JK: Winds of Change.NET's Cairo correspondent Tarek Heggy (see his Winds article archive) says "The Arabic version of this article was posted by the Elaph web-site on 25th May, 2004." It was also published on Winds, and has now been incorporated into this larger series following Part 1/5, "Dreams of the Arabs".
Thus Spoke My Eccentric Friend (Part 2/5)
by Tarek Heggy in Cairo, Egypt
When we were young Leftists in the second half of the Sixties, a peculiar friend of us became, amongst our group, known as "our eccentric friend" – was an exceptionally well-read Marxist. One could not mention a literary or ideological work without discovering that he had already read it. On June 5th, 1967, it seemed as if a knife had pierced him to the heart. On that fateful day, I recall him saying in anguish: "It is the roots of the tree that are rotten, not the branches or the fruit". He disappeared to Europe, where he lived for several years, and returned with an adamant denial of all ideologies. He would often say, "I believe in science and progress"; and at others times, "an ideologist in today's world is a psychiatric case; you can't talk to such people until they've been cured!"
During the past year, I began to put in writing his enthusiastic outpourings during our discussions, and the resulting article contains some of his observations taken down in the course of four meetings that took place within last month (August, 2004).
My Eccentric Friend, Part 2: A Word in the Palestinian Ear
A friend recently bombarded me with the following questions:
"Why is it", he said, "that not one single writer in any Arab country has tried to envisage an alternative scenario to the one that transpired in 1948, to speculate on what would have happened if the Arabs had accepted the UN Partition Plan to divide Palestine into two separate states, one Arab (Palestine), the other Jewish (Israel)? How would events have played out if that had been the case? Has the choice our leaders made at the time fulfilled the prophecy of Ismail Sidki in 1947, when he warned that we would lose what was attainable while striving for the unattainable?"
No waiting for an answer, he proceeded to the next question:
"The Muslim Brothers have always been ardent proponents of armed resistance and were at the forefront of the call to arms in 1948. Why is it that eminent historians like Dr. Abdul Azeem Ramadan and Dr. Yunan Labib Rizk have never analyzed the armed movement launched by the Brothers in 1948 and the results it produced? Why are we not given access to the facts that must be taken into account when we hear them using the same logic today, why are we not told of the devastation their zeal has rained on our heads?
Before I could reply, he was already on his next question:
"Do you realize that if we succeed in restituting the Golan Heights, the Shaba Farms, the West Bank and Jerusalem we would only be recouping losses we suffered in the space of six dark days in June 1967? And even if we do manage to get our lost territories back, will we ever be able to undo the harmful effects these thirty-seven years have had on our region of the world?"
Again he did not give me a chance to answer before firing yet another question at me:
"Why has no writer or intellectual tried to explain what would have happened if the Palestinians and Syrians had accepted President Sadat’s invitation to join him in negotiating with Israel a quarter of a century ago? Or what would have happened if the results achieved in Taba forty months ago had been accepted by Arafat and the Palestinian leadership? Which is more advantageous, what Arafat refused at the time or the roadmap? And if what was on offer in Taba is better than what is now on offer under the roadmap, who should be held accountable for the lives lost, the losses incurred and the time wasted? Or is accountability a concept that is alien to the Arab world?"
Taking a deep breath, I prepared to launch myself into the murky waters his questions had stirred up but before I could formulate a response he was ready with his fifth question.
"What do you think, he said, of the following phased plan of action?
First: Convince Arafat to appoint Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) as his Prime Minister and to delegate most of his powers to him.
Second: Have Arafat denounce the random use of violence by both Israelis and Palestinians, that is, the targeting of civilians by the two sides, explain to his people that the suicide bombings have led to a severe decline in the conditions and quality of life of both Israelis and Palestinians, and call on Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade to halt attacks on civilians.
Third: Two or three weeks after these steps are implemented, have Arafat announce that he must go to Cairo for health reasons and name Abu Mazen as acting president during his absence, which could extend for as long as the treatment of his many ailments requires.
Fourth: Abu Mazen then resumes negotiations with the Israelis in the aim of implementing the roadmap and possibly even the agreements reached in Taba during the final days of Clinton’s presidency.
Fifth: Egypt would coordinate and supervise the plan and apprise Washington of all developments so that the US and Israel come to recognize not just that the peace plan is a purely Egyptian initiative but that only Egypt can push it through.
Sixth: As Palestinian-Israeli talks progress, Egypt announces that as soon as an agreement acceptable to both parties is achieved, it will use all the cultural and media tools at its disposal to lead the region towards a culture of peace."
As I was organizing my thoughts to comment on his proposed plan, he reminded me of an article I had written a few years ago on the culture of peace.
"You were attacked at the time", he said, "by the noted intellectual S.Y., but when the political leadership in Egypt had the foresight and wisdom to set up an organization for the express purpose of disseminating a culture of peace, the same intellectual remained prudently silent! Who knows, he might even become one of the main exponents of a culture of peace; after all, this would be quite in character for the breed of ‘bureaucratic intellectuals’ to which he belongs!
Can you conceive of a greater contradiction, in both philosophical and linguistic terms", he asked bitterly, than the one between the notion of ‘intellectual’ on the one hand and that of ‘bureaucrat’ on the other? Sartre summed up the role of the intelligentsia when he said that an intellectual must never become a ‘supporter’, that is, he must never become a bureaucrat."
My friend ended his impassioned tirade with a statement he never tires of repeating:
"Questions have eyes … answers are blind!"
Mr. Arafat is obviously better qualified than I am to respond to my friend’s questions. I would therefore hope that he gets to read this article and that he will graciously agree to reply to as many of these simple (!) questions as possible, as well as to yet another question my friend put to me a few days ago:
"The first Palestinian Intifada won the sympathy and admiration of the whole world because it did not resort to random violence against civilians. As to the present Intifada, while it does have its supporters it also has many detractors who deplore its use of violence against civilians. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the current Intifada will produce better results than those which could have been achieved in January 2001, what will Arafat do with the strongmen who are flexing the muscles they developed in the period between September 2000 and the present day, and who are becoming increasingly ready to assert their political will over his, as they did at the Cairo meetings? What will Arafat do (after his big victory) with the genie he let out of the bottle, a genie as dangerous as the one Sadat released, with disastrous consequences, in the seventies of the last century? Or is this his legacy to the coming generations in Palestine and throughout the region?"
Next installment - Part 3: Rejecting Progress
For more of Tarek Heggy's writtings in English, please visit www.t-heggy-site-contents.org and for Tarek Heggy's writings in French please visit www.metransparent.com/authors/french/tarek_heggy.htm.
Any negotiations between PA and Israel are unlikely in the near future. It will take a generation or more to instill in Israelis any trust towards Palestinians. Neither Abu Alla nor Abu Mazen nor any other Abu has any shred of respectability in Israel. It will take more than couple of generations to deprogram Arabs from their atavistic hatred. I do not see who and when will start this deprogramming.
It is now the fence/wall and the coordinated unilateral disengagement. And if the wall doesn't work, then it's a war. And an ugly one. The sentiments in Israel towards Palestinians and Israeli Arabs have become much more militant and less flexible - see this poll.
Terek's friend can ask all his questions - it's just too little and too late. I doubt very much whether anybody of consequence will look at this questions on the Arab side - and if he will I think that I know the answers.
Have Arafat denounce the random use of violence by both Israelis and Palestinians, that is, the targeting of civilians by the two sides, explain to his people that the suicide bombings have led to a severe decline in the conditions and quality of life of both Israelis and Palestinians, and call on Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade to halt attacks on civilians.
I dread to think what Tarek's friend would be saying if suicide bombing worked.
On the pre-war "negotiations" between the jewish agency and the arab league in 1947, here's an excerpt from Genesis 1948:
http://hippercritical.typepad.com/hipp/2003/11/negotiations.html
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Notice the spin there. Palestine WAS divided into two states, a Jewish one (Israel) and an Arabic one (Jordan). Now the Arabs want all of it. Fook 'em and feed 'em fishheads.
With the Arabs it is always "why can't I have the last deal?"
The Israelis answer "care to discuss the last war?"
This game has been going on for at least 50+ years.
Some times wishes and reality have to get really far out of whack before some people notice. Evidently the divergence is not enough yet.
Tarek Heggy's friend asks:
"Or is accountability a concept that is alien to the Arab world?"
That does seem to be a big part of the problem, doesn't it?
As for his proposed plan of action, he lost me at step one. Convince Arafat to do something reasonable? Why not just with for a herd of unicorns to carry everyone into the land of sunshine and candy?
Any practical plan of action for bringing peace to Israel and Palestine has to start with:
first: Shoot Arafat.
After reading and watching human-interest interviews with Palestinians, and reading authors who have been on the ground, my fear is that it is impossible for Israel to make peace with them (not that Sharon seems interested in trying, but don't get me started), because too many Palestinians have no idea of what "peace" would look like or why it would be a good thing.
If you literally cannot imagine any improvement on unending war, of course your motivations shift to simple revenge.
No welfare, no terrorists.
One way to rid Palestine of terrorists is to withdraw all international and islamic welfare payments from anyone living in Palestine. The last one out would try not to let the door hit him leaving.
Generous welfare payments link the muslim terrorists and the left. Leftists support generous welfare and terrorists live on welfare. Welfare is the magnet that leftists use to attract muslim terrorists to western europe. If a muslim is a terrorist at heart he can simply live on welfare and produce a dozen healthy young terrorists.
My suspicion is that if the Palestinians had exuded Gandhi-like kindness and understanding from the very beginning, the Zionists would have used force to throw them off their land anyway. This would still be an improvement over what actually happened, of course.
For some odd reason you never see Palestinians exuding Gandhi-like kindness and understanding. Not from the very beginning and not since. This is not in their nature so do not ask it of them. You will only appear foolish.
Can you conceive of a greater contradiction, in both philosophical and linguistic terms", he asked bitterly, than the one between the notion of ‘intellectual’ on the one hand and that of ‘bureaucrat’ on the other?
I've seen a few who think themselves intellectuals and who aspire to bureaucratic power of the lives of others in order to impose what they think is the right way to live.
Arrogant and ultimately self-contradictory ... but common enough.
And for some equally odd reason we do not often see Zionists exuding Gandhi-like kindness and understanding. Certainly not in the beginning and not often since. Perhaps it is not in their nature either?
These two adversaries were certainly meant for each other.
T.J., thank you for that illuminating insight into your prejudices in comment #10
The well was poisoned long ago.
Arabs (some of them anyway) accepted the Balfour Declaration because it would mean economic progress for Arabs.
Then came the Mufti of Jerusalem who favored progroms against the Jews. During WW2 he allied with the Nazis and raised two divisions of Muslim SS to kill Jews.
The leading lights of the Muslim Brotherhood (Sadat and Nasser also allied themselves with Hitler. The Baathist movement philosophically was a Nazi/Stalinist movement. Then came the Soviets. Another 40 years of the same.
And what is left? In Oriana Fallaci's pungent phrase. Islamic Nazis.
The rot is now very deep.
The Zionists begged for a peace deal in '67. Had it happened reasonably soon post '67 the Arabs/Palis would have gotten ALL the land lost in '67 back. That was on offer.
The Arab states said: no peace.
In fact there is still a nominal state of war between Israel and all the Arab states except Egypt and Jordan.
Most of the Arab states prefer a permanent state of war to the fruits of peace. In that toxic environment Al Q has arisen. Grievances of a thousand years are fed and nurtured.
Sadat, was killed because he saw the futility of war and made peace.
In fact the Arabs who favored a Jewish State were killed off.
Agreement Between Emir Feisal and Dr. Weizmann
3 January, 1919
His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their natural aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following:
Read the rest.
Sad that one has to convince people that the mass-murder of Jewish civilians is wrong, let alone by resorting to highlighting their own standard of living.
Palestine Israel is not a closed system. Palestine gets support from the wider Arab world. The Arab world is mainly made up of dictatorships that rely on islam & umma to bind their people to their control. The umma (commonality of interest) requires a defined enemy of both regime and people to unite them, the Jews who have stolen Palestine serve very effectively. To end the struggle against Zionism through dialogue is not in the interests of these regimes. They supply large sums of money to armed groups to maintain the conflict. The best the Palestinians can realistically hope for is that the oil money (which supports these regimes) will run out in under 50 years and not 80 - 90 years as predicted.
There does also exist the (remote) possibility that a rich donor nation will supply even greater amounts of money to supporting Palestinian democracy.
>>Sadat, was killed because he saw the futility of war and made peace.
Rabin seemed to have a similar problem.