Wednesday, October 5, 2022

The impossible endgame makes the status quo

 It is in the Jewish culture that when enough Jews fantasize about something, the fantasy becomes as potent as reality. This gives the Jews the right to act on their fantasies as if they were reality.

 

A Jewish fantasy peddled this days has it that the Arab countries have abandoned the Palestinians in favor of forging better relations with Israel under the influence of what’s known as the Abraham Accords. This point has been made so many times by so many committed Jews, other commentators—be they moderate Jews or gentiles—have come to believe it, and have been adding to the strength of the fantasy, not knowing how wrong they are.

 

You can see an example of that in the article that came under the title: “The Abraham Accords and the Imposed Middled East Order,” and the subtitle: “Having just marked two years since their ratification, the Abraham Accords continue to represent a top-down regional order destined to yield instability, not peace.” It was written by Jon Hoffman, and published on October 3, 2022 in the National Interest.

 

Jon Hoffman is a well meaning and thoughtful commentator who worked with the limited information he had, thus produced an incomplete canvas of what’s unfolding in the Middle East at this time. What he misses is the content of the internal debates taking place, not just inside the Arab countries but inside the entire Muslim world.

 

Whereas the Arabs are focused on Palestine, which they view as a stolen rump carved out of their homeland – separating its North African part from its West Asian part – the other Muslims are focused on the occupation of Jerusalem, which they view as the ultimate desecration of the ground from where the Prophet ascended to heaven.

 

Hoffman’s article is long, and must be read in its entirety to be fully appreciated. But the following condensed passage should give the reader a glimpse of what’s in it:

 

“The Abraham Accords represent the formalization of a coercive political, economic, and security order designed to maintain the status quo in the region. A top-down imposition, the framework of the Abraham Accords is designed to sideline Palestinians in order to push for high-level ‘normalization’ and the formation of a more formal coalition through which regional actors can maintain the status quo. This order is upheld via intense exclusion, repression, surveillance, and security guarantees from the world’s preeminent superpower. Furthermore, the accords are designed to keep the US deeply engaged in the Middle East as a security guarantor. In this new order, Israel’s project of apartheid and the survival of regional Arab autocracies have become intimately linked. This autocracy-apartheid nexus has led to a Middle East that is more exclusionary and repressive, while reinforcing authoritarianism in the region and Israel’s dominance over Palestine”.

 

But if all of that is erroneous, what are the Arabs and the Muslims thinking and saying to each other that most “Western” commentators are missing?

 

The first to grasp the realities of what existed on the ground, was the late President Anwar Sadat of Egypt, having led the army that expelled the Israelis who were occupying the Sinai. In fact, this was in fulfillment of his predecessor’s (Gamal Abdel Nasser) maxim that what’s taken by force will only be returned by force. Looking ahead even beyond Nasser’s vision, Sadat promised the Americans that despite possessing the means to cross the border into Israel and crush its war machine once and for all, he will not do so. However, he did not at that time, say why he would not do so.

 

The reason started to emerge later, and continues to be debated today sotto voce among the Arabs and the Muslims. The debate rests on finding a good answer to the question: What’s the endgame?

 

The Arabs that gave refuge to the Jews time after time when they were mistreated, even exterminated in Europe, felt betrayed by the Jews when the latter teamed up with their European “executioners,” and savaged their former Arab defenders verbally with lies, and physically with the use of European state of the art weapons. But why would the Jews do that? They did it for the promise of getting Western help to steal Palestine and turn it into Israel. This was the Jewish act that caused the Arabs and the Muslims to believe that what the Europeans thought of the Jews and did to them, were not the result of a fundamental European wickedness but the result of a deeply flawed Jewish culture that invited such treatment over and over again.

 

Does that mean the Arabs and the Muslims have no choice but to repeat the performance of the Europeans who saw no solution to what they termed the Jewish problem, but to impose a Final Solution that would exterminate all Jews? Surely, having a large concentration of Jews in Palestine gives the Arabs and Muslims the opportunity to start that process by crushing the Israeli war machine. Hordes of “Jew-haters” from around the world would follow by descending on occupied Palestine and participate in the massacre of Jews. As if this were not enough, you’d see copycats do the same thing in every country around the world.

 

But even when the Arabs seemed to have no choice but to go for the inevitable, they instead opted to implement the Anwar Sadat approach. So the question that many people pose is this: In the interest of avoiding the macabre endgame that is certain to follow if the Arabs decided to give the Palestinians all that is owed to them, did the Arabs sideline the cause of Palestinians?

 

The answer to that question is: No, they did not, even if it looks like they abandoned the Nasser maxim to the effect that what was taken by force will only be returned by force. It is that the difference between the liberation of the Sinai, and the liberation of Palestine involve two completely different processes. Whereas the battle in the Sinai involved two armies, the one in Palestine will involve civilians.

 

And when on 9/11, it became apparent that the battle will spill over and affect places as far away as New York, Saudi Arabia avoided that kind of endgame when it bought the Sadat reasoning and proposed an initiative to resolve the question of Palestine peacefully. It took the Israelis a while to embrace the principle but they finally affirmed to the General Assembly of the United Nations that they are open to the idea of a two-state solution.

 

There might still be a long road ahead during which time the status quo will remain the order of the day, but it is better to stay on this road than shift to the one that will be soaked with blood.