Meanwhile the Arab side emerges as pragmatic, while at the same time faithful to its principles. Few indeed are those who believe that the Arabs, be they Palestinians or Syrians or Jordanians, have seriously altered their position toward Israel. Arafat's political decisions may vary, changing from confrontational to seemingly benevolent and back again, but they serve the same ideological aims: creation of a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem, return of the refugees etc. Ultimately, what this will achieve, in Palestinian eyes, is the satisfaction of their existential need: defeat of Zionism and rewriting of history's wrong, dispossession of the Palestinians. Fueled by post-Zionist ethics, Israel plays right into Palestinian hands.

At the forefront of the Oslo process in Israel have been her intellectuals. Although not so conspicuous, intellectuals are visible in the Arab world as well. Even those highly critical of Arafat agree on one point: Israel is the aggressor. On August 22, CSPAN broadcast a program entitled "Arab States Reaction to Camp David Talks" focusing on a meeting in New York at which the chief speaker was prominent Palestinian journalist Lamis Andoni. To the vociferous approval of the audience, consisting of other (chiefly Palestinian) journalists, Andoni addressed the failings of the Oslo process which, in her eyes, was due largely to the neglect of such issues as the refugees and Jerusalem. A Western educated intellectual, Andoni proclaimed that the wrong of dispossesion committed against the Palestinian people would only be reversed when the refugees and their descendants returned to their rightful homes and the Palestinian flag flew over Jerusalem.

Another example of a similar Arab position toward peace with Israel comes from the well-respected Syrian intellectual Sadik J. Al-Asm in his essay "The View of Damascus" published in June in The New York Review of Books. To the question "Is Syria as Syria, and not just a government and regime, ready for peace with Israel at the present time?" Al-Azm responds, "the answer has to be a cautious and qualified yes." He goes on to explain that the reason is not acceptance of Israel's right to exist, but the current political situation. According to Al-Azm, Israel is weakened, while the Arabs have not lost their dignity and sense of self-righteousness. The Syrians, continues Al-Azm, might sign a peace agreement with Israel but the Syrian ideological stance toward Israel remains intact. Obviously, the peace envisioned by Al-Asm is not a true rapprochement; it is not even a cold peace. It is a political maneuver intended to weaken the perpetual enemy.

Al-Azm's position is further elucidated in the exchange between him and a number of Israeli intellectuals published in a subsequent (July 20) issue. Having misunderstood Al-Azm's position, they celebrated his essay as a sign of approaching peace. For example, Israeli writer Amos Elon wrote, "His article is an unprecedented public step by a leading Syrian intellectual, and will encourage liberal Israelis to press their government to show flexibility and imagination..." Al-Azm's response to these outbursts of good will is enlightening. Israelis and Syrians speak different ideological and political languages and pursue completely different aims. He writes, "In my view, the prospects for peace with Syria will improve the sooner the Israeli side overcomes its fixation on Sadat... I have no doubt that 'Syria's collective psyche' is, for its part, incapable of producing 'charismatic' and paradigm-shifting gestures in the Sadat mode....it would be most helpful to all concerned if the Israeli side stops painting the idea of normalization, and the process to achieve it, in such bright colors. The 'normal' in Middle Eastern politics and Arab affairs is, after all, quite somber." Even between the Arab countries themselves, as Al-Azm explains further in his response, peace agreements were not valued: they served momentary needs and were constantly broken.

The emerging picture is clear. The reckless, perverse post-Zionist politics of Oslo have stamped out Zionism while encouraging Arab irredenta.

Wherein then lies the hope? In the June 5 issue of the Jerusalem Report, Ehud Ya'ari wrote about "the dwindling appeal of peace." (And that was before the true face of Oslo was exposed for all to see after Camp David II.) The young generation of Israelis, according to Ya'ari "no longer see peace as a supreme objectivesomething to which all other considerations are subservient.... Many of those who embraced the vision of a "peace of the brave" feel that they're being given damaged goods." Many more must feel that way now, holding out hope of a public awakening to the recognition that peace in today's Middle East is a chimera and only a strong Jewish state will permit Jewish civilization to flourish.

Marat Grinberg is currently a graduate student in comparative literature at the University of Chicago.

Now Available from
Americans For a Safe Israel:

Should America "Guarantee" Israel's Safety?
by Dr. Irving Moskowitz - $3.95 (non-members: $4.95)

Order from:
AFSI - 1623 Third Ave., # 205 - New York, N.Y. 10128

November 2000               - 9 -               Outpost