A twisted logic

by  Lamis Andoni

Despite increased talk about the need to position economic development and democratization in the Arab world as the major priority of intellectual discourse and government policies, the Palestinian cause remains the single most influential factor on Arab 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 ongoing impact of the Israel-Arab conflict, particularly the Palestinian issue, on the political, economic, and even routine existence of the Arabs underscores--to varying degrees--the continuing conflict as an obstacle to development and political progress.

While it is true that many Arab leaders have used "commitment to the Palestinian cause" to justify measures ranging from martial law to shutting down dissent and press freedoms, the leaders' fear of popular anger against Israel and acquiescence towards Washington have more often been used to justify governmental oppression. In other words, while public opinion in most Arab countries has always favored increased support for the Palestinians and stronger Arab governmental positions vis-à-vis Israel, Arab leaders--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.

It is important to remember that Israel's establishment in 1948, which involved the dispossession of Palestinians and the slicing 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 continued policies of displacement of Palestinians, confiscation of Arab land and alliance with the United States, has become a daily reminder of continued foreign influence and challenge to the Arab identity. The peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and Jordan, respectively, have not succeeded in changing the perception of Israel as an occupier and a foothold for American control over the region. On the contrary, the two peace treaties, while weakening the strategic Arab position vis-a-vis Israel, confirmed to many Egyptians and Jordanians that Israel was demanding and receiving unconditional acceptance for its ideology of expansion and racist policies towards the Palestinians.

Moreover, the treaties are still perceived as a result of an unequal balance of power that gave Israel the upper hand by effectively imposing unilateral agreements that do not address the primary cause of the conflict. This popular sentiment is reflected in the failure of all political, economic, and cultural normalization efforts between the Egyptian and Jordanian peoples, on one hand, and Israel, on the other. Economic incentives such as tying the relationship with Israel to the apportionment 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 the Jordanian people's attitude towards Israel. The economic dividend promised by the late King Hussein and former Prime Minister Shimon Peres did not bear fruit for the majority of Jordanians, even as the continued occupation and collective punishment imposed by Israel on the Palestinians has reinforced Israel's role as an enemy and aggressor.

There is no doubt that the Oslo accords of 1993 dampened the popular movement in the Arab countries in support of the Palestinians. It was difficult to demand a better arrangement from Israel than one the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, would settle for. But as it became clear that the accords and the subsequent agreements were not leading to the end of Israeli occupation, movements in solidarity with the Palestinians started regaining their influence and were able to energize 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 towards Israel and focus on the development of democracy, they might reassert their political weight and contribute again towards building the national culture. 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, not necessarily through war. Many in Israel and the United States know, but are in complete denial, that democratic Arab governments mean governments that are more responsive to public opinion, a public opinion that unequivocally opposes collaboration with Israel and submission to US policies and the conditions placed by international financial institutions that have so far only increased the gap between the regional haves and have-nots.

This leads us to the conclusion that democracy and the search for justice are intertwined. Therefore, the US efforts to divorce what it calls "plans to democratize the Arab world" from a genuine solution that recognizes Palestinian national rights and freedom (and now, of course, the end of US occupation in Iraq) is either an act of deception or at best a futile exercise. -Published 6/11/03©bitterlemons-international.org

Lamis Andoni is a veteran journalist and commentator on Middle East affairs.