Q and A

By Fayza Hassan
On 25 March, the New York Times published a column by William Safire entitled "4 Secular Questions" (to be asked by the youngest child at Jewish Passover). Safire proceeds to present the hypothetical Jewish child with his own interpretation of the events of the past 18 months. I feel that the same child should be exposed to another set of answers.
The first question is: "Why is this war different from all other Arab wars to destroy Israel?"
According to Safire, "unlike the other Arab wars of aggression, this war of terror is waged primarily against Jewish civilians, especially children." I disagree. This war is different because it is waged by a well-equipped, well-fed occupation army (courtesy of the United States), against a dispossessed, unarmed and hungry people who have been robbed of their humanity and own no state- of-the-art tanks, helicopters and guns and are forced to use the only weapons left at their disposal: their own bodies. They would have preferred to fight Israeli soldiers, but, deprived of the required weaponry, they strike wherever they can. If there are civilian victims, they certainly feel at least as much as Mr Sharon feels about Palestinian civilian casualties: the word he used when referring to them was "regrettable".
This war is different because for the first time the Palestinians have refused to lie down and die on cue as the Israelis expected. They will not accept compromises that only aim at dispossessing them further.They are dying in defence of their land and houses, which the Zionists seized with the complicity of foreign powers 50 years ago.
The child is then supposed to ask: "Why is it said that the Jews 'occupy' Judea and Samaria? In response, Safire claims that these are "disputed territories," but fails to clarify an important point: where are Judea and Samaria? In the Bible? The world calls this area Palestine. It has belonged to the Arabs for long centuries. Should the Arabs claim Andalusia, under the pretext that it was once called Al-Andalus and that they occupied it? At least their presence in Spain has been unequivocally documented. The Jews wrenched land and buildings away from their rightful owners. Whether they did so at gunpoint or by tricking the inhabitants does not really matter. One fact does: they established Israel in a country that was not theirs. If we lived in a fair world, the entirety of the territory they usurped should be called "disputed" -- or, more accurately, occupied.
Which brings us to the precocious child's third question: If a peace settlement was so close two years ago, why can't America actively negotiate a peace agreement now? The reason, Safire maintains, is that the Arabs want all Israel. They believe the suicide bombers will wear the Israelis down, and that an outside power will impose a truce.
True, two years ago both Israel and the United States thought they had pressured Arafat into handing Palestine over, gift- wrapped and beribboned. Had he done so, however, his people would have regarded him as a traitor and risen in defence of their land. So the settlement was not quite as near as all that. And of course the Arabs want what is rightfully theirs and consequently teach their children that 50 years ago it was their country, undivided. Anything the Palestinians give up is a concession on their side, not the other way around. The "new Palestinian weapon" (suicide bombers: men and women so wretched that they have absolutely nothing to lose) might not liberate their territory, but it certainly makes Israelis' lives thoroughly miserable -- perhaps almost as miserable as Palestinians' everyday lives. The Israelis and the Americans cannot stop people from blowing themselves up to defend their cause. What was once considered an extremist action is now spreading among other groups. Every Palestinian who has suffered injustice -- and that includes almost all of them -- is a potential suicide bomber. What can Mr Sharon do? Exterminate the entire population?
Finally, the politically savvy youngster will ask: Wouldn't it be better for Israel to give the Palestinians all they want so that Arab nations will then help the Americans defeat Saddam Hussein? The Arab leaders, Safire replies, "want [Saddam's] defeat but cravenly want no part of destroying him."
But why should the Arabs, whom the Americans expect to satisfy by giving them a little piece of what is rightfully theirs, turn around and attack an exhausted country that no longer seeks war or conquest? Not that they particularly cherish Saddam Hussein, as Mr Safire so perceptively notes; but they probably find the massacre of a whole population in order to defeat one man distasteful. And aren't the Americans powerful enough to carry out their endless vendetta without assistance? What of their fantastic war arsenal? They can conquer the vast expanses of space, but, strangely, cannot pluck one man from his palace. Speaking of which, where is Bin Laden these days?
If Saddam Hussein is helping the Palestinians and Al-Qa'eda, it is because the US is arming Israel and perpetuating monstrous injustices against the Arabs, who really had nothing to do with the atrocities committed against the Jews during World War II. Making it up to the Jews at the Arabs' expense therefore still seems preposterous to those who can think clearly.
Describing Sharon's "offers" as generous is an insult. If the Palestinians accept an arrangement, that does not mean that it is fair. Fair would be to give them back their unlawfully occupied country. Short of that, the hypothetical Israeli child Safire addresses will never be able to board his school bus without worrying. Like the Palestinians, he is a victim of the wrongs perpetrated 50 years ago by misled powers that thought the Arabs could be shooed away like annoying flies.
Recommend this page
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Send a letter to the Editor