Editor’s Note: Jay Nordlinger attended the World Economic Forum on the Middle East last week. It took place by the Dead Sea in Jordan. Below is the fifth installment of his journal. Links to the previous parts are as follows: I, II, III, and IV.
In the next National Review, I have a piece focusing on Saeb Erekat and Ephraim Sneh. They are old friends, and even partners in a way. Erekat is the longtime PLO negotiator (with Israel); he is also the longtime PLO spokesman. Sneh is the former Israeli negotiator, and a very distinguished and veteran figure in Israeli politics. Erekat and Sneh disagree on so little, it would astound you.
I do not propose to recapitulate my NR piece. But I want to give you some more on Erekat and Sneh, in this journal — beginning with Erekat. You have met him before, if you read these journals from various parts of the world. I wrote about him from Israel, here; and from Davos, here. And Erekat is bopping around this conference here in Jordan.
When you go to see Erekat, there is something of the feeling of Ground Hog Day: You see and hear the same things over and over, year after year — maybe decade after decade. But Erekat is not entirely to blame. There is something Ground Hog-ish about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Ground Hog-ish, ghoulish, depressing. There is a stuckness.
But here is something new, or newish: the growing nuclear threat from Iran. Erekat tells a group of us journalists that Netanyahu will do all in his power to make Obama believe that America will have no Arab allies on the question of Iran. Only Israel will help America. Erekat further says that Netanyahu will plead with Obama that Iran must come first: before the Palestinians, as the most important thing.
(Netanyahu would have a point, perhaps you will agree.)
Erekat is quite eager for you to know that he is a poor, put-upon fellow. He says — and I paraphrase (but closely) — “I am the most disadvantaged negotiator in history. Since Eve negotiated with Adam. I have no army, no navy, no air force, no economy, no anything. My people are fragmented.” In the U.S. House or Senate, “if it’s my word against Israel, I’m dead. I have no chance.” Plus, he has “no voters” in America.
“But who said that life was about fairness and justice?”
You could remind Erekat that Israel, his opponent, is the most reviled nation on earth — virtually a pariah among nations. At times, it seems that the U.N. is organized to oppose Israel and boost the Palestinians. That is of some advantage to a negotiator. But why remind Erekat of this? He almost surely knows it.
A journalist says he read somewhere that the PLO is ready to give up “the right of return” — an insistence that all Palestinians with claims in Israel be allowed to establish residence there. Erekat says this is not true, nonsense. Furthermore, he is always reading strange, untrue things about himself in the Arab press. For example, “my mother is Jewish, my wife is American.”
Would those things be so bad? (They would certainly look bad to many Palestinians.)
A journalist brings up the Holocaust, and payments by Swiss banks to victims’ families. The question, or statement, is convoluted. I can’t quite follow it. Neither can Erekat. What he says is, “The Holocaust was the worst chapter in the history of man. There is no comparison” between Holocaust victims and Palestinian refugees.
I wonder whether he talks this way in Arabic, before Arab audiences. Maybe he does.
Erekat is big on Obama, at least for the moment, rejoicing that Obama has declared an independent Palestinian state an American interest. No president has done that before, says Erekat.
And he repeats the idea, as he often does, that anyone suggesting that Arabs aren’t ready for democracy “is a racist.” He says that, in the territories, “democracy did not fail. Hamas failed.” Because it “resorted to bullets and coups d’état,” instead of “ballots.” Elected Hamas officials should have been officials for all Palestinians — but no.
Erekat also takes a shot at Americans, where democracy is concerned. Saddam Hussein was a good dictator, he says, when he was fighting the Iranians. But he became a bad dictator when he invaded Kuwait.
As is usually the case, some of the journalists are more radical than the PLO spokesman in the interviewee’s chair. One of them makes fairly clear that he favors a one-state solution — just like “the late Edward Said.” Erekat says that he himself is for a two-state solution — and favored this even in the 1970s, when he really caught hell from Palestinians because of it. I don’t know about you, but I believe him.
At one point, he says something that I regard as off the wall: The reason Israel went into Gaza last year? Nothing to do with repeated, unchecked terror attacks on Israeli citizens. “The war was not about Gaza.” The war was meant to “separate” Gaza Palestinians from West Bank Palestinians. Crafty, those Israelis, aren’t they?
Erekat talks about the injustices of life in the West Bank — injustices inflicted by Israelis, not Palestinian rulers, or misrulers. There are roads Erekat can’t use. Israel has made them off-limits to Palestinians, “on the pretext of security.” Why, even in the “darkest days” of South African apartheid, there were no roads off-limits to people.
From PLO spokesmen — even the most reasonable — there is often an absence of history, or historical context. Why is Israel in the West Bank at all? Wouldn’t they dearly love to be rid of that horrible headache? Is security a mere “pretext,” given wars, suicide bombing, near-constant violence?
I ask Erekat to imagine that he is an Israeli — an ordinary Israeli. You supported the withdrawal from Gaza, but you see that it left a terror state — and led to more war. Why should you be eager for a withdrawal from the West Bank?
Erekat says, “The agreements with Egypt and Jordan are strong.” They remain in place. And they were bilateral ones. Israel’s mistake was that it withdrew from Gaza unilaterally. “They should have talked to me. I went to Sharon’s office,” and told them not to do it. “But they wouldn’t listen to me.” Same with South Lebanon — the Israelis withdrew unilaterally, when they should have negotiated an agreement. “Unilateralism failed big-time.” The Israelis should learn from their mistakes, “but they never admit mistakes.”
Never? Erekat can make some sweeping statements, about others.
‐In listening to Saeb Erekat, you can think that peace is possible, and not just possible, but inevitable. A couple of things merely need to fall into place — easy-peasy. (Ephraim Sneh agrees with him, by the way.) But what from the PLO do you believe? What can be trusted? That is the vexing question. One of the beauties of the Middle East Media Research Institute is that it eliminates the longstanding Arab “double-game” — the game of saying one thing in English, to Western audiences, and another thing in Arabic, to home audiences.
We know from MEMRI that another PLO official, Abbas Zaki, goes on TV — Arab TV — to say, in effect, “Don’t worry. This two-state solution is just a ruse. It is another step in the old PLO incrementalism. Tomorrow, two states. The day after tomorrow — just one, ours.” (Consult MEMRI here.)
What is the real PLO position? That is what is important to know. For us outsiders, it may be a matter of mere curiosity. For Israelis, it could be a matter of life and death.
‐One evening, I moderate a dinner session, and one of our guest speakers is a local girl: Princess Sumaya. She is gracious, poised, and, indeed, princess-like, in the best sense. Her duties and activities are many. For instance, she’s chairman of the board at . . . Princess Sumaya University (for Technology). You can call her the chairman or the chairwoman, she doesn’t care — but just don’t call her the “chair,” she says.
I do believe that is the most thrilling statement I have heard all month. Leave it to a Jordanian princess to stick up for sound, un-PC English . . .
‐Many of the participants in this conference — many — are Arab academics, scientists, engineers, and businessmen who have made their careers abroad. And they regret having had to leave the region, in order to make their way. The Middle East will be a better place, they say, when those with talent and drive can stay put, in pursuit of their destinies.
One professor has been away for some 30 years. And the changes he is seeing in the Middle East are depressing him. When he was a boy, the great stress was on education. They had next to nothing — this was in Gaza. But there was an emphasis on education. In his first-grade class were about 60 children. Their schoolroom had a dirt floor, and most of the kids did not have shoes. But the teaching was excellent — and education was prized.
Now, education — learning — is not the high priority. What is? In a word, materialism, says the professor. Everyone is interested in acquiring things — gadgets, in particular. Everyone is interested in having more than his neighbor.
He also notes that there are many Arab scientists, engineers, and so on working in Israel — where their talents are properly respected and used. He denies, as if denying were necessary, that Arabs are any less capable than anyone else. They just need opportunity. Of course.
‐Here is something depressing: The subject is the holdup of scientific advance by religion and cultural attitudes. And people, especially Americans, rejoice in reciting — President Bush’s position on stem-cell research. As though there were no moral considerations. As though the utilitarian view were unquestionable. Sick stuff, really — and, as you know, perfectly par for the course.
I’m afraid I have to end this installment on a sour note. Thanks for joining me (regardless!). The journal will resume on Tuesday, with its sixth and final installment. Later!
#JAYBOOK#