|
|
|
Articles In English
|
- November.15. 2003
Arab democracy and progress require justice for Palestinians
|
by Lamis Andoni
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
|
|
