Author: Barry Rubin
Publication: Jerusalem Post
Date: November 19, 2002
I am pro-Arab, very pro-Arab. And
perhaps you are, too. But ironically, the supposed support of those in
the West who proclaim themselves most "pro-Arab" does its purported beneficiaries
tremendous harm.
After all, I hope that all the people
living in Arab states get to have stable, prosperous countries, enjoy rising
living standards and live under the greatest possible degree of democracy.
I wish them peace and a lack of violence, as well as a successful combination
of tradition and modernity, preserving everything that is good and unique
about their societies while allowing them to benefit from new ideas and
institutions.
It would make me happy if the Arabs'
leaders were moderate, pragmatic people who made a priority of promoting
their people's welfare rather than sacrificing their citizens' interests
to extol their own glory. They could best do so by seeking realistic ways
to solve their foreign-policy problems rather than using those problems
to whip up hysteria in order to distract the masses from the leaders' own
failings.
If there were more civil liberties,
more freedom of speech, a fair judicial system and other rights in the
Arab world, it would be a matter for celebration. If free enterprise helped
bring prosperity, if oil moneys were more productively spent, if social
justice prevailed, these, too, would be wonderful things.
In short, I fervently wish the Arab
masses were better off, happier, and wealthier. The same applies to the
Palestinians. My ideal situation would be the creation of an independent,
peaceful and prosperous Palestinian state, one that had repatriated all
the Palestinian refugees who wished to return there. Rejoicing in a chance
to develop their nationhood, improve their personal lives and advance their
culture, the Palestinians would seek to avoid conflict with their neighbors.
The simple truth is that neither
radical Arab nationalism nor militant Islamism will solve the problems
of the Arab world. These ideologies and maximalist demands will only ensure
its continued, apparently endless entanglement in conflicts that will end
in defeat.
The same point is true of the current,
disastrous strategy of the Palestinian leadership, which many people -
even among those same leaders - privately detest.
The existing system ensures that
dictatorships will be perpetuated in the Arab world while they disappear
elsewhere, and that these societies will fall ever more behind their counterparts
in other regions. It guarantees that war, violence, terrorism and instability
will prevail, and that political, economic and social progress will remain
blocked.
On the Palestinian front, this same
approach ensures that the Israeli occupation will be extended rather than
ended, that the settlements will exist for much longer, that the creation
of a Palestinian state will be postponed, and that the refugees will remain
in camps for further decades.
Under this oppressive structure
the Arab-Israeli conflict will never end, and Arab relations with the United
States will always remain tense. The wasteful arms race will continue to
eat up resources; rulers will continue to be corrupt and incompetent.
Yet there will be no gain, no benefit
for anyone from these policies - nothing except the sustaining of the existing
regimes.
HOW COULD anyone who defends this
disastrous system and these catastrophic policies be considered "pro-Arab"?
Is defending the existing dictatorships and apologizing for their policies
doing those living under their control a favor? Does urging the permanent
pursuit of the Arab-Israeli conflict as a necessity, ignoring or denigrating
the realistic compromises already offered, prove that one is sympathetic
to the needs of the Palestinians?
What could be more ironic than the
stance of those who insist that these dictatorial regimes and leaders represent
their people's will, especially since so many of these advocates come from
a political Left that is supposed to be deeply skeptical of such claims?
How can anyone justify leaping to
the defense of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as a way of "protecting"
the Iraqi people? Perhaps these supporters base their support on the report
that 100% of Iraqis voted for Saddam in the last elections.
Yet this type of attitude is scarcely
without precedent. In past decades, for example, pointing out the injustices,
lies, and misgovernment of the Soviet Union would ensure that one was branded
an enemy of the Russian people and the progressive cause. But was being
an apologist for that oppressive system proof of regard for the needs of
the Russian people or those living under Soviet-bloc regimes in Eastern
Europe?
Did those who maintained that the
US, not the USSR, was the principal threat to the world contribute to anyone's
well-being? And, in the final analysis, was there anything progressive
about defending the world's most regressive systems?
Today we see the spectacle of academics,
officials, journalists, intellectuals and others in effect telling the
Arab world: Don't examine your own shortcomings; blame Israel and the US
for all your problems. Don't accept the compromises you've rejected; continue
to fight and sacrifice your children.
With friends like this, who needs
enemies?
(The writer is director of the Global
Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, part of the Interdisciplinary
Center Herzliya (IDC).)
