Arab
States Must Repudiate
Ties With Israel Now
By Ali Abunimah
31 July 2006
The
Electronic Intifada
The
scenes of carnage from Qana, where ten years after an almost identical
massacre, rescue workers are pulling the broken bodies of children from
the rubble, break the heart and generate a deep and boiling anger. But
it is not enough to point the finger at Israel's war criminal government
which carried out the atrocity, nor the United States administration,
which encourages Israel, funds and arms it. We must also demand that
all those with the power to act do so immediately.
Over the past two decades,
"moderate" (pro-American) Arab governments including Egypt,
Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Morocco, Tunisia, Qatar and Oman
have established ties with Israel, their public rationale being that
integrating Israel into the region and normalizing it will encourage
moderation on Israel's part. Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority
have formal agreements with Israel; the other states various official
and unofficial ties. At the 2002 Arab League summit in Beirut, Arab
governments unanimously reached out to Israel offering full peace in
exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal only from the territories Israel
occupied in 1967, allowing it to maintain its hold on all the land Zionist
militias seized from the Palestinians whom they ethnically cleansed
in 1947-48. Israel is giving its answer to the Beirut offer by destroying
Beirut and all of Lebanon.
Israel has rejected all Arab
peace initiatives, no matter how far-reaching and generous, in favor
of continued colonial expansion and occupation. It has taken these peace
moves as signs of Arab weakness and as a license for further aggression.
The Israeli public (except for Palestinian citizens of Israel) almost
unanimously supports Israel's massacres in Lebanon and Palestine, and
until Israelis start to feel there is a price in terms of international
isolation, we cannot expect that to change. And as long as Israeli colonialism
remains unchallenged by supine governments, millions of people will
see 'non-state actors' like Hizbullah and Hamas as their best option
to protect their most fundamental interests, and the power and popularity
of such groups will grow as governments consign themselves to irrelevance.
Israel and its allies need to ask themselves why demonstrators are shouting
the name of Hizbullah leader Hasan Nasrallah from Cairo to Ramallah
to Doha, and stop deluding themselves that millions of people are merely
puppets of some Syrian-Iranian conspiracy.
Arab states must publicly
break their ties with Israel, not merely as an expression of the overwhelming
outrage and grief of their own citizens, but as a strategic message
to Israel that it will face total and permanent isolation if it does
not change course. Arab governments should also support the growing
global civil society campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions
against Israel.
Days after Israel began its
premeditated rampage in Lebanon, using the July 12 Hizbullah operation
against Israeli military forces on the border as a pretext, Egypt, Jordan
and Saudi Arabia condemned the Israeli actions. But what attracted attention
was their apparent laying of the blame at Hizbullah's doorstep. Egypt
and Jordan issued a joint statement on July 14 warning against "the
region being dragged into 'adventurism' that does not serve Arab interests."
Just the day before, a Saudi official had used the same word when he
told the SPA news agency that, "It is necessary to make a distinction
between legitimate resistance (to occupation) and irresponsible adventurism
adopted by certain elements within the state."
The common interpretation
both in the Arab and western media was that these three US-allied governments
had implicitly joined up with the American-Israeli axis to take on "radical"
and popular forces in the region, specifically Hizbullah and Hamas,
that resist Israeli colonialism. The Washington Post, citing "senior
Israeli and U.S. officials" reported on July 16 that, "Israel,
with U.S. support, intends to resist calls for a cease-fire and continue
a longer-term strategy of punishing Hezbollah, which is likely to include
several weeks of precision bombing in Lebanon." The same report
stated that, "Whatever the outrage on the Arab streets, Washington
believes it has strong behind-the-scenes support among key Arab leaders
also nervous about the populist militants -- with a tacit agreement
that the timing is right to strike." ("Strikes Are Called
Part of Broad Strategy; U.S., Israel Aim to Weaken Hezbollah, Region's
Militants," The Washington Post, 16 July 2006).
Yet as Israel failed to achieve
the quick victory that its generals promised, and as Hizbullah fought
stubbornly and skillfully, gaining support and respect from every corner
of the region, calculations started to change rapidly. The New York
Times reported that Saudi Arabia and Jordan which "were initially
more worried about the rising power of Shiite Iran, Hezbollah?s main
sponsor, are scrambling to distance themselves from Washington."
("Tide of Arab Opinion Turns to Support for Hezbollah," The
New York Times, 28 July 2006)
Saudi Arabia hurriedly announced
a $1.5 billion aid package to help rebuild Lebanon and Jordan made a
public show of sending humanitarian aid. But the damage was already
done. "Tent after green tent stands just off one of Beirut's fashionable
shopping areas, part of a field hospital sent by Jordan to treat Lebanese
wounded," Reuters reported on July 28. "Jordanian soldiers
sit idly in the shade nearby and a peek into one tent reveals the beds
are empty. Lebanese casualties are rejecting aid from Jordan in protest
at what they view as its failure to press for an end to Israeli air
strikes in the 17-day-old war against Hizbollah." A Lebanese worker
near the field hospital stated, "They've been here three days and
we have seen no casualties treated here... They cannot give the green
light for this strike against us and then show up to treat us. We don't
want their sweetness or their bitterness." ("Lebanese wounded
turn cold shoulder on Jordan aid," Reuters, 28 July 2006)
Hours after the Qana massacre,
Jordan's King Abdullah II released a statement which "strongly
condemned the ugly crime of the Israeli forces in Qana" The statement
reiterated Jordan's calls for "an immediate ceasefire."
Such statements are welcome
and necessary but unlikely to be sufficient. Israel, as it has shown
time and again, is not swayed by words. On the contrary, it deliberately
twists and misinterprets them whether from friend or foe. Following
the failure of last week's Rome summit Israel claimed it had a "green
light" from all the participating states to continue bombing Lebanon.
(Although Israel certainly does have a green light from the United States,
which is rushing more bombs to kill Lebanese civilians to Israel, this
public boasting by Israel was embarassing enough to the U.S. that State
Department spokesman Adam Ereli termed it "outrageous.")
Arab states must end their
long forbearance which sends the message to Israel that the lives of
their citizens are cheap. Action is required no less for the best interests
and domestic and international standing of these governments as for
the region as a whole. In Jordan's case it would only be exercising
rights and responsibilities that are contained within its 1994 peace
treaty with Israel and thus could not even be interpreted as violating
the treaty's spirit or letter. The peace treaty was supposed to be one
element in a wider regional peace that has failed to materialize due
to Israel's aggressive construction of new colonies on occupied Palestinian
land and refusal to withdraw from occupied Lebanese and Syrian territory.
The preamble to the treaty states that Israel and Jordan aim at "a
just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East based on Security
Council resolutions 242 and 338 in all their aspects." In Article
2 of the treaty, both states commit themselves to "respect and
recognize the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence
of every state in the region."
Israel's continued and deepening
occupation of Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese territory, violations
of their sovereignty, blatant interference in the internal affairs of
Palestinians and Lebanese, and its mounting atrocities which have claimed
Jordanian and Egpytian as well as thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian
lives are not only crimes against humanity but violations of Israel's
treaty commitments. Jordan and Egypt have a right and obligation to
respond.
Arab governments have a slim
chance to play a genuine leadership role and prove that their earlier
positions were simply being misinterpreted and exploited. Breaking off
relations may seem like a small step in the current circumstances, but
it is the minimum they must do and it will set an example for other
international actors such as the EU and the UN who have also failed
in their international responsibilities, siding with the aggressor against
the victim and thereby enabling Israel's unspeakable crimes.
After Qana, Jordan's foreign
minister Abul-Ilah al-Khatib urged the international community "take
a firm stand against the aggression." Amman and Cairo should lead
the way with more than words.
Ali Abunimah is co-founder of The Electronic Intifada
and author of "One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian
Impasse."