The biggest problem which the Arab Summit in Beirut is expected to face is none of the obvious ones. In other words, it is not the attendance or absence of Mr. Arafat, it is not so-called Iraq Kuwait case, and it is not certainly achieving minimum consensus on the fifty proposal decision.
The problem is the lack of trust and even lack of respect, which the Arab people at large are exhibiting to the summit and to the whole shindig in Lebanon. Such feelings range from indifference to extreme anger and rage.
The gap between what the leaders can do and what their people are willing to sacrifice in order to see their leaders do is big and growing bigger. Such a conclusion is exhibited in the local media, expatiate papers, and mostly in the satellite television stations. All the old Greek and Roman schools of thoughts indicating stoicism.
Sarcasm, criticism and even a degree of nihilism are in motion and in wide circulation. Is this public attitude a healthy one? Or is it a prelude to something that is grimmer and scarier?
President Mubarak says that there is no country in the Arab world that is capable of fighting Israel. Those who claim they can should step forward and identify themselves.
From a realistic point of view, the president of Egypt is right. Of course he is sending a challenge more than a nudge to Arab delegates in Beirut who are asking for tough stance vis-à-vis USA and Israel. The Foreign Minister of Qatar, who did not attend the preparatory foreign ministers meetings, asserted that normalization was faita complit, an unavoidable reality. To him, the question was not whether it was coming or not, but when and under what conditions. In a manner befitting a true behavior in the theory of “missed opportunities” Shiekh Hamad questioned the wisdom of these who call for normalization under terrible circumstances when the same people subjected his country Qatar, to all parts of diplomatic and media torture when it hosted the MENA economic conference in Doha in 1996 and allowed Israel to have a commercial office there.
On the other hand, president Qathaffi uses an Israeli map with Israeli geographical names (Judea and Samarea instead of Al-Khaleel and Nablus) to explain the insurability of two states in Palestine and to cast doubt on the possibility of the right of return’s implementation. Thus he calls for the establishment of a secular state in all historical Palestine (from the sea to the river).
Arab leaders, in view of the stringent conditions they face have been forced to look each other squarely in the face. Their disputes, differences, theories and positions are openly discussed, debated and carried to the Arab public to win their support. Few people are sold on within each leader’s country or constituency depending on his sphere of influence (either bought or due to old loyalties) yet the public in general wants statesmen with a future paradigm. They want their leaders to derive their legitimacy from the people themselves who are tired and weary of promises unfulfilled growth unachieved and unity unrealized. They are tired of the realpolitok theories, which remind them of their limited means, and of the dreamers who believe in their actions every thing they dish outs on silver platters. People want their leaders to lead them to salvation and not to justify their lowly current state of affairs.
What would the Arab leaders, do after the party is over, and the minimum consensus is achieved and the planes carry them home? The Palestinians will continue to fight and get killed in larger numbers. Sharon may fall and be replaced by Natanyahoo or Borg or some unknown black horse politician. The problems are the same, but only bigger, and the politicians of crisis management schools will go back to concoct ways to set around emergency instructions, until a new economic summit in June or July is held.
If any lesson is to be derived from what is going on it is that the road to liberation Palestine is long and consuming. The path to Arab economic integration is crooked and unclear. Iraq is still under threat of heavy hit, it is not whether, it is when. None of the dangers has been thwarted and none of the aspirations has been made closer to fulfillment. The unsatisfied masses and their civil Libertarians will be subjected to further cowing; cooption or trials fashioned after those of judge Roy Bean in the old west.
What in needed is a vision A strategy. A political commitment. A conviction on the part of the leaders that threat to them comes from within. If those facts are realized and acted upon, we will effect a paradigm, a white revolution carried out by the leaders themselves, and born by the grassroots.
The people in the Arab world will even tolerate the gradual return of some revolutionary republics to regimens ala regale. We need in the Arab world to bridge “the nagging suspicion gap” which separates leaders from each other and them from their own people.
The synergy which will be generated is going to gain us the respect and readiness to deal with even our staunchest foes and enemies. Are we ready for that? I am not going to smack any lips, but I will cross my fingers.
