In Focus: Peace and resistance Far from being opposites, peace and resistance should be seen as complementary, each required by the other, writes Galal Nassar In the last Arab summit, the one Arab leader who was brave and straightforward was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The summit was lackadaisical otherwise. Arab leaders promised some money to Jerusalem and postured to no end. Many Arab leaders seemed to be in denial. Their slogans weren't credible, and their threat to cancel the Arab peace initiative was neither here nor there. Abbas made sense when he said that peace was the strategic option of the Palestinians. Despite everything Israel was doing, he didn't waver in his position. Despite the rising tensions, the building of settlements and Israel's lack of commitment to peace, the Palestinian president was firm in his position. Abbas's views came as a surprise to many, and some accused him of selling out to the Americans. Still, he was the one leader who made any sense. Some Arab leaders washed their hands of the Palestinian issue a long time ago. They helped create the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), christened it as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and then forgot about their responsibilities towards the Palestinians. The only reason they feign to care for Palestine today is to placate their own nations, who are puzzled at Arab inaction towards Israel. Arab leaders of the above strain tend to reduce the Palestinian issue to Jerusalem, and then equate Jerusalem to Al-Aqsa Mosque. To ease their conscience, they promised $500 million to the Palestinians. That was their price tag for Palestine. That was the extent of their commitment to the Arabs' most central national cause. President Abbas, meanwhile, decided to act out of responsibility for the people and their cause. He is not a bystander. He and his people are in constant conflict with Israel and its practices. So he knows exactly what Israel is doing. And he knows the extent of the damage done to the Palestinians by Israel's building of settlements, Judaisation of Palestinian sites, and destruction of Palestinian assets. Abbas is a practical man who knows that slogans about resistance and rejection are not much help, and that the negation of the peace option is detrimental. When it comes to the Arab masses, they have every right to clamour, to urge confrontation, and to insist on resistance. The Arab masses have the luxury of embracing any slogans and of denouncing a peace process that is going nowhere. But Arab leaders should be wiser. They shouldn't embrace populist slogans without thought. They should lead, and leadership takes a great deal of prudence. Arab leaders should remain practical as they react to the aspirations of their people. They should maintain a firm hand on the helm and follow unwavering policies towards the common enemy of the Arabs; namely, the US-Israeli coalition. Those who want to live up to the expectations of the people must not stoop to demagoguery. Instead, they should follow policies that turn popular dreams into reality. Instead of talking so much about resistance, perhaps Arab leaders should open their borders to Arab and Muslim fighters. Instead of urging the Palestinians to wage armed struggle against Israel, Arab leaders should start with themselves and do something to liberate the land Israel took in 1967. Instead of blaming President Abbas for choosing peace, perhaps Arab leaders should give the Palestinians the means through which they can engage in effective resistance. To be credible, Arab leaders should do something to prove that they are at war with Israel and its big ally, America. I am not asking for armies to be sent against Israel. I am not asking for the oil weapon to be used. I am not asking for ties with Washington to be severed. That would be naïve and unrealistic. All I am saying is that there are things that can be done. How about withdrawing Arab ambassadors from Israel? How about expelling Israeli ambassadors and representatives from Arab capitals? How about discontinuing cordial relations with Zionists who keep visiting Arab countries and taking part in regional and international conferences? How about Arab regimes closing American bases on their land? Aren't those the same bases from which -- should an armed confrontation flare out in Palestine -- American armies are to fly to the help of the Zionist entity? Some of you may deem the above requests unrealistic and perhaps a bit extreme. So let me ask for something simpler. How about if Arab satellite stations stop interviewing Zionist leaders and allowing them to spread their lies in our midst? I also suggest that Arab leaders stop sowing sedition among the Palestinians. And it wouldn't be a bad idea to lift the siege on Gaza. If Arab regimes cannot do any of the above, why on earth do we keep asking the Palestinians for the moon? Can the Palestinians alone wage a successful war against the Zionist entity, thereby forcing it to withdraw from the land it took in 1967? Can the Palestinians force Israel to allow the refugees to go home? The Palestinians may humour those who talk a lot about resistance and rejection, but I am not sure how this can help stop the settlements, end the Judaisation of Jerusalem, lift the siege on Gaza, and stop the destruction of the political, cultural, economic and social fabric of Palestine. If you ask me, Arab leaders who talk a lot about resistance and rejection are the least realistic of the lot. It is not that I am against resistance and rejection. But I don't want Palestine to become a pawn for one political regime or another. The options of peace and resistance in Palestine are not things to toy with. They are matters that affect the fate of an entire nation. When Abbas says that peace is a strategic option, he is saying that his people want peace, but Israel is obstructing that peace. He is thus refuting Zionist claims that Israel has no partner in peace. Abbas knows the true intentions of Arab regimes and he doesn't want the Palestinian issue to become, once again, a tool in the hands of Arab and regional regimes. Abbas didn't say that negotiations were a strategic option. He said that peace was a strategic option. There is a difference between the two. You may recall that it was Abbas who called off negotiations with Israel once, when he felt that they were not heading towards peace. The only thing for which one can blame him is that he tends to separate peace and resistance. He says that peace is a strategic option, but he forgets to say that resistance, in its various forms, is part of the quest for peace. The option of peace doesn't obviate the right of resistance. The latter is a right guaranteed by international law. It is a natural right for all people living under occupation. Resistance is one of the roads to peace, for Israel is unlikely to accept peace unless the Palestinians take a strong stand. I am not suggesting military resistance alone. All forms of resistance, including peaceful ones, can help. There is no contradiction between peace and resistance. Even military options can lead to peace. Peace may be the strategic option of the Palestinians, but their right to resist is undeniable. What the Palestinians need is a strategy that combines the two. The Palestinians need to see the two things as complementary. Without resistance, peace could be hard to attain, and without peace, resistance could be hard to quell. Peace is a strategic option, but it is attainable only if the nation is united and willing to resist. This is where the vision of President Abbas seems lacking. For peace to become attainable, the president needs to rally the nation behind his vision. Unfortunately, the Palestinians who need to rally behind Abbas are too worried about immediate considerations to appreciate strategic matters. Resistance cannot succeed without embracing peace as a strategic option.
