From Challenge # 61
May - June 2000

EDITORIAL

The Prisoner of Assad

Ever since Israel and Syria renewed their talks in January, Palestinian Authority Chief Yasser Arafat has found himself in a most peculiar position. If once he was caught in a vise between Israel on one side and his people on the other, now Hafez al-Assad, President of Syria, has him by the scruff of the neck. He cannot make headway in negotiations with Israel until Israel has results from Damascus. That is, he does not dare accept the little that Israel has to offer, unless Assad takes the pressure off by setting an example and caving in first. No matter which way Assad goes, however, Arafat has nothing to gain. If the Syrian leader yields, Arafat will find it easier, indeed, to market his own surrender, but then Israel won't have to go very far in making concessions to him. On the other hand, an adamant Assad will highlight Arafat's weakness. There is also the worry that Syrian firmness may lead Israel to launch another war, which could fully reshuffle the deck.

A current in Israel's Labor Party, identified with Shimon Peres, dislikes PM Ehud Barak's predilection for the Syrian channel. After the talks at Shepherdstown, where Syria balked at Israel's demands, this group encouraged Barak to concentrate on the Palestinian front - and even to loosen up a bit. Better a bird in the hand, they suggested, than two in the bush. Barak did, in fact, renew the talks with the Palestinians - but only for appearance's sake, in order to spur the Syrians to make decisions. He does not want to finalize anything with the Palestinians until he knows how things will stand in the context of the Middle East as a whole. Arafat, who was such a big hero in the Netanyahu days - boycotting the talks until, at the Wye Plantation, he set the events in motion that led to Bibi's fall - is now revealed again as one who harms the Arab cause. If only he would restrain himself, not posting so quickly to new negotiations, he would strengthen the hand of Assad. Instead - although he knows the No's of Barak - he has chosen to accede to the wishes of US President Bill Clinton. With hindsight we can say that Arafat's trip to Washington ended in failure. The renewal of talks in Eilat will yield nothing more than suntans. The Israelis and Americans want to create an impression of momentum, and Arafat supplies the material. 

The truth is that apart from the territorial issue, most of the questions have already been decided: No to a Palestinian Jerusalem, No to a Palestinian right of return, Yes to Israeli settlements. Ten percent of the West Bank, where settlements are thickest, will be annexed to Israel. As for the rest, the argument veers between two Barakian formulae, neither of which will become official until the final signature. One appeared in March, and it went thus: 50% to a Palestinian state, 40% to remain under Israeli responsibility pending further discussion, and 10% to Israel. In April a more generous formula was bruited: 70% to a Palestinian state, 20% under Israeli responsibility, and 10% to Israel.

In its deals with the Palestinians, Israel has never given up anything it didn't want to get rid of anyhow. It does not negotiate: it dictates. If the Palestinians refuse to accept them, they are doomed to remain in a limbo of uncertainty. Then the Oslo Agreement - that historical decision which was to end a conflict of decades - will be exposed in its true vacuity. On the other hand, if the Palestinians accept the Israeli dictate, it is not at all clear that Arafat will be able to make good on his side of the bargain, namely, to provide security for Israel. Ten years ago, when they sent delegations to Madrid, both Arafat and Assad gambled on the new American order. There is, to be sure, a difference. Over against hasty Arafat, who sold the rights of his people for the sake of a small elite, circumspect Assad has been in no hurry to compromise Syrian interests. Nevertheless, both did irreversible damage to the Arab world.

Assad committed an error when, in response to the Soviet debacle, he opened the way to American hegemony by supporting the US against Iraq. But Arafat's action was worse than error: he finished off the intifada and placed himself at the service of imperialism. Yet these things are done. We cannot turn the clock back. The call for Arab solidarity, which we hear from radical circles today, is important - but not sufficient. The Arab world has been shoved, willy nilly, into the maelstrom of capitalist globalization - as victim, not victor. In order to emerge from this trap, the Arab peoples, including the Palestinians, will need to join hands with the other victims of this new order. They will need to find ways to counter American influence in the world and Israeli influence in the region. The aim of this long journey will be a just distribution of resources, that is, a socialist global order. If the Arab peoples wish to live in freedom, they will need to help create it. 
 

[ Home | This Issue| Contents| Archive| Subscribe]