|
Back to
Opinions Page
The
seventh annual Herzliya Conference, held in the Herzliya
Interdisciplinary Centre, featured a rarefied blend of neo-conservatives
and old-guard conservatives who have preserved their "unbounded vitality
and eternal youthfulness", as one might hear in the plug for one of our
video clip starlets these days. How it warmed the heart to see assembled
together in a single conference such illustrious figures as the eternal
orientalist Bernard Lewis, the permanently startled Shimon Peres, the
notorious Richard Perle and, of the same clique, former CIA director
James Woolsey.
Where else in the world could you come across these sorts of people and
other leeches upon this part of the world underneath one roof? It could
only be in Israel, of course, which has become one of the major centres
for provoking the clash of civilisations and cultures, and for
glorifying "Western civilisation", in which Israel so unreservedly
situates itself, in spite of the "Third Worldness" and corruption that
pervade its mass culture and the mindset of its politicians. Israel has
made itself a forum for economic liberalism and the politics of
globalisation (to be read as Americanisation), without self-criticism
inside the conference hall and without demonstrations outside. Herzliya,
after all, is not Vancouver where people are mad enough to protest
against this type of conference. It is located on the most extreme and
most extremist fringe of Western colonialist culture; it is, according
to Zionism's self- definition, the West's "spearhead against Eastern
barbarianism," as that Zionist hero, Osishkin, put it in order to win
the British over to the Zionist enterprise.
Lewis, in his lecture, attempted to summarise Arab history since the
Napoleonic invasion in -- as is the want of the totally arrogant or
consummately wise -- a handful of terse sentences. For 200 years, the
rulers of the Middle East played one great power against the other. But
the collapse of the Soviet Union brought an end to that era. Now outside
powers are not as interested in the region as they were before. This
meant a going back, a reversion to older patterns. The primary identity
of Middle Eastern countries is religious, not national or ethnic. It is
always Muslims against the rest, and their task is to bring Islam to all
mankind. They succeeded in two major attempts, when they conquered
Andalusia and, later, under the Ottoman Empire. Today they are preparing
themselves for the third attempt. But there has been another major
development since the end of the "Bonaparte phase". This is the
increased rivalry between the Sunnis and Shia -- the "Protestants" and
"Catholics" of the Middle East. .
And some accuse the Arabs of mixing fact with their oriental flights of
fancy! But Lewis is a respected Princeton professor and a world-renowned
orientalist whose works have not only had an impact on the media but on
such scholars as Huntington. So, imagine the miles he had to traverse in
order to be able to offer this potted history, which illustrates the
mood and values of the culture that prevails among all those political
luminaries that converged upon Herzliya, as though it were the capital
of the Middle East.
Because "outside powers are not as interested in the region as they were
before," the US has sent troops to Iraq and is gearing up for Iran.
Condoleezza Rice is busily giving the peace process its latest "tune-up"
and the Zionist sympathiser Javier Solana is dropping by every two weeks
or so, via Israeli television, to reassure Israelis that "we don't
meddle in the decisions of our friends in the government of Israel. We
will support what you decide. But we advise you to be wary of Syria's
intentions for peace. Syria, first, has to demonstrate the sincerity of
its intentions in Lebanon and in Iraq and in not providing a base for
Palestinian terrorism... And, in Palestine, a Palestinian unity
government is not enough; Hamas has to accept the conditions of the
Quartet." In Herzliya, Jose-Maria Aznar called upon the EU to set into
motion an initiative to include Israel into NATO, Woolsey declared that
Israel couldn't negotiate with those who wanted to annihilate it, and
the whole crew counselled the Lebanese government to show no flexibility
towards the majority opinion in Lebanon and furnished ample evidence of
their intent to bring down the majority government in Palestine. Yes,
Bernard Lewis must be right: the world has completely lost interest in
the Middle East since the collapse of the Soviet order.
He suggests, too, of course, that nothing ever changes under our
scorching sun, that Muslims are forever their immutable selves, that to
Arabs all other affiliations pale next to their religious ones, and that
it was, therefore, only natural that, once they no longer had big powers
to play off against each other, they would inevitably revert to their
pre-Napoleonic religious squabbling. And who are we to challenge this
perspicacious insight? Even so, in the same Herzliya week, Sunni and
Shia clergymen gathered in a dialogue conference in which they
effectively resolved to "nationalise" Sunni and Shia affiliations. These
affiliations should be linked to national identities, they said, and
Shia religious and political leaders should commit themselves to not
pushing the Shia affiliation upon "Sunni countries" and Sunni leaders
should make a similar commitment towards "Shia countries". Apparently,
national and ethnic affiliations have come a much longer way than Lewis
imagines. Instead of the adherents of different Islamic doctrines, or
Muslim "Protestants" and "Christians", at each other's throats,
religious rivalries have been subordinated to other rival interests. In
other words, religious affiliations have become tools in the service of
antagonisms that are cast as national rivalries, because these
affiliations sidestep the problem of creating a sovereign nation founded
upon the concept of citizenship, because the separation of religion from
citizenship and public affairs or even retaining religion as a public
concern within the framework of a multi-cultural and
multi-denominational nation or state is being kept out of the picture.
Lewis is wrong if he cannot see that what appears to be religious
conflict is, in fact, an instrument for furthering other brands of
interests, attitudes and identity politics.
When some of us, out of despair, disparage the fighting beneath
sectarian banners, our intent is a far remove from Lewis's. He sees the
resurfacing of Muslim or Islamic atavistic traits whereas we use such
terms as the "Sultanate" and "Mameluke kingdoms" to characterise the
current disintegration and fragmentation of contemporary Arab states. It
is our way of sounding the alarm, of urging caution, of crying out. The
crusader state, in its heyday, succeeded marvellously in turning brother
ruler against brother ruler and conquering its neighbouring statelets,
even without the advantages of state-of-the-art technological
superiority and nuclear might. Indeed, they used very much the same
instruments of war that the Arabs had and they didn't even enjoy the
degree of social and scientific advancement the Arabs had attained at
the time. And they certainly didn't have to convene a Herzliya
conference. Their ally was the fragmented structure of the surrounding
statelets and their mutual rivalries and suspicions. These are the
historical circumstances that we cite metaphorically in order to warn of
the consequences of failing to build a nation founded upon the concept
of citizenship.
Believe it or not, this metaphor is closer to present day realities than
Bernard Lewis's theories. The Arabs have made some progress since the
Middle Ages -- some considerable progress: Israel can't keep them down
or even preserve itself without technological superiority and other
forms of superiority, unlike the crusader state which lasted for some
200 years without these advantages. But the unresolved problem of
nationalism, Israel, and the failure to build a democratic civil state
are definitely among the foremost factors to have stalled this progress.
Meanwhile, the folks at Herzliya have their own theories to expound on
the Arab condition, because they approach it from a different mindset
altogether.
To better understand what I'm getting at, I suggest you read Shimon
Peres's amazing Herzliya lecture. Even Peres, himself, seemed amazed,
amazed at himself and at scientific and economic progress, all of which
he managed to lump together when he observed proudly that he "looked so
good" for his age because he was an optimistic type of person and he was
optimistic about the power of science and economy. Peres also had
certain people to thank for his optimism. He expressed his gratitude to
Ahmadinejad whose exaggerations and extremism unified the world behind
Israel. And he expressed his gratitude to Hassan Nasrallah who eulogised
Israel by saying, "what country, having lost one soldier, ceaselessly
searches for him. Even if he was killed, it won't stop searching for his
corpse," and who praised the democracy that enabled Israel to "learn a
lesson".
Of course, Peres couldn't or wouldn't pick up on the other side of these
remarks. Out of all the Arab political forces these days, the undefeated
Hizbullah, while certainly no great fan of Israel, has the confidence to
praise the strong points of its adversary because, by "pure coincidence"
it was the only power capable of inflicting defeats on Israel. Moreover,
this party, which demonstrated such superb organisational strengths in
battle, is also the political force that, in the wake of a highly
destructive war, has the power to get unprecedented numbers of Lebanese
out into the streets in peaceful strikes and protest marches as well as
the sophistication to address these people rationally, in a language
that is far removed from the fascist and populist harangues used to
mobilise certain mass movements in Israel, and even in some European
countries. But here, the type of mass movement that is capable of
modern, rational and institutionalised organisation and that even by the
standards of Herzliya should be entitled to govern is regarded as
Israel's number one enemy. What Israel prefers is happy Mameluke petit
states, allied with Israel against other Mameluke petit states, or
against their own internal adversaries. It wants states capable of
receiving the Israeli economic and scientific modernising mission with
open arms, prepared to heed preacher Peres's advice to shun those forces
that are truly modern in spirit and practice.
What else did Peres say at Herzliya VII? He said that Assad, the son,
wants to correct the mistakes of his father. But Bashar must realise
that the question of war and peace with Syria is a triangle that
includes the US, and that the latter, right now, doesn't want
negotiations with Syria because the US supports Fouad Al-Siniora's
government in Lebanon and because Syria provides shelter for Khaled
Meshaal and trains terrorist forces to send into Iraq. On the other
hand, if the Syrians turn to war, "they will encounter the triangle, and
not just Israel."
Apparently, Peres hadn't attended Lewis's lecture about how little the
rest of the world cares about this part of the world and Islam's next
encroachment into the West -- he seemed indifferent to that danger.
Rather, the impression he left was that Israel did not want peace with
Syria, that it was preparing for war against Iran and that the
Palestinians had better be ready to accept much less than what was
offered to them at Camp David II. On the latter point, he was explicit
about what the Palestinians had to accept. Israel, he said, has no
intention of letting demographic reasons end its existence as a Jewish
state. It would not go the way of Lebanon, which ended as the only
Christian state in the region due to the demographic price it paid for
its mistakes. Israel, in other words, would never accept the principle
of the Palestinian right to return; as to what "mistakes" the Lebanese
made, these were left unsaid.
Yes, with or without Bernard Lewis, the analogy to Mameluke petit states
is very useful in order to grasp the blindness of an Arab order that
supported the occupation of Iraq, that has no idea what stance to take
on the current process of partitioning Iraq and on the prospect of an
increase in American forces there, and that has a strong inclination
towards availing itself of any mechanism, including fuelling sectarian
tensions, in order to keep its people mired in backwardness.
And the analogy is particularly apt when it comes to the Arab order's
stance, or lack thereof, on the attempt to impose Israeli conditions on
the Palestinians by means of economic blockade, while at the same time
calling for a Palestinian unity government on the conditions set by the
Quartet, without making any demands on Israel, as a preliminary for
reviving a negotiating process aimed at securing Israel's conditions for
a settlement. This is definitely an Arab order in a muddle and looking
for a way out of the awkward and embarrassing position that the resolve,
perseverance and skill of the Lebanese resistance have put it in.
True, Israel's military and technological superiority is essential to
its survival. However, the gap between Israel and the Arabs is not so
much created by its superiority as it is by the Arabs' backwardness. At
the root of this backwardness lie the petit states in which, to borrow
from Ibn Khaldun, flattery and favouritism are the way to rank and
power, rank and power are the route to money, and alliance with Israel
and any other power is the way to forestall the rise of any alternative
* Member of the Israeli Knesset from Nazareth. He is heading the
National Democratic Coalition "Balad". |
