Why is Yitzhak Rabin all smiles with King Hussein and all frowns
with Yasser Arafat? It has been suggested that this was because the
Israeli Prime Minister and the Jordanian King have known each other
for decades and have met frequently. A de facto peace between
Jordan and Israel has prevailed for many years and only the King's
fears of becoming an outcast in the Arab world and of risking an
internal rebellion have prevented him from entering earlier into
peace negotiations with Israel.
In contrast, Arafat's PLO has been Israel's archenemy since its
inception in 1964 and over the years Jordan and Israel were
actually allies in the struggle against the PLO. Nevertheless,
there are far deeper explanations for Rabin's uneasiness with the
PLO Chairman. While since 1973, the dispute between Israel and the
neighboring Arab countries has become mainly a territorial dispute,
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has a completely different
dimension: it is an existential and not only a territorial
dispute.
Here is a case of two peoples who claim the same territory (Eretz
Yisrael/Palestine) as their homeland, and the same city (Jerusalem/
AI-Quds) as their capital. When the national existence of one
people thus seems to exclude that of the other, the confrontation -
ideological, political, military¬then touches the very core of
their hearts and souls, encompassing not only the past, but also
the present and the future.
The emergence in 1948 of the State of Israel did nothing to help
solve the existential conflict. On the contrary, the birth of the
state of the Jews was received by Palestinian Arabs as the death
knell of their own dreams for nationhood and independence. They
lost their country and became a people of refugees. In such a
context, what is the use of the ability to determine objectively
who was to blame for the Palestinian tragedy: the "Zionist plot,"
"Western Imperialism," "Arab rejection of the 1947 UN partition
proposal" and so on?
When a catastrophe of such magnitude overtakes a people
individually and collectively, only subjectivity survives. Hence
the often frantic search for extraneous causes for explaining the
Palestinian tragedy.
Religious Birthright
I recall reading an essay by a Palestinian psychiatrist on how the
Jews in Eretz Yisrael/Palestine were enacting, or rather
reenacting, an ancient theme. The Bible tells us how Abraham sent
his concubine Hagar and their son Ishmael into the desert because
his wife Sarah wanted to ensure the heritage for their son Yitzhak.
According to the above-mentioned psychiatrist, the collective
unconscious Oung) of present-day Jews forces them to repeat the
archetypal behavior of their ancestors ~y chasing the Palestinian
Arabs, descendants of Ishmael, once more into the desert.
The story of Abraham, and not only the episode with Ishmael, plays
an important role in shaping the national psyche of each of the two
peoples. The Jews feel Eretz Yisrael belongs to them by right
because it is so written in the Bible. Did not God the Almighty
promise Abraham that this land would belong to his seed? And did
Abraham not buy the Tomb of the Patriarchs, an important piece of
real estate, for 400 silver shekels?
Most Jews ignore, or are unaware of, the fact that the heroes of
the Bible figure prominently in the Koran, though in a somewhat
amended version. Jews care only for the Bible, Muslims only for the
Koran. Thus for the Arabs, mainly Muslims, Ishmael is Abraham's
first-born son and therefore the rightful heir to the heritage of
the Patriarch. Moreover, in their minds Abraham was never a Jew,
but a Muslim. Thus we read in the Koran, Sura lll, the Family of
Imran, verse 60: "Abraham was neither Jew nor Christian; he was
sound in the faith, a Muslim; and not one of those who add gods to
God."
One people brandishes the Bible, the other the Koran, to prove
their birthright to this country. Invoking religious beliefs in
order to sanctify national and/or territorial claims is not exactly
conducive to a search for rational compromise solutions.
As regards the invoking of atavistic psychological patterns dating
back to Biblical times in order to explain the (mis)conduct of
Israelis today, such theories may be fascinating, but they are also
dangerous because they introduce an element of fatality into human
behavior. In a similar vein, many Israelis still see in the
Palestinians as a whole "the enemy" whose hostility toward Israeli
Jews is "eternal," "unwavering," "irreversible." How often one
hears Israelis repeating that tactics may change but "the aim of
the Palestinians was and remains the destruction of the State of
Israel."
Is Rabin any different from these Israelis? He is. In a recent
speech about the necessity for "separation" as part of a
comprehensive solution to the conflict, he almost spelt out the
need for the emergence of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. But
that is not the full picture. Rabin is the son of his people, a
product of Israel's experience, of its national consciousness
formed by decades of implacable Palestinian hostility, by the total
and uncompromising negation of Israel's right to exist in this
region.
The reversal in policy by the Palestinians, expressed by the PLO in
1988, ten years after Egypt and Israel made peace, is quite recent.
Many Palestinians are still violently opposed to this changeover.
Many Israelis, including Rabin, still deeply distrust Yasser
Arafat. Rationally, Rabin knows that the PLO leadership has adopted
a new policy, one of mutual recognition and peace with Israel.
However, psychologically, Rabin has not yet been able to fully
accept, to integrate, this new reality.
Behind Israeli Fears
Many Palestinians fail to understand, or claim not to understand,
Israeli fears, Is not Israel the strongest military power in the
region? Did it not defeat the Arab armies in 1948, 1967 and after
an initial drawback in 1973? In this case, why are Rabin and most
Israeli leaders so worried about security?
It is because deep in their hearts they know that whatever Israel's
military and economic might, this country will always remain a
small island in the great Arab sea surrounding it. And islands are
sometimes submerged by violent movements of stormy seas.
This fear is now being fanned by the emergence and growth of
radical Islamic organizations such as Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and
the likes of them, which claim that wiping out the State of Israel
is the will of Allah. Contrary to most of the Arab states, and the
PLO today, these Islamic movements refuse all and any compromise
with the Jewish state and strive to replace it with an Islamic
republic.
This fundamental attitude, and not just the murderous attacks upon
civilians, nourishes Israeli fears.The more so since Islamic
authorities, except those in Israel, are reluctant to condemn the
ruthless killings carried out by extremists claiming to act in
Islam's name.
In view of all this, what can and should be done? There is no
simple answer.
The outcome of the struggle for the soul of Arabs and Palestinians
- which generally speaking is a struggle between essentially
moderate leaders and the fanatical trends among certain Islamic
groups - is far from decided. This outcome will also have a great
impact on the direction of Israeli political thinking.
Israel, however, is not a passive bystander in this respect. The
signing of the Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty is a case in point.
The Palestinians were altogether ignored at this historic event.
Not a word, not a hint that Arafat's PLO had been the first Arab
leadership to follow Egypt's example by entering into open, public
peace discussions with Israel. Oman and Tunis were represented at
the peace-signing ceremony. Even Yitzhak Shamir who, as prime
minister, had done his best to undermine Israeli-Jordanian peace
efforts, was present; Arafat was not even invited. It was as if
Rabin had not yet grasped that in confronting the Hamas offensive,
it was in Israel's utmost interest to see the Palestinian Authority
under Arafat strengthened. This will be impossible if the
Palestinians are not treated fairly, and if painful issues like the
freeing of Palestinian prisoners are not approached with courage
and generosity.
One thing is sure: the longer the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations
are drawn out and agreements postponed, the longer will the
prevailing strife and instability prevent foreign and local
investment in Gaza and the West Bank, thus stifling economic and
social development and increasing the influence of Hamas and its
like. For it is no secret that radical Islamic movements feed upon
the poverty, the discontent and the despair of Palestine's
destitute masses.
The negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, therefore,
should not only be continued; they should be stepped up. All
outstanding issues should be tackled and concluded as soon as
humanly possible.
A change of heart, an end to fears and the emergence of mutual
trust cannot be conditions for discussing peace. They can only grow
gradually out of a state of peace, security and stability which
constitute the only hope for the future of Palestinians and
Israelis alike.
<