Arab “Summit of Hope” offers no hope to Palestinians

Talk of the centrality of the Palestinian cause has become a lie that offers no evidence of any truth

Delegates attend the opening ceremony of the Arab league conference in Nouakchott, Mauritania (AFP PHOTO)

by Fahmi Houeidi – Ashurouq

The Nouakchott Arab summit was given the title Summit of Hope. The summit’s final statement stressed the common Arab commitment to the centrality of the Palestinian cause, which was repeated in the Arab League secretary-general’s speech to the foreign ministers before the summit. He said that the Palestinian cause remains the nation’s central cause that occupies a position of ‘unqualified importance’ as far as its present and future agenda are concerned, and that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian and Arab lands remains the main threat to Arab national security.

The Arab reader does not believe a word of the above. What happened was not an Arab summit held in the Mauritanian capital, but was closer to an Arab ‘get together’ that lasted for a few hours on Monday 25/7/2016, attended by eight presidents and emirs, while 14 Arab rulers were absent.

Talk of the centrality of the Palestinian cause has become a lie that offers no evidence of any truth. The ‘unqualified importance’ that the Arab League’s secretary-general referred to is just an eloquent turn of phrase that bears no relation to reality. As for the Israeli occupation being the main threat to Arab national security, this is nothing more than a joke in two parts: The first, because all the evidence indicates that this is no longer the case since some Arab states now view Israel as a major ally rather than a primary threat; and the second joke is that most Arab states, and perhaps major ones, no longer take the talk of ‘Arab national security’ seriously. For nobody is preoccupied with national security any more. Everyone is preoccupied with their own domestic political security, rather than national security.

The Nouakchott summit’s final statement transformed the central cause into a mere verbal issue. Moreover, holding the summit was no more than a routine measure, motivated by the desire to maintain the customs and traditions that have existed for over half-a-century. (The first Arab summit was held in Cairo in 1964). That was when the Arabs had a presence, a head and a sound body, and before the head disappeared, the ‘compass’ was lost and the body gradually decomposed. For this reason, I would claim that the Nouakchott ‘gathering’ was more akin to a diwan [informal talk shop] that some Arab rulers attended out of courtesy, while the majority came to the conclusion that there was no longer any need even for courtesy.

But I do not believe that any of this has either shocked or surprised us. The 1964 Alexandria summit decided to establish an Arab joint military command headquartered in Amman as part of the plan to confront Israeli schemes. After the 1967 defeat, the Khartoum Arab summit issued its famous three ‘No’s': No to negotiations; no to recognition [of Israel]; and no peace with Israel. The 1992 summit decided to use Arab forces in the liberation of Kuwait. The 2002 Beirut summit adopted the Saudi peace initiative that called for normalizing relations with Israel in return for its withdrawal from the Arab territories it occupies. The 2009 economic summit in Kuwait urged economic support for Gaza after the [2008] Israeli aggression. And so on.

In short, and at best, the summit institution never took its own role seriously. It was established as an expression of passion and ardor in the era when pan-Arab nationalist sentiment was sweeping over the region. (Initially, the summit was an Egyptian proposal made in response to Israel’s [1964] decision to divert the course of the River Jordan). But with the passage of time, it turned into a verbal occasion to market illusions and try to ‘perfume’ the Arab space via organizing ceremonies, holding meetings and issuing statements. However, this had nothing to do with any Arab action. (I am excluding here internal security cooperation between the Arab regimes, of course).

In light of this, we can say that what the Nouakchott summit has produced is similar to what was issued by the previous summits. It differed from its predecessors in degree, though not in kind. For the Nouakchott summit is an expression of the ‘Era of Great Absence.’ This is an era in which the Arab world has not only disappeared from the international political map; it is one in which the world’s destiny is decided by the great powers. And these powers are no longer confined to the Western states now that Russia has joined the list of countries that determine the Arab world’s fate.

But that is not all. The conflict has now become domestic or internal, whether inside some Arab states or among Arab brothers, and between some Arabs and the Iranians. This has taken precedence over the struggle against great power influence or against the Zionist enemy. And this is not to mention the fact that certain Arab leaders are now seeking the help of Western states and Israel to defeat their brothers with whom they disagree in the region.

I do not know of any phase in modern Arab history that has witnessed fragmentation and weakness of the kind that our nation is witnessing today. Part of what is happening reminds us of the Muluk at-Tawa’if [kings of factions] in Spain in the 11th century AD when the Umayyad state in Andalusia collapsed and shattered into 22 warring principalities. Some Muslim princes sought the aid of the Crusaders, who were lying in wait for them all, in order to defeat their competing brothers.

The current scene also reminds us of the phrase ‘the era of collapse,’ coined by the famous Iraqi sociologist Dr. Ali al-Wardi in his memoirs in reference to the phase that followed the British occupation of Iraq (1917). He mentions that those born during this phase were commonly referred as the ‘children of the collapse.’

But when I read the summit’s final statement and the Arab League’s secretary-general’s speech, and found that reality conflicts with what they both say, George Orwell’s 1984 immediately came to mind, where he speaks of an imaginary state in which everything is managed by deception and fraud. The Ministry of Truth is creative about telling lies; and the Ministry of Plenty hides scarcity; the Ministry of Peace leads the war; the Ministry of Love spreads hatred and justifies repression; and so on. The same is true of the ‘gathering’ that was referred to as the ‘Summit of Hope.’

And the same is true of the various signs in the summit’s speeches and orations, that are the exact opposite of what we are facing in reality and on the ground. Nena News