Those Who Forget the Past (60 page)
SIGNS OF IMPROVEMENT
The peace treaties negotiated and signed between governments will remain cold and formal, amounting to little more than a cessation of hostilities, until peace is made between peoples. As long as a high-pitched scream of rage and hate remains the normal form of communication, such a peace is unlikely to make much progress.
But there are some signs of improvement, of the beginnings of a dialogue. Statesmen, soldiers, and businessmen have been in touch with their Israeli opposite numbers, and some of these contacts have so far survived the change of government in Israel. Intellectuals have proved more recalcitrant, but even among them, there have been signs of change. A few courageous souls have braved the denunciation of their more obdurate colleagues to meet publicly with Israelis and even on rare occasions to visit Israel.
A number of Arab intellectuals have expressed disquiet and distaste with the vicious anti-Semitism that colors so much of the debate on the Arab-Israel conflict. The trial of Roger Garaudy in Paris in February 1998 for a violation of the Loi Gayssot, making Holocaust denial a criminal offense in France, evoked strong reactions in the Arab world. In general, there was an outpouring of vehement moral and substantial material support. But there were some dissenting voices. In the first of a number of articles condemning the cult of Garaudy, Hazim Saghiya drew attention to the contrast between Western and Arab criticisms of the trial in Paris. Western critics took their stand on freedom of expression, even for odious ideas. Arab critics, he observed, have in general shown little concern for freedom of expression; it was Garaudy's ideas that they liked.
17
Several other writers in the Arabic press expressed disapproval of the cult of Garaudy, and more generally, of Holocaust denial.
There were other hopeful signs. In January 1997 a group of Egyptians, Jordanians, and Palestinians, including intellectuals, lawyers, and businessmen, met with a similar group of Israelis in Copenhagen and agreed “to establish an international alliance for Arab-Israeli peace.” Their declaration is not confined to pious generalities but goes into detailed discussion of some of the specific issues at stake. Needless to say, the Arab participants in this enterprise were denounced and reviled by many of their colleagues as dupes, traitors, or worse.
A recent incident evoked disquieting memories of the rampage of the Egyptian gendarme Sulayman Khatir in 1985 when he shot at Israeli visitors, killing several and disabling nine of them. It also provided an encouraging contrast. On March 13, 1997, a Jordanian soldier, Ahmad Daqamsa, suddenly started firing at an Israeli girls' school outing, killing seven children and wounding several more before being overpowered by his comrades. In a gesture of contrition and compassion, King Husayn of Jordan a few days later crossed into Israel and called in person to offer his condolences to the bereaved families. Reactions in Jordan were mixed. Some of his people joined the Israelis in acclaiming this act of courage, human decency, and generosity of spirit. Others, while condemning the murders, thought the king's response excessive. Others again made the murderer's home a place of pilgrimage. But there was nothing comparable with the outpouring of support that, for a while, made Sulayman Khatir a popular national and even intellectual hero in Egypt.
Closer contact between the two societies may bring interesting, perhaps even valuable results. Israel with all its faults is an open, democratic society. A million Arabs are Israeli citizens; two million Palestinians have lived or are living under Israeli rule. Although this rule has often been harsh and arbitrary, by the standards of the region it has on the whole been benevolent. Two contrasting incidents illustrate a direction of possible change. During the intifada, a young Arab boy had his wrist broken by a baton-wielding Israeli soldier. He appeared next day, bandaged and in a hospital, denouncing Israeli oppressionâon Israeli television. In 1997 a lawyer in Gaza submitted an article to a Palestinian journal describing the investigation by the Israeli police of the prime minister and other members of the Israeli government, and suggesting that similar procedures might be adopted by the Palestinian Authority. The editor of the journal did not publish the article but instead referred it to the attorney general who ordered the arrest and imprisonment of its author.
Growing numbers of Arabs seeâand some even makeâ this point. It did not pass unnoticed that the only public investigation of the Sabra and Shatila massacre was a judicial inquiry held in Israel. No such inquiry was held in any Arab country. The principal perpetrator of the massacre, Elie Hubayqa, a Lebanese Christian militia leader at that time allied with Israel, subsequently went over to the Syrian side and has for some years past been a respected member of the Syrian-sponsored government in Beirut. The election for the Palestinian Authority held in January 1996, acclaimed as the freest and fairest held in the Arab world, contrasted the more sharply with the show election held a little earlier in Lebanon in the presence of a different neighbor.
The Royal Institute for Interfaith Studies in Amman, under the patronage of Crown Prince Hasan, is concerned with Judaism as well as with Islam and Christianity. It has invited Jewish scholars from Israel and elsewhere to contribute to its activities and to its English-language journal.
18
This attempt to present Jewish beliefs and culture in objective terms, even to allow Jews to speak for themselves, is rare, and perhaps unique, in the Muslim world.
The last word may be left to âAli Salim, one of the first Egyptian intellectuals who dared to visit Israel. He said: “I found that the agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis was a rare moment in history. A moment of mutual recognition. I exist and you also exist. Life is my right; it is also your right. This is a hard and long road. Its final stage is freedom and human rights. It will not be strewn with roses but beset with struggle and endurance. One cannot make peace just by talking about it. There is no way to go but forward, to achieve peace with deeds and not just words.”
19
NOTES
1
Ash-Sha'b
, Jan. 3, 1997;
Al-Watan
(Muscat), Feb. 12, 1997.
2
Al-Ittihad,
Dec. 20, 1996.
3
Jumhuri-i Islami,
Jan. 8, 1998.
4
La Presse de Tunisie,
Jan. 26, 1998.
5
Ettela'at published the “Protocols” in 1995 in more than 150 installments.
6
Al-Musawwar,
Dec. 27, 1996.
7
Al-Majd,
July 31, 1995.
8
Shihan,
July 29, 1995.
9
Shimon Peres with Arye Naor,
The New Middle East
(New York: Henry Holt, 1993).
10
Muhamad Hilmi âAbd al-Hafiz, trans.,
Ash-Sharq al-Awsat al-Jadid
(Alexandria: n.p., 1995).
11
Akhir Sa'a,
Dec. 25, 1996.
12
Ash-Sha'b
(Cairo), Mar. 14, 1997.
13
Ath-Thawra,
Oct. 4, 1995.
14
Les mythes fondateurs de la politique israelienne
(Paris: Samizdat, 1996).
15
Al-Mushahid as-Siyasi,
May 4, 11, 18, 25; June 1, 8, 15, 22, 29; July 6, 1997.
16
Al-'Ahd,
Nov. 15, 1996.
17
Al-Hayat,
Jan. 15, 1998.
18
Interfaith Newsletter,
Mar.âSept. 1995;
Interfaith Monthly,
Sept. 1995.
19
âAli Salim,
Rihla ila Isra'il
(Cairo: Akhbar al-Yawm, 1994), p. 8.
An Exchange Between BERNARD LEWIS and ABDELALEEM EL-ABYAD
September 1998
Dear Editor:
Writing about what he calls “Muslim Anti-Semitism” [
The
Middle East Quarterly,
June 1998], Professor Bernard Lewis engages, as too often, in selective scholarship. He approaches his subject in a total vacuum. Sporadic phenomena of so-called Arab or Muslim anti-Semitism is not related to any wrongdoing by Israel or its supporters, or to the universally acknowledged fact of Palestinian victimization by an ethnic and a religious group that has suffered greatly at the hands of Hitler and other European anti-Semites.
Professor Lewis's sweep of accusations is really too wide, perhaps on purpose in order to obfuscate. No one could deny the existence, though very limited, of verbal manifestation of anti-Semitism in the Muslim world. Such manifestations, however, should be unequivocally condemned. But how much of this is really anti-Semitism in the well-established sense of the word, and how much of it is an expansion of indignation and frustrations against an Israeli policy of occupation, ethnic cleansing (1948 and 1967), settlers' behavior, etc.? The list is really very long.
Professor Lewis could have asked himself if Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim reaction would have been different if the occupier was Great Britain, Russia, or America. The professor of Islamic studies has never told us how Jewish extremists in Israel or in the United States perceive the Palestinians, the Arabs, and Muslims. The favorite slogans of these extremists, as is well known, are: “Death to the Arabs” and “The only good Arab is a dead Arab.”
Allow me, Professor, to ask how you would describe the Jewish advocates of “transfer,” which is a euphemism for ethnic cleansing. And Professor, which is really more nefarious: crude verbal expression of bias toward the enemy, or a consistent policy of annexations and total violation of human rights in the occupied territories?
I don't think there is enough space to respond to every piece of disinformation in Professor Lewis's piece. But I will refer to two examples he has given because they reflect on the cast of his scholarship. Professor Lewis is very proud of the fact that after the massacre of Shatilla and Sabra in Lebanon, there was an inquiry in Israel to determine Mr. Ariel Sharon's responsibility, something the professor is telling us could not happen in any Arab country.
As we recall, the massacreâit is trueâwas carried out with extreme brutality by Lebanese Phalangists who were trained and reviewed by then General Sharon's troops before they were set loose to do their mayhem. Incidentally, Professor, in this unprovoked invasion of Lebanon, 20,000 hapless Lebanese and Palestinians were murdered by Israel.
Another example touted by Professor Lewis is the banning of
Schindler's List
in many Arab countries. Personally, I'm against the banning. But the banning of this film could also be viewed against the very effective censorship exercised by Jewish activists of any film or television documentary sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians. In the 1960s and 1970s, when I used to live in New York City, all Soviet-bloc artistic shows, including classical operas, were banned from the city. The Soviets were perceived as pro-Arab. Cultural boycott remains a constant feature among Jewish activists to this day. We have a saying in Arabic which roughly translated means: “If you have no sense of shame, then every thing is possible.”
The Egypt you have vilified in this article is the same Egypt that had provided a sanctuary to Sephardic Jews escaping the Inquisition and Jewish settlers in Palestine sharing German and Turkish persecution during 1914, World War I, etc. The Egyptian-Jewish community was part of the socio-economic elite, well-respected and highly trusted until Zionists started to foment disloyalty to Egypt among its members. The rest is well known.
Finally, Islam need not be apologetic about how it has treated its Jews. I thought you knew.
Abdelaleem El-Abyad
Press and Information Bureau
Embassy of the Arab Republic
of Egypt, Washington
Bernard Lewis replies:
Mr. El-Abyad's reply to my discussion of the new anti-Semitic campaign in some Muslim countries makes essentially three points: (1) it didn't happen; (2) it was justified; (3) the Jews themselves are as bad or worse.
Mr. El-Abyad concedes the existence of manifestations of anti-Semitism in the Muslim world, but dismisses them as “very limited” and “verbal.” My article drew on an extensive range of newspapers and magazines in several countries, and relied exclusively, not on verbal, but on written and printed sources, none of which he has questioned.
Mr. El-Abyad complains that I did not discuss the various Israeli policies and actions which provoked Arab hostility. Indeed I did not discuss them, for precisely the same reason that I did not discuss the innumerable Arabic books, articles, and other statements condemning these policies and actions. Israel is a state, Zionism an ideology, and it is perfectly legitimate to criticize the actions of the one and the doctrines of the other, without incurring any charge of prejudice or bigotry. My article is not concerned with such criticisms, but with something elseâthe appearance of racist anti-Semitism of the European type, attacking not just Israel and Zionism, but Jews in general, and using anti-Semitic themes such as Holocaust denial, the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and the plot to rule the world, and the innate, genetic, and eternal evil of the Jews. If Mr. El-Abyad really believes in the carcinogenic cucumbers, the fake Holocaust, the genuine “Protocols,” and the rest, then his attempt to justify the anti-Semitic campaign that I described becomes, if not acceptable, then at least intelligible. If he does not, it is neither.
Mr. El-Abyad invites comparison with other occupations and conflicts. There have indeed been many, in Eastern Europe, in South Asia, in Africa, resulting in massacre and displacement on a vastly greater scale than in the Middle East. None of them, as far as I am aware, has produced this kind of vicious racist campaign.
Mr. El-Abyad's third argument, that the Jews are as bad or worse, relies on undocumented statements attributed to unnamed “extremists.” There are certainly Jews in both Israel and the United States who harbor and give vent to such racist prejudices. But to compare the slogans of an extremist fringe with a campaign in which mainstream editors, authors, officials, and academic and religious dignitaries participate is, surely, somewhat misleading. The same may be said of Mr. El-Abyad's comparison of boycotts by one or another private group with the formal banning of a film by governments.
Mr. El-Abyad must surely be aware that there is now, in Israel, a school of writers, known as the “new historians,” who have made a great effort to present, to Israelis, the Palestinian point of view of the events of 1948â49 and later. An episode in a nationally-produced television series, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel, did the same. These are criticized by many, in Israel and elsewhere, as excessively sympathetic to the Palestinian point of viewâ but they are published and broadcast. One of the sadder aspects of this whole problem is that so far one has looked in vain for any objectiveâlet alone sympatheticâpresentation in Arabic of a Jewish point of view on any of these matters. As the case of
Schindler's List
demonstrates, even compassion for Jews is banned.
In concluding my article I quoted some new voices from the Arab side, pleading for mutual tolerance and understanding. I can only regret that Mr. El-Abyad did not choose to add his voice to theirs.
It would be pointless to discuss a number of other basically irrelevant matters that Mr. El-Abyad raises, such as the movements of refugees intoâand one might add out ofâEgypt, the treatment of
dhimmi
s, etc. I would however like to correct two errors of fact. According to Mr. El-Abyad, I was “very proud” of the Israeli inquiry into Sabra and Shatilla, and I claimed that this “could not happen in any Arab country.” I said nothing of the kind, merely that “no such inquiry was held in any Arab country”âby no means the same thing. I was of course referring specifically to the two Arab countries immediately affected, Syria and Lebanon. I found, and still find, it remarkable that neither of them held any public inquiry into a matter of such direct concern to them. And there is nothing in this wretched affair to cause pride to me or indeed to anyone else.
The other inaccuracy which I would like to correct is minor and personal. I am not and have never been a “Professor of Islamic Studies,” nor would I regard the use of such a title by a non-Muslim as appropriate.
Mr. El-Abyad is, of course, entitled to his opinion of my scholarship, as I am entitled to my opinion of his diplomacy,
but no useful purpose would be served by our exchanging views in this context. I should, however, like to thank him for the courtesy and moderation of his language, compared with most of the texts which I studied for my article.
December 1998
To the Editor:
In response to Bernard Lewis's fine article, “Muslim AntiSemitism” [
MEQ,
June 1998], Abdelaleem El-Abyad's letter [
MEQ,
September 1998] contains three enduring misconceptions regarding Lebanon that require a response because it comes from seemingly so authoritative a source.
Mr. El-Abyad alludes first to what he calls Israel's “unprovoked invasion of Lebanon” in 1982. The head of his embassy's press and information bureau seems oblivious to the armed and belligerent Palestinian presence in Lebanon since 1968 that provoked the Israeli action. Successive Lebanese governments had urged Palestinian organizations in Lebanon to restrain and modify their reckless and irresponsible strategies in confronting Israel; their refusal to comply led to Lebanon's breakdown in 1975, two Israeli invasions in 1978 and 1982, the establishment of Israel's “security zone” in South Lebanon, hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded, and displaced Lebanese citizens, countless billions of dollars in destruction and losses to the Lebanese economy, and the eventual takeover of the country by Syria.
Second, Israel is hardly alone in having fomented violence in Lebanon; Egypt too was among the many neighboring countries that had a role in this. For example, the Egyptian-sponsored âAyn Jalut brigade of the Palestinian Liberation Army (PLA) participated in several sectarian massacres in Lebanon, including the destruction of the coastal city of Damur in 1976, resulting in the cold-blooded murder of hundreds of innocent civilians.
Third, on the question of the 1982 massacre in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla, Mr. Lewis accurately notes that the Israeli authorities had undertaken several investigations; neither the Syrians nor Palestinians did anything comparable, either on this occasion or in the scores of other massacres and atrocities in Lebanon in which they had roles. Worse, the two individualsâElie Hobeika and Pierre Rizkâ who shared command of the Lebanese Forces (Phalangists) at the time of the Sabra and Shatilla massacre have flourished in Syrian-controlled Lebanon. Hobeika has been one of the most trusted people in Lebanon by Damascus since at least 1985 and an influential minister in the Syrian-controlled Lebanese government since 1990. Rizk, who long collaborated with the PLO [Palestinian Liberation Organization] leadership, is currently reaping millions of dollars as a business front for Yasir Arafat and his wife Suha. Where are the Syrian or Palestinian inquiries into their leaderships' close connections to these two?
These errors are symptomatic of a larger problem. In an exchange of correspondence I had in late 1996 with Ahmed Maher El-Sayed, Egypt's ambassador to Washington, His Excellency would not acknowledge that Syria is an occupying force in Lebanon nor that there is a need for all foreign forces to withdraw from the country.
Time and again, in other words, the Egyptian Embassy in Washington engages in distortions when it deals with the Lebanese situation.
Daniel Nassif
Executive Director
American Lebanese Institute
Abdelaleem El-Abyad replies:
Daniel Nassif's comments are extraneous to the determination of guilt in the Sabra and Shatilla massacre or to the central arguments in my letter to the
Middle East Quarterly
. The world's court of public opinion, including that in the United States, long ago had passed its verdict on this matter, as anyone can verify by revisiting coverage by leading American newspapers of this great tragedy.
Mr. Nassif is fully entitled to his views about Egypt, although they are shared neither by successive Lebanese governments nor [by] the overwhelming majority of Lebanese people who rightly believe Egypt to be their steadfast friend and ally. The many bonds that tie our peoples are too numerous to count. Nothing ever will sour this relationship.
Abdelaleem El-Abyad
Press and Information Bureau
Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt
Washington
