A pitfall to be avoided
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed questions the wisdom of not making a distinction between Judaism and Zionism
It is hard to see why anyone would consider the text of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which has been dismissed as a forgery by countless scholars, to be newsworthy. And yet the well-respected Nasserite Party paper, Al-Arabi, which is known for its principled stand, chose to run the text of the Protocols as its main story in two consecutive issues appearing on 28 November and 1 December. Under front- page banner headlines, the paper devoted eight pages to the text of the Protocols divided equally between the two issues. In addition, the first issue carried a full-page article by Dr Abdel-Wahab El-Messeiri placing the Protocols in their historical context. In an editorial comment, the paper explained that it had decided to publish the text of the Protocols out of a sense of "professional responsibility" to allow readers to make up their own minds as to its authenticity. The real reason, however, was to fan the flames of public outrage against Israeli atrocities in the occupied territories and to counter the harsh anti-Egyptian campaign triggered by the TV serial, Horseman Without a Horse, which is based on the Protocols and which has been denounced as anti-Semitic in the West.
In his article, Dr Messeiri unequivocally dismisses the Protocols as a hoax engineered by the Russian secret police to discredit revolutionary and liberal movements in Russia and rally support for the Tsar, the aristocracy and the church by "exposing" a worldwide Jewish plot. Indeed, the paper itself concedes that the Protocols are "probably forged". Why then bother to publish them?
Dr Messeiri is the author of the encyclopaedic study, Jews, Judaism and Zionism. A renowned scholar, he is a recognised expert on the subject. How to reconcile an expert opinion denouncing the Protocols as a pure fabrication with the decision to waste eight pages of newsprint on reproducing them? The most plausible explanation is that opinions within the pan-Arab movement were divided over the issue, with one trend pushing for publication in order to denounce Zionism as inherently conspiratorial and expansionist, and another trend arguing against using the Protocols in this way on the grounds that it would be counterproductive.
This dichotomy within the ranks of the same constituency epitomises the confused thinking in society at large as towards the issue of Israel. The problem has reached critical proportions with the rise of Israel's far-right and its systematic persecution of the Palestinians. The alliance between the secular and religious trends in Israel has blurred the lines of demarcation between Zionism and Judaism for many in the Arab world, so that today anti-Zionism is coming to acquire anti-Jewish connotations. This confusion is dangerous and extremely harmful to Jews and Arabs alike.
When the antagonism between Israel and the Arab world was at its peak in June 1967, the Arabs were accused of wanting to eliminate Israel altogether. The slogan raised by pan-Arab nationalists at the time was that the confrontation with Israel was over existence, not borders. The slogan was interpreted by some as calling for an end to Israel's existence, even if this entailed putting an end to the existence of its Jewish inhabitants. Statements attributed to Arab leaders called for throwing the Jews into the sea in answer to the Israelis throwing the Palestinians into the desert.
But the PLO was quick to realise that a strategy based on the elimination of Israel could be interpreted as a call to exterminate the Jews themselves. This would evoke the horrors of the Holocaust, still fresh in people's minds, and the main source, after Hitler's defeat, of sympathy for Jews all over the world -- except in the Arab world, which saw itself as the main victim of the West's guilt feelings towards the Jews. Legitimate Arab resentment at having an alien body thrust in their midst was interpreted as denoting a lack of sympathy for, not to say outright hostility towards, the Jews. Accused of anti-Semitism, the Arabs found themselves increasingly isolated, despite the many crimes perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinians. This is what drove the PLO to change its strategy in the wake of the 1967 defeat and call for the creation in Palestine of a secular state that would group Jews, Muslims and Christians to replace the state of Israel. It was a strategy that made a clear distinction between Zionism and Judaism, calling for the dismantling of Israel without harming Jews or questioning their right to survive as a people.
It is vital not to offer anyone the opportunity to accuse the Arabs of calling for the extermination of the Jews, whatever their stand towards the state of Israel. Accordingly, the Arab stand must be such as to encourage Jews not to pin their hopes and aspirations on Israel -- that is, on Zionism as an ideology and frame of reference -- and to convince them that Arab- Jewish relations can be built up outside the scope of Zionism which puts forward as its objective not only the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine but also a state whose main characteristic is to impose hegemony over the region.
The Arab states took a fundamental step forward in the direction of recognising the state of Israel by accepting Security Council Resolution 242, which actually meant abandoning the proposition that their confrontation with Israel is necessarily and in all conditions an issue of existence, not of borders. This step was consolidated by subsequent attempts to reach agreements with Israel aimed at fixing its final borders. Arab concessions in this direction culminated in the unanimous adoption by the Beirut summit of the Saudi initiative requiring Arab states to normalise relations with Israel in exchange for an Israeli pullback to the lines of 4 June, 1967, provided these lines would be recognised as final borders. Accepting to normalise relations with Israel not only belies charges of anti- Semitism but can be the basis for a settlement in which the Arabs abandon their perception of Israel as an illegitimate body in their midst in exchange for Israel's abandonment of its expansionist policies and acceptance of the principles of peaceful co- existence in its relations with the Arab and Islamic worlds.
But Israel cannot be accepted as "normal" state in the region as long as the Palestinians do not enjoy a "normal" status, that is, as long as they continue to be deprived of all the basic rights of citizenship in defiance of international law. Their situation is unlikely to improve in any foreseeable future. Despite the promising noises coming out from the recently revamped Labour Party, the extreme right looks set to dominate the political landscape in Israel for some time to come, whether in the form of the Sharon faction or the Netanyahu faction. While Sharon, unlike Netanyahu, has not openly declared his opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state, the conditions he insists must be satisfied before it can come into being are the exact opposite of what the Palestinians aspire to. As far as the Israeli prime minister is concerned, the main function of the proposed Palestinian state is to satisfy Israel's security requirements not those necessary to solve the Palestinian problem.
So far there is no serious challenge to Sharon's hardline. In fact, his amazing popularity in the polls indicate that the majority of Israelis share his view that Israel must impose its will by force, not through negotiations. To further complicate matters, certain forces in Israel are taking advantage of the American attitude towards Iraq to try and deprive the Palestinians of more of their rights and more of their land. All in all, the situation does not make it easy for Arab public opinion to make a distinction between Zionism and Judaism.
And yet that is precisely what is required at this critical juncture. Israeli Jews must be made to realise that their destiny is not necessarily bound up with the success of the Zionist project, that the Arabs see them as enemies not because they are Jewish but because they embrace a political platform and an ideology that denies Palestinian and Arab rights. In other words, the Arabs are required to make a clear distinction between Zionism and Judaism, while the Jews for their part are required to recognise that their security requirements will not be met as long as they continue to regard themselves as a chosen people standing above international law. Overcoming the misunderstandings and misconceptions complicating what are already extremely tense relations require efforts, not only by the parties directly concerned, the Arabs and the Jews, but also from outside parties.
