Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
Enemies disguised as friends

Enemies disguised as friends

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).)
 


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements