I
believe Arafat
Dr.
Mordechai Kedar
On May 15, 2002, Yasir Arafat addressed the Palestinian Legislative
Council in Ramalla. The occasion was the 54th anniversary of the
Nakba ("the disaster" of Palestine, i.e. the establishment
of the State of Israel on May 15, 1948). In his speech Arafat
referred to the suicide attacks against Israeli citizens, stating
that these attacks "do not serve our cause, but rather subject
us to angry criticism on the part of the international community".
Arafat called upon the Council to deal with this problem (which
has aroused serious discussions among Palestinians and Arabs in
general) from the vantage point of the "Hudaybiyya Conciliation
Accord,
out of our concern for the patriotic and national interest of
our [Palestinian] people and [Arab] nation, in order to strengthen
worldwide solidarity with the Palestinian people and its cause".
What is behind this reference to Hudaybiyya? It conveys the following
twin messages.
1. "The Hudaybiyya Conciliation Accord" was an agreement
which the Prophet Muhammad signed in the year 628 A.D. with the
infidels of his tribe, the Kuraysh. He did so upon their refusal
to join the community of Islam, when he realized that he could
not defeat them militarily. Two years later, having consolidated
his power, he attacked Holy Mecca, slaughtered the men of his
own tribe and torched all the symbols of their heathen culture.
2. Islam regards the actions of the prophet as religiously sanctioned
models for the behavior of the faithful. In fact, the authorized
collections (Hadith) of Muhammad's acts and pronouncements are
among the important sources for the Islamic authorities of every
generation in deciding questions of religious law. Thus, the prophet’s
way of treating his agreement with the Kuraysh is perceived as
the ideal procedure for Muslims when dealing with non-believers:
When Muslims cannot impose their will for expanding the rule of
Islam by force, they are permitted to sign temporary agreements
with the non-believers. Such agreements are to be kept until Allah
grants a sufficient increase in Muslim power. At that point the
faithful are allowed (or obliged) to break the agreements and
to impose Islamic terms on the infidels. Why else would Allah
have granted them the power to prevail?
In referring to Hudaybiyya, Arafat meant exactly this: Any agreement
with Israel is –- in his eyes –- no more than a Hudaybiyya
Conciliation Accord. This is eminently clear to anyone who reads
the Islamic sources, preferably in Arabic. (Internet sites in
English tend to portray a rather conciliatory picture of Islam,
for Western consumption, by rephrasing Islamic messages.)
The proof for this is inherent in the second message of the quotation
from Arafat's speech. Suicide attacks at this juncture are not
condemned as vile inhuman acts but are held in abeyance because
they are presently incapable of advancing Palestinian goals. At
present, the Palestinian cause can best be served by avoiding
international condemnation and by promoting the encouragement
and sympathy of the world community.
What does Arafat mean? That suicide attacks are evil and should
be removed from now on from the arsenal of legitimate weapons
in the struggle against Israel? Not at all. If anything, recruitment
and training of shahids is accelerating. What he advocates for
the near term is a change in the modus operandi. Does he promise
not to use suicide attacks again? By no means. Does his most recent
call to desist from attacks upon civilians remind us of his record
of broken promises made to Rabin (1993), Netanyahu (1996) and
in many public declarations between 1993 and 2000? They do indeed.
As a student of Arab politics and as a Zionist with personal past
involvement with efforts to promote peace and understanding between
Israelis and Arabs, I do indeed believe Arafat’s message:
he does wish to come to an agreement with the Israelis, but, as
he points out to his followers, any agreement with non-Muslims,
such as a commitment to stop suicide attacks, is simply a modern
version of Hudaybiyya. As such, in accordance with Islamic principles
which form the basis of the political culture in the Arab sphere,
such a commitment may (or must) be broken at the right time. Clearly,
before long, when in Arafat’s judgment suicide attacks will
again be helpful to the Palestinian cause, he will once again
call upon his followers to go out and sacrifice their lives in
Israel's streets ('millions of shahids marching to Jerusalem').
Great tragedies have occurred in international affairs when governments
try to understand potential enemies in terms of their own political
culture. The events of September 11 can serve as one recent example.
Israeli ignorance of Islamic traditions and Arab culture have
brought about many serious political and military setbacks, from
the surprise attack which started the Yom Kippur War (October
6, 1973) to our lack of realism all through the Oslo process,
1993-2000. We shall continue to disregard the Islamic tradition
only on pain of more naive dreams, by Israeli and Western leaders,
dreams which are totally detached from the Middle Eastern reality,
a reality which is becoming increasingly colored by the Islamic
brush.
The
views above represent the personal views of the author and are
not necessarily the views of the ICIC
