10.11.2003
Arab democracy and progress require justice for Palestinians
Lamis
Andoni
The
Daily Star, Beirut, Nov 10, 03 http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/10_11_03_c.asp
Democratic
Arab governments will mean governments that are more responsive to public
opinion. And Arab public opinion unequivocally opposes collaboration with
Israel,
submission to US policies and conditions placed on them by international
financial institutions
Despite increased talk about the need
to make economic development and democratization in the Arab world the
major priority of intellectual discourse and government policy, the
Palestinian cause remains the single most influential factor in the
Arabs’ political psyche and life. It is not that most Arabs don’t view
progress and the alleviation of poverty as relevant issues, but that
the impact of the Arab-Israeli conflict (particularly the Palestinian
issue) on the political, economic and even routine existence of Arabs
underscores, to varying degrees, the extent to which the conflict is
an obstacle to development and political progress. It
is true that many Arab leaders have used “commitment to the Palestinian
cause” to justify measures ranging from martial law to stifling dissent
and press freedoms. However, these leaders’ acquiescence toward Washington or fear of
popular anger against Israel have been used more often to justify repression. In other words,
while public opinion in most Arab countries has always favored increased
support for the Palestinians and stronger Arab governmental positions
vis-a-vis Israel,
Arab leaders their bombastic rhetoric not
withstanding have sought to undermine political parties and all forms
of popular opposition to their weak policies in addressing the Palestinian
plight. One should remember that Israel’s
establishment in 1948, which involved the dispossession of Palestinians
and the cutting off of an important part of the Arab world from its
environment, instilled a deep awareness of a residual colonial legacy,
despite the nominal or practical independence of most Arab governments
from French and British rule after World War II. Therefore, the presence
of Israel,
with its policies of displacement of the Palestinians, confiscation
of Arab land and alliance with the United
States,
has become a daily reminder of foreign influence and a challenge to
Arab identity. The peace treaties between
Israel and both Egypt and Jordan have not succeeded in changing the
perception of Israel as an occupier and an instrument for American control
over the region. On the contrary, the treaties, while weakening the
strategic Arab posture against Israel,
confirmed to many Egyptians and Jordanians
that Israel was
demanding and receiving unconditional acceptance for its ideology of
expansion and its racist policies toward the Palestinians. Moreover,
the treaties are still seen as resulting from an unequal balance of
power that gave Israel the
upper hand through the imposition of agreements that did not address
the primary cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This popular sentiment
is reflected in the failure of all political, economic and cultural
normalization efforts between Egypt and
Jordan on
the one hand, and Israel on
the other. Economic incentives, such as tying the relationship with
Israel to
the apportioning of US aid
and setting up a special free zone that exempts joint Jordanian and
Israeli-made products from American tariffs, have done little to change
Jordanian popular attitudes toward Israel.
The economic dividend promised by the late King Hussein and former Prime
Minister Shimon Peres did not bear fruit for most Jordanians, even as
Israel’s continued occupation and collective punishment of Palestinians
has reinforced Israel’s image as an enemy and aggressor. There
is no doubt that the Oslo Accords of
1993 dampened popular support for the Palestinians in Arab countries.
It was difficult to demand a better arrangement from Israel than
one the Palestine Liberation
Organization would settle for. But as it became clear that the accords
and subsequent agreements were not leading to the end of Israeli occupation,
movements expressing their solidarity with the Palestinians started
regaining their influence and were able to mobilize new generations
when the Palestinians themselves launched their second intifada in September
2000. It is interesting that American decision-makers
and some conservative and even liberal pundits argue, often with condescension,
that if only the Arabs were to abandon their confrontational mentality
toward Israel and
focus on developing democracy, they might reassert their political weight.
This is a very twisted argument since a democratic Arab world with more
advanced economies would also be more capable of supporting the Palestinians
and demanding legitimate Arab rights though not necessarily through
war. Many in Israel and the United
States
know, even if they remain in complete denial on this, that democratic
Arab governments will mean governments that are more responsive to public
opinion. And Arab public opinion unequivocally opposes collaboration
with Israel, submission to US policies
and conditions placed on them by international financial institutions that have so far only increased the
gap between the haves and have-nots. Democracy
and the search for justice are intertwined. US efforts to divorce “plans
to democratize the Arab world” from a genuine solution to the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict that recognizes Palestinian national rights and freedom (and
now an end to the US occupation
in Iraq) is either an
act of deception or at best a futile exercise. * Lamis Andoni is an independent
Palestinian journalist who has covered the region for 20 years and who
lectures at the University of California,
Berkeley.
This is an edited version of an article that first appeared on bitterlemons.org,
an online newsletter that publishes Arab and Israeli opinions
