25 April - 1 May 2002
Issue No.583
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 25 April - 1 May 2002 Issue No.583 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Reading between the lines
As angry masses thronged the Arab streets, politicians looked increasingly beleaguered. A bit of reading, suggests Gamil Mattar*, could do them good
Not everyone who wants Arab officials to take a firmer stand is an ignorant, malicious warmonger. Likewise, not every Arab official who keeps his cool is in cahoots with Israel. Reality is more complex than that.
Some Arab officials, for example, have marched in anti- Israeli protests, while others have made it clear that they do not want the protesters to be molested. This is quite telling. Arab officials want to tell their people (sometimes sincerely) that they share their pain and anger.
So the demonstrations served as a safety valve for the simmering indignation of the Arab public. This may not necessarily be a bad thing.
The Arab masses have every right to feel angry and insulted. They have every right to ask their leaders to defend not only their security, but also their dignity. The media is debating these sentiments, and the public is venting them in coffee shops and behind closed doors. The debate is partly sophisticated and highbrow, partly sensationalist and simplistic. It is partly sincere and well- reasoned and partly sentimental and insidious. Governments have been called upon to act, even if this means war. They have responded by calling their critics ignorant and irresponsible.
As Arab public anger mounted, the governments of the Arab world appeared befuddled and beleaguered, unable to restore the sense of national dignity which the public is clamouring for. The sense of wounded pride is pervasive. Perhaps this was even one of the aims of the US "war against terror" in both Afghanistan and Palestine. The intention of paying an insult to the Arabs has been in evidence all along -- from when the media hate campaign started against the Arabs until its focus was narrowed to certain states, including, it must be noted, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Western politicians took cheap shots at the Arabs, and commentators twisted the knife. And then the Israelis went to action, killing Palestinians at will and dragging Arab dignity into the mud.
The options available to Arab governments were suddenly narrowed. Some panicked, some postured, and some counselled restraint. But none could dam the endless flood of public outrage.
Arab officials felt, for once, closer to their people. They now recognise that they are as vulnerable, and as publicly slighted, as their subjects. They confess that they are desperate for a way out, for a means of keeping their dignity and defending their honour. Some admit that their utmost hope is to keep their countries intact and their borders secure. Others are openly fearful that they could be dragged, willy- nilly, into war. They suspect that the Israelis, and perhaps the Americans too, are waiting for a chance to knock them on the head and decimate their armies.
Arab capitals differ in their reaction to the current crisis. Some are engaging in exercises of anti-Israeli posturing, mainly intended for local consumption. Some believe it is best to appease the Americans and the Israelis (or segments thereof). Some are openly in panic.
The overwhelming official consensus, however, contains two parallel elements. First, that Arab governments should ignore the insults that have pained the Arab public and that can only have one purpose -- namely, to humiliate the Arabs and make them ready to accept new regional arrangements. Second, that Arab governments should not give their enemies a pretext to strike at them militarily and thus change the political map of the region forever.
The official consensus on these two elements is so solid that angry demonstrators could not sway government resolve. Nor could the many instances of political provocation that occurred over the past few weeks. Some rhetorical jostling has been in evidence among Arab capitals, but none of it has altered this solid pattern of action, or inaction, that most Arab governments have instinctively hit upon.
Political posturing, particularly when it masks deep-seated panic, is futile. Rhetoric is not going to prevent Israel from pursuing its murderous plans. Empty slogans will neither assuage nor deceive the angry masses. And nothing seems to change the overly-restrained official policy outlined above. Posturing, panic, and excessive restraint may not, however, be the only options open to the Arabs.
Rightly, many have called on the two governments that have signed peace treaties with Israel, Egypt and Jordan, to reconsider these treaties. The said governments routinely dismiss such calls, and generally exaggerate the consequences of meddling with the treaties. This is one thing that can change, although it may take time, patience and perseverance.
For starters, the Egyptian and Jordanian media should stop speaking of these treaties as if they were sacred documents. The peace treaties with Israel need to be "normalised." That is to say, they should be regarded just as any other international legal instrument is regarded. Once this is done, we will be in a position to deal with them realistically and with a renewed sense of self-confidence.
The lawyers and Arab diplomats who participated in writing these two treaties should look into them again, searching for loopholes that may be of benefit to the Arabs, for new interpretations that differ from Israel's.
As things stand now, Israel seems to have a monopoly on the interpretation of these peace treaties. It has no qualms about harming Egyptian and Jordanian interests in the West and the United States. It engages in acts of aggression that cannot possibly agree with the letter or spirit of the treaties. It is trying to block Arab purchases of weapons. It is poisoning Arab relations with Washington and London. It is undermining our interests in the European Union. And it is threatening our political stability, through its outrageous attacks against the Palestinians. Israel is doing that because of the sense of safety it derives from these peace treaties. The treaties, as they stand now, have turned into instruments that ban all acts of aggression, unless committed by Israel.
I am not calling for the abrogation of the treaties, although abrogation of such treaties, in cases of absolute necessity, is totally acceptable by international norms. But these treaties need to be read again, in the light of what Israel is now doing to humiliate the Arabs, undermine stability in Egypt and Jordan, and disrupt international relations.
Let us go over these treaties, slowly and carefully. We may discover that their texts allow us to do something to restore a modicum of dignity to our lives in the face of Israel's steady stream of humiliations. If we were to restore our sense of sovereignty and self-confidence, we might be pleasantly surprised. Israel may not have the heart for another war.
So, let us read these treaties once more, and read them carefully.
Unless we do that, we may soon find ourselves faced with less pleasant reading material. For instance: new regional treaties that we dare not refuse.
*The writer is director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Research.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page