Years of disgrace

Our analysts like to blame Arab leaders but neglect those who have failed to manage conflicts which directly involve them, writes Abdel-Moneim Said*

---

To every new calamity that hits us, Arab analysts have one reply. Go back to what the analysts wrote during the second Palestinian Intifada if you don't believe me. Go back to what they wrote following the US invasion of Iraq and you'll get my point. Go back to what they wrote after Israel's incursions in April and May 2002 and you could be reading yesterday's newspaper. It's always the same thing. Analysts start out by lamenting Arab inaction and wondering why the masses are not taking to the streets in thunderous protests. Then they proceed to harangue "defeatist" Arab rulers who fail to lift a finger.

I for one fail to understand how an Arab ruler, defeatist or otherwise, can be expected to react intelligently to a situation that developed out of the blue, to crises he hadn't started or been consulted about. We expect Arab rulers to help their beleaguered brethren wherever they are, without concern for cost or consequence. Like in Arabic folklore, we expect the story to unfold in the same exact way. Someone would cry for help, and the nearby tribes would unsheathe their swords, hop onto horseback, and do battle, sacrificing their lives at a moment's notice. In our minds, we cling to a fairytale in which the Arabs never fail to rally to the cause. Reality is a bit more complex. Yes we have a joint defence agreement, but has anyone ever read that agreement? Is anyone honouring its provisions for prior consultation and joint drills and command?

Your average "defeatist" ruler has a nation to look after and development plans to pursue. Your average "defeatist" leader has youths who cannot be allowed to die in vain and armies that cannot afford a defeat on the scale of 1967. Your average "defeatist" leader has the outside world to think about. Admittedly, it is not a perfect world, and yet one cannot challenge it without being ready to pay the price. The analysts who go on lamenting know all that. So they move on from disavowing the ruler to haranguing him for "preventing" the masses from meeting their responsibilities. These are the same masses, mind you, that have grown sceptical of the whole scene, the same masses that would rather watch football than take to the streets.

It's not that our analysts don't know what's going on, but they love to portray a reality that doesn't exist. In their reality, horrible rulers are preventing the masses from doing their bit. The rulers must let go of the masses. Once freed, the masses must form armed factions and pursue their "pan-Arab" duties. In other words, we're asking the masses to be a state within a state. And since the masses, once organised into factions, may not agree on what to do next, they may have to form several states within the state. Then each would have to control a bit of land, for purposes of training and defending the turf, etc. And that's the point our analysts are making, although not in so many words.

Our writers live in this dream world because they've lost touch with reality. For them, we're the only people on earth to face such a myriad of obstacles. Other nations have not experienced imperialism, encountered brutality, or grappled with colonialism. Other nations haven't had to find their way out of conflicts in which the odds were stacked against them. Other nations haven't had to struggle and then talk, fight and then negotiate, and change tactics along the way. That's the dream world in which our analysts live.

From whence does this dream world come? I will tell you. It comes from the slogan the National Party of Egypt adopted in the first half of the 20th century. "No negotiations until after the evacuation," the slogan went. In the modern version of that slogan, we refuse to negotiate (why legitimise occupation?) until Israel pulls out "immediately" from all the land it occupied in 1948 and 1967 and allow the refugees to return to their homes. Our standpoint often undermines talks before they're begun, and yet we're always shocked when the Israelis respond "brutally" and take shelter in their military superiority.

Our analysts love to denounce "traitors" in our midst, an epithet that covers anyone who doesn't bear arms and take to the streets and anyone who may suggest other ways for liberating Palestine. Our analysts would never dream of blaming those who scuttled the chances of a settlement. They have nothing to say about those who brought back the occupation to liberated areas, about those who kept militia that rivals and undermines the power of the state. Our analysts wouldn't admonish those who, having won power in democratic elections, failed to make up their mind whether to talk or fight. Our analysts wouldn't chide those who took responsibility for managing the conflict, then couldn't decide whether to initiate talks themselves or leave the taking to someone else (the presidency or the Palestine Liberation Organisation) to do. Our analysts do not question those who failed to put together a unified authority that could manage the conflict in its political, diplomatic, and military aspects.

There is no such thing as a refined and humane occupation. All forms of occupation are aimed at control, domination and subjugation. Everyone knows that. So let's not waste more time on how the occupation is breaking rules and flouting norms. We need to discuss ways of handling a conflict that is lopsided in terms of power and capabilities.

A few decades ago, most of the Third World was under occupation. South Africa and Rhodesia, Namibia and Algeria were all under occupation. But things have changed. Countries have won their independence, through resistance, diplomacy, or otherwise. From that era, only the Palestinian people remain under occupation. One reason for that is that Israel is bent on colonialism. The other is that the Palestinian political elite has failed to manage the conflict. The Palestinian elite is faced with a conflict that is lopsided, and yet it acts as if that is beside the point. The Palestinian elite knows little about balances of power, knows even less about the world, and has forgotten what it used to know about other national liberation movements. The Palestinian elite is using military force in a divisive manner and with little regard for tactical and strategic objectives. For the Palestinian elite, military action is an end in itself, and so is martyrdom.

Years ago, the Egyptian poet Salah Abdel-Sabur spoke of "a terror such as that yet to come". His words ring true today.

* The writer is director of Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.