World

By ADEL SAFTY

he world is witness-
ing momentous ev-
ents as the foun-
dations of the
East-West conflict
crumble, and as con-
ceptions of antago-
nistic coexistence are
replaced with new
modes of thinking. Yet, in the Middle East,
although the Palestinian uprising continues
tO sweep away the legacy of Camp David,
the peace process underway remains unaf-

fected by this remarkable outbreak of new

thinking.

And this is because it continues to reflect
the views of an Israeli leadership crippled by
Sterile ideas, outdated imperial ambitions,
and narrowly defined conceptions of peace.
Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s peace
plan 1S a proposal to hold elections under
Israeli Occupation. It attempts to revive the
discredited Camp David model of limited
autonomy and continued Israeli occupa-
tion, as if the Palestinian uprising and the
Palestine Liberation Organization’s recog-
nition of Israel and offer to negotiate a
settlement had not taken place.

The Israeli leadership seems complacent,
as long as the American taxpayers keep
financing the cost of their occupation,
about their ability to continue their subjuga-
tion of the Palestinian people. And this in
the face of a changing political balance of
power that is likely to expose the anachro-
nism of Israel’s imperial ambitions.

_ Some of the salient features of the emerg-
Ing balance of power may be summarized
thus:

First: Whereas detente in the 1970s
reflected the superpowers’ desire to manage
regional conflict, the new unfolding era is
One of entente, a mutual agreement to end
the cold war and to manage the rapid
changes that are taking place. This will
mean the end of heretofore sacrosanct con-
cepts of geopolitical thinking about the
Middle East. In particular, Israel’s sup-
posed role as a strategic asset defending
American interests against communist
threats will increasingly become irrelevant.

Second: The Bush administration has
already given indications of its dissatisfac-
tion with Israeli intransigence. One adminis-
tration official described President George
Bush and Secretary of State James Baker as

working to rectify the impression which
developed in Israel during the Reagan years
that Israel is more important to the U.S.
than the U.S. is to Israel.” Baker has already
told Israel’s friends to urge Israel “to lay
aside, once and for all, the unrealistic vision
of the greater Israel.”

That advice suggests that the Bush
administration is aware of changing public
Perceptions and of the possibility that Israel
may be perceived as a liability. Israel may
no longer be able to take for granted
unconditional American support.

_Third: The popular nature of the Palesti-
Mian uprising and its remarkable staying
power suggest that it is transforming itself
Into institutionalized civil disobedience
actions. To that, Israeli leaders have
responded in two ways: First, by actively
recruiting and arming Palestinian informers
and collaborators, to which the under-
ground Palestinian leadership responded
harshly. A slogan painted on a wall on
Nabulus reflects its resolve: “The revolution
has ten bullets, nine for the collaborators
and one for the Zionists.”

The second response was increased
repression. As the number of Palestinians
killed approach the 1,000 mark with 60 per
cent of the victims in their teens, The Jerusa-
lem Post recently reported that the Israeli
army “issued new open-fire orders last week
... that define unarmed masked individuals
as suspects who can be shot at with live
ammunition.” Both responses reveal the

Israel intransigent as world shifts

frustrations of an Israeli leadership in disar-
ray.

Fourth: Although Camp David removed
Egypt from the military front, and Israeli
military solutions for the Palestinians have
demonstrably failed, military confronta-
tions between Arabs and Israelis are not yet
a thing of the past. In 1973, the Arabs
mounted an effective front of military and
economic warfare after repeated offers of
negotiations from Egypt fell on deaf ears in
Israel. With Egypt back at the helm in the
Arab world, frustrations of Palestinian
nationalism and continued occupation of
Arab territories could transform the efforts
for accommodation into a drive to confron-
tation.

Fifth: Israel’s huge military superiority is
of increasing concern to its neighbours.
Commenting on the rocket used to launch,
in September, 1988, Israel’s first satellite,
Offeq I, former Defence Minister of Egypt
Lieutenant General Mohammed Fawzi
said: “It means that Israel can hit any target
in the Arab world” using a chemical,
nuclear or conventional bomb.

Arab capability to manufacture chemical
weapons and to adopt and use missile tech-
nology is being accelerated. Saudi Arabia
acquired missiles from China, Syria has
Soviet missiles, and Iraq and Egypt are
reportedly working on a common missile
project, Badre 2000, with a range of over
1000 km and capable of carrying chemical
weapons. With French and American help
Israel developed the Jericho series of mis-
siles capable of a range of 1500 km. It is now
working with the United States on the
Arrow project, the anti-missile missile.

That suggests not only that the arms race

in the region will continue unabated, but
also that it is undergoing qualitative
changes. Most significantly, it means that a
future Arab-Israeli war will endanger the
civilian populations of both sides. It is a
sensitive issue for the Israelis who until now
have been accustomed to uncontested
superiority in the air and to having a free
hand against the Arab civilian populations,
as in the case of the in-depth air strikes
against Egypt in 1969 and the repeated
bombardments of Lebanon. Although the
current balance of power suggests that
Israel would win the next Arab-Israeli war,
the combination of its likely high cost in
civilian lives and the Israeli low-tolerance
level would make any such war a worrisome
prospect for any responsible Israeli leader-
ship.
Sixth: The evolution of Egyptian politics
will greatly affect Egypt’s role in the so-
called peace process. Domestic develop-
ments in Egypt, such as the rise of
politicized Muslim groups, the disenchant-
ment with the economic policies associated
with liberalization, the dissatisfaction in the
army at the nature and conditions of Amer-
ican military aid, have all created the condi-
tions for growing opposition to Camp
David. Many Egyptians now feel, as one
Egyptian professor put it: “Camp David
was the triumph of a strategy always
employed by imperial and colonial powers,
to sever us from our Arabic and Islamic
environment.”

In the 1987 election, the Islamic Alliance
displaced the New Wafd Party and emerged
as the main opposition party in Egypt. As
one observer noted, “the dominant factor in
the 1987 election was the unprecedented
political salience of the Muslim Brother-
hood, theoretically banned from party
politics. All the major parties, including the
NDP and the Wafd, registered a setback in
1987 compared to 1984. The Muslim
Brotherhood increased the number of its
seats in Parliament more than five fold,
from seven to thirty-eight.” The platform of
the Islamic Alliance, a coalition composed
of the Socialist Labour Party, the Liberal
Party and the Muslim Brotherhood, stated:
“Egyptian security requires Arab integra-

TRIBUNE PHOTO — DAN KEETON

tions.

Children of the intifada oy

Canadian poet and artist Heather Spears displays book of her drawings depict-
ing wounded children she saw during a recent visit to the Israeli-occupied West
Bank and Gaza. Spears presented slides of the drawings at an event in Van-
couver sponsored by the Canada Palestine Association and other organiza-

tion, support of the Palestinian struggle,
and co-operation with the Islamic countries
in all spheres. This definitely calls for the
freezing of Camp David in preparation for
its abrogation.”

The politicized Muslim organizations
now enjoy political clout that the Egyptian
government cannot afford to ignore in pol-
icy decisions about Palestine and the Arab-
Israeli conflict.

There is also a new assessment of the
nature of the Egyptian-Israeli peace and of
the Egyptian-American relationship. Gov-
ernment papers have joined opposition
papers in denouncing Israeli actions and in
criticizing the Egyptian-American partner-
ship. “The United States policy,” wrote an
Egyptian academic in Al-Ahram, “supports
the Israeli offensive power to enable Israel
either to impose the continuation of the
status quo and the occupation of Arab terri-
tories, or to negotiate from a position of
overwhelming strength.

“The American Egyptian military co-
operation,” continued the writer, “was
based on the fundamental imperative of
always keeping Egypt militarily inferior to
Israel.” A clear indication of Egypt’s new
orientation was given in late 1987 when
Field Marshal Abu Ghazala, then Egypt’s
Defence Minister, told a parliamentary

committee that “the basic danger” to Egypt
still came from Israel. He invoked the Arab
Defence Pact of 1950, claiming that ‘tour
commitment to the Arabs override any
other commitment, including Camp
David.”

Israel’s behavior will play into the hands
of the politicized Muslim organizations
which are enjoying increasing political
influence. The Egyptian government can-
not afford to ignore that in making its policy
decision about Palestine and the Arab-
Israeli conflict.

Only two years ago, the Israeli leadership
could justifiably believe that Camp David
had given them the chance to perpetuate
their occupation of Arab territories. The
Palestinian uprising aborted the fulfillment
of that vision and even the United States
now recognizes the irrelevanc
David. yee

In presenting a “peace plan” that tries to
revive Camp David the Israeli leadership is
showing how hopelessly out of touch with
reality it is. Favorable regional and interna-
tional climates are conducive to peace nego-
tations, but only dynamic leaders capable
of new thinking will get them underway.

Prof. Adel Safty teaches social sciences
and language education at the University of
- C. He has written extensively on the Middle

ast.

Pacific Tribune, December 18, 1989 « 21