Al-Quds Divided: The Politics of Hatred

It appears that in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Machiavellian and Realpolitik considerations usually come second to emotions and sentiments which ride high among many concerned, if not all.

The extent of Israeli hatred and intolerance for the Palestinian Arabs is reflected in a public declaration made in 1989 at Jerusalem by the famous Rabbi Kahane heading the then powerful anti-Arab Kach movement:

"The Arabs are cancer, cancer, cancer in the midst of us ... there is only one solution, no other, no partial solution: the Arabs out! Out! ... let me become defense minister for two months and you will not have a single cockroach around here! I promise you a clean Eretz Israel!".

For their part, the Arabs vent out their anger and resentment against Israel and America through sling shots and by hate-slogans on graffittied walls of the holy city. One can find plentiful examples of this trend even in Karachi for that matter, which speaks a lot about the extent and scope of these anti-Israel sentiments.

As Fred Halliday points out, the Arab-Israeli conflict is multi-dimensional. It involves conflicts of confession, settler-native antagonism, territorial claims, nationalistic rivalries, theological differences and finally interstate tensions. Because of these complexities it would be too simplistic to see it in the context of a universal conflict on the lines of Huntington’s ‘clash of civilizations’ or the Islam vs. the West theory. Rather it needs to be studied within a broader structure of international processes.

The Camp David sequel of July this year was expected to be the final step towards a successful conclusion of the Arab-Israeli peace process. Instead it ended in a complete deadlock. The stumbling block once again proves to be the crucial issue of the sovereignty over Al-Quds. From the beginning of the peace process, the negotiating parties have had to tackle a myriad of political and economic issues, such as Arab recognition of the Israeli state, the question of 3.5 million dispersed Palestinian refugees, territorial occupations by Israel of the West bank and Gaza strip, water disputes, administrative matters, the question of a Palestinian homeland with a state capital and finally the status of Jerusalem.

Of all these, the issue of Al-Quds has proved to be the most complex and therefore the most difficult to compromise upon, which signifies the centrality of the holy city to the whole conflict. Its sensitive importance can be judged from the fact that for the first time in the entire history of the peace negotiations, both parties decided to bring the matter under consideration. Past reluctance to discuss it has indeed been more on the part of Israel which continues to control the city and refuses to accept any change in the status quo. The Palestinians for their part have made it clear that there can be no peace with Israel unless a just status of Al-Quds is decided which places them equally and fairly in the equation. A change in their respective positions would mean that both Barak and Arafat would have to face the music on home turf where even the slightest flexibility on the issue could tantamount to national treason.

Certain other important factors stand out at this stage. First, the American position as an impartial peace-broker has become more questionable than ever before. Clinton’s frustrated accusations at Arafat for not being flexible, his angry memo to the Egyptian president Hosnii Mubarak for preventing Arafat to give in to Israeli demands and his virtual threat to shift the American embassy to Jerusalem cannot be considered appropriate for an honest, well-intentioned peace maker. American prejudice is further demonstrated by Albright’s efforts to undercut Arafat in his efforts of drumming up international support for his unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. According to a recent Time magazine report, at each of Arafat’s stops during his whirlwind tour of major nations, Albright had either made a phone call or had her ambassador visit the foreign ministry with the message not to lend Arafat support. Such behavior sufficiently poses a threat to the American credibility in the whole process.

Second, the fluctuating rhetoric of the major powers and the reluctance of the Arab nations in particular, to lend a unified support to the Palestinian cause have made matters worse for Arafat. The EU’s decision not to support a unilateral declaration and China and Russia’s blunt advice to Arafat not to take any drastic measures and think about other options depict the unreliable nature of these supposedly old allies. On the other hand, the Arab allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia would only go to the extent of telling Arafat not to give in to the pressure. Reluctant to directly confront Israel and the Americans, the so-called Arab unity lacks a clear-cut policy and contingency plan in the face of the apparent dead lock. The special OIC summit called to address the matter at hand achieved little results, thus showing its ineffectiveness as an instrument of collective action by its caretakers.

Third, the role of the international media during and after the Camp David summit has been less than objective. As reporters and opinion makers it is very important that they relay facts without prejudiced shadings. However, in this case the sheer negative light which has been thrown on Arafat and the Palestinian position by the Western media in particular is most disappointing.

The proceedings of the summit were reported to give the general impression as if Israel was prepared to act most generously by making huge concessions, while the Palestinians were creating new records of obstinacy by refusing to agree to them. It is clear that it is the Palestinians who have reached the limits of flexibility. They have already conceded so much that the only thing that they now are left with is their claim to being a national entity. The media however has painted a different picture, showing the Palestinians as a greedy people not being content with the morsels that Israel so graciously chooses to throw at them. This is made even worse by a) Barak’s patronizing statements about him taking huge political risks in agreeing to the talks in the first place, and b) his arrogant ultimatum of not entertaining any further negotiations if Arafat does not accept his proposals.

Fourth, whether both sides are actually committed to peace in its fullest sense has become doubtful. Even as the Camp David talks were in session, the international media gave considerable coverage to how both the sides are actively training and arming their civilian populations for a possible confrontation and bloodshed. Such actions can hardly be defined as confidence building measures. They are nothing short of peace disruptions.

Finally and most importantly, the summit and the subsequent ostrich-like behavior of the international community appears to have put the last nail in the coffin of international law. By its standards, Israel continues to be a violator, not respecting UN resolutions 194 and 242. Instead it continues to audaciously pursue its goals of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories and thus change the demographic balance in its favor. There was no word about rights and international law during the talks. As one columnist puts it, Under US sponsorship they were based on precisely the opposite. A peace deal is not a peace deal if it is not based on justice. In this case however, the defining element seems to be power: the Israelis have it all, the Palestinians have none and the US – as a referee -- appears to accept this vast disparity without having any qualms.

All in all, it seems that both Israelis and the Palestinians have reached the end of the road. All possible options have been identified and thoroughly analyzed by both the parties. What now remains to be seen is decisions and their consequences. The balance is apparently not in favor of Arafat. By delaying the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, he seems to be gradually succumbing to the immense – and unfair – international pressure to give in and compromise. Whether he eventually does or not is a matter of speculation. But what is certain is that Israel’s continuous and unchecked flouting of international law would be the biggest irony in the face of the world community’s ambitious agendas in the name of peace for the next millenium.