Hope amid the ruins
Mustafa El-Feki* suggests ways to save the region from encroaching disaster
Here, as in other Arab countries, regional crises -- over Palestine, the central Arab issue, and the complications we could have well done without in Iraq -- beg many questions. Certainly we have become too bogged down in the immediacy of current events: sometimes it would appear that the entire region has been taken hostage by extremists of every stripe. And in the meantime Arab interests have been sidelined and regional policies derailed. So we are left, hoping against hope, that we can clutch on to the remainder of our rights and that our historic objectives will not be blown away with the wind.
We need a breakthrough. The stagnation that afflicts the region cannot be allowed to continue for long. We need imaginative solutions to Palestine's endemic problems, to the new problems in Iraq, and to other long- running conflicts in the Middle East. Doing nothing is not an option. We have to roll up our sleeves and rethink our policies.
Do we really have to live with this horrid picture, or are there things we can do to break the impasse? I, for one, see a glimmer of hope at the end of the tunnel. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is turning a corner, with new possibilities developing. Yes, Israel remains the bully it always has been, with target assassinations, the murder of children, the demolition of homes, and a whole panapoly of tactics designed to intimidate. But what happened in Geneva -- though it was not an official agreement -- opened a chink through which some light could shine. It is now clear that agreement is not impossible, that a settlement is not out of reach.
Efforts to heal the rifts among the Palestinian factions and unify their efforts, though they have yet to yield fruit, cannot be discounted. They allow for a continual dialogue that helps maintain a cohesive Palestinian front, demonstrating a level of goodwill between the factions which will be a necessary component of any solution.
Initiatives and some fresh thinking, official and otherwise, are needed to boost the frail hopes. Essentially the Geneva Accord was a distillation of some of the ideas that emerged in summer 2000, during the last weeks of the Clinton administration, and we would be foolish were we to ignore the deep schism that continues to separate extremists on the Palestinian and the Israeli sides.
The Palestinians believe -- and in this they are backed by international law -- that the right of return lies at the heart of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. They are confident that abandoning the right of return is tantamount to liquidating the Palestinian issue. For them the right of return is at the core of all Palestinian rights.
The Israelis argue -- and in this they are backed by might -- that the creation of a Palestinian state must annul all demands for repatriation across pre-1948 borders. For them the right to return should be confined to the independent Palestinian state, within borders yet to be agreed.
The US assumes a more or less unambivalent position. Speaking in Sharm El-Sheikh in June 2003, President Bush referred to Israel as the "Jewish state", as if to stress the point that return is no longer a Palestinian right, but a demand. Bush's words can be understood as an invitation for Jews across the world to emigrate to their state, just as the Palestinians might return to theirs. The problem is, though, that the give-and-take that is supposed to happen is too uneven. The Palestinians are asked to make concessions over the right to return, whereas the Israelis offer what they choose to call concessions only over the status of Jerusalem and sovereignty over the holy places. "Painful decisions" the Israelis term them, while for the Palestinians they constitute an "unacceptable deal".
As for Iraq, where does one start? Iraq has turned from an Arab asset -- regardless of how ruthless the ousted regime was -- into a disturbed entity, ripe with internal tensions that could all too easily spill over into domestic disturbances, sectarian friction and even partition. A few years hence the curtain may rise on an Iraq unrecognisable in Arab regional terms, at which point, we can safely assume, the regional map will have been completely redrawn.
It is too risky to leave Iraq to its own devices. Some argue that we should not deal much with the Iraqis because they live under occupation, and any dealings would be tantamount to accepting the occupation and legitimising the US presence. Such arguments are patent nonsense: at the end of the day it is the Arabs that will suffer. The loss is all ours, in terms of national assets, regional security and international standing.
With the situation so disheartening in Palestine and Iraq there are several courses of action that may help break the impasse. Early last month, at the second conference of the Arab Thought Foundation in Beirut, I put forward some ideas about the Arab future summarised in the following points: existing regimes have to revise their policies honestly and objectively, as part of a constitutional and political reform process that is credible and transparent; we have to stop hijacking the slogans of modernity only to drain them of content under the pretext of bolstering domestic stability and confronting external threats; we have to formulate our national ideals within a new political discourse and change the tone of our media to suit the times; we have to reconcile our national agendas within the framework of a single pan-Arab agenda, particularly when it comes to the Arab- Israeli conflict, the Iraqi issue, and the common Arab market; we have to be consistent in our dealings with Israel; we must deal with current developments in a manner that respects reality and acknowledges dissent within Arab ranks; we must formulate a regional system that incorporates Arab countries while according Turkey and Iran a place, thus fostering a sense of political unity that transcends Arabism without encroaching upon it; Arab resources must be used to further the goals of Arab people; the tone of the Arab media must change, escaping the bonds of the cult of personality to encompass genuine concern for the problems of our people; the doors to civil society must be opened, with Arab states abandoning the custodianship of civil activities, syndicates and religious and intellectual societies. Finally, we must focus on Arab human rights and abandon illegal and outmoded practices. Let's endorse the rotation of power and acknowledge that the nation is the source of power and that democracy is based on respect for the law.
What we urgently need is the political will to place our higher national interests above all other considerations. Putting the Arab house must be our top priority.
* The writer is chairman of the parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee.
