spearheaded in part by the intellectual elite, blended with nascent nationalism and emerging religious factionalism. But clearly, it was a movement opposed to European domination, the backwardness of Arab politics and politicians, and the perpetuation of underdevelopment.
The Zionist invasion triggered an explosion of Arab anger, which had been smouldering for years, against the Ottomans, the Europeans, and the ruling classes that had exercised political, social and economic hegemony for so long. Arab resentment of Britain, France, the Zionists and the US, sparked in the early days of the century, did not subside as it ended. In the throes of their rage, the Arabs were incapable of examining their plight calmly and planning for their future. Europe and Israel never gave them a chance, but continuously tried their patience (which is tremendous, it must be said) and drained their resources. Despite their great wealth, the Arabs never ceased to indulge in mudslinging and smear campaigns as the world watched. Any African conference they attended was doomed to fail. They were only prepared to discuss issues that concerned them directly, and drummed up African allies in their conflicts with other Arab countries.
The Israelis, on the other hand, see the twentieth century as a predominantly Zionist century, and predict that the 21st century would be so as well. During the last century, Zionism developed into a bellicose theory. Moving slowly but surely, the Zionist settlers, and later the Israelis, engaged in blackmail campaigns to win a few more metres of Arab land that would accommodate more Jewish immigrants. These came first in small numbers, then in droves, one million emigrating from Russia alone. The Zionists dream of a land that stretches from the Nile to the Euphrates, of a population that includes all the Jews of the world, and of influence over all the major capitals in the region.
Whatever we assumed was the dominant character of the century, because of reason, ignorance or fear, today we must admit to the world, and to ourselves above all, that the 20th century was the century of Zionism. Throughout the greater part of the century, Arab rejection of Israel remained absolute and categorical, yet weak. By 1999, all the Arab rulers -- even those who had procrastinated until reactions from Damascus were forthcoming -- had recognised Israel.
As for Damascus, it waited until the very end of the century to admit what it had persistently denied for so long. Others rushed to recognise Israel in a bid to encourage Syria, or to exert pressure upon it. Damascus waited until the very last minute before giving in. Arab resistance, at any rate, was largely verbal, based on a refusal to recognise Israel's existence, and a rejection of something the whole world took for granted. The demand to establish an Arab Palestine, or an Arab-Jewish Palestine, proved to be merely a dream. With the end of the century, the Arabs claimed that they had triumphed (since they are about to recover part of the land seized by Israel) and that Israel had been vanquished.
Others argue that Israel could have achieved more than it actually has. It could have realised the Zionist dream in its entirety had Arab resistance not been so staunch. Although they engaged in fierce warfare and suffered heavy losses, the Arabs have never settled accounts with their leaders, who supposedly prepared for the war and were the cause of the defeat. The Arabs held no one accountable for permitting Israel to remain on Arab territory and trade off land for recognition of its existence. Israel and the US understood the Arabs' state of mind well. They had lost one battle after another; allowing them a semblance of victory, even once, was seen as useful. Hence, the century ended on the idea that the Arabs were victorious because they had regained or were about to regain their land. Israel, it was assumed, had therefore been defeated, and the century could safely be presented as one essentially dominated by Arab success.
No one should disparage Arab resistance on the battlefield or in terms of the economic boycott of Israel. Nor is it possible to deny the numerous situations that brought Arabs into open conflict with the US and Israel. Despite its relations with the US, for three long decades Israel consistently failed to establish relations with most Asian and African countries, until the Oslo Accord was signed with the PLO. The Camp David Accord, signed years before with Egypt, had not diminished Arab resolve to resist Israel. Camp David, originally a restricted agreement, later served as a prototype for accords that followed its three-pattern rigorously: first, self-imposed isolation (applying to friends before foes) during preparations for direct negotiations with Israel; second, a stage of absolute secrecy characterised by a news blackout; and third, negotiations in camera on a bilateral basis with a representative of the Israeli state. With every advance in negotiations, the Arab negotiator invites other Arab parties to participate.
How will we go down in history? We could be depicted as a community of villains who are rushing to turn a new page. But such an image would be frustrating, because part of the conflict has been carried over to the new century and the new page is smeared with past sins. The Arabs are suspicious of the future, and cannot trust that times to come will be more generous with them than the century that has passed. But they know full well that they have not changed in their hearts, and for that reason do not deserve a better future. Only a few are aware that we have changed dates but not our attitudes.
Time is innocent of the actions of men. Humans commit evil, give up their rights, place their wealth in the hands of thieves or idiots, then accuse the century itself. Those who genuinely seek a better future should prevent Zionism from triumphing. Let them bring pressure to bear on their rulers and carry the struggle forward. Perhaps at one of their meetings someone will come up with a plan for this divided nation.
The twentieth century witnessed the birth of Zionist revolution and of Arab nationalism. But as the century came to its end, the destinies of Arabs and Zionists diverged. Zionism is still moving forward, intent on realising its dream despite apparently insurmountable difficulties, while the Arabs are marching in place, resisting the sense of despair which is always a characteristic of middle age.
*The writer is director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Research.
