When to reject
By
Anwar El-Hawari
After a half a century of setbacks on the Palestinian front, the Arabs have resolved to take a pragmatic stance, summed up as, "We accept what the Palestinians accept." Whether this new stance will mean that Arab countries are merely less involved in identifying and evaluating Palestinian interests or whether it entails leaving this task entirely to the Palestinians is yet unclear. Nonetheless, by adopting such a position, Arab states have relieved themselves of a heavy burden. The position, too, has meant that there is a disjuncture between popular and official stances on the Palestinians' future, both within the dispossessed nation as well as in Arab countries.
The corollary of this new stance would seem to be "We reject what the Palestinians reject." It is noteworthy, though, that no representatives of Arab states have said this, because any settlement accepted by the Palestinians implies their having granted concessions. Consequently, for Arab states to merely say they support Palestinian decisions, they avoid addressing directly the burdens such concessions would imply for their dispossessed brethren. For Arab states to say, however, that they reject what the Palestinians reject brings the matter of concessions and who sacrifices as a result of them out in the open. Added to this, it is evident that rejecting settlement terms would entail risks for Arab states.
So, while supporting Palestinian choices generally seems a positive position, what, then, if Palestinians' acceptance of settlement terms actually means little more than making concessions? When, too, would we be able to reject what the Palestinians reject?
This week's Soapbox speaker is managing editor of the quarterly Al-Siyassa Al- Dawliya (International Politics) published by Al-Ahram.