By

Hundreds of writers, thinkers, politicians and strategists have discussed the Arab-Israeli conflict from various perspectives, yet there remains one way of looking at it that few, if any, have tackled. I venture to suggest that we view the issue from the standpoint of a chief executive in one of the large global corporations where the principles of modern management sciences hold sway, uncolored by ideologies or emotionalism and motivated purely by the need to solve the problem in hand using optimal methods to achieve a satisfactory and viable outcome. There are those who, like the eminent professor Mohamed Hassanein Heikal in one of his talks on the Al Jazeera channel a few weeks ago, sneer at the idea of managing the world as if it were a large corporation; I would simply reply that the American Empire runs and continues to run the world by applying the corporate mentality, and is far from being at the end of its reign; indeed, it is only at its first stages. It is obvious to anyone who is aware of the true state of affairs in the post-Cold War world that the United States will retain its undisputed position as the world’s foremost superpower for at least a century to come. It requires no special insight or acumen to foresee this, but simply a precise calculation of the rate of economic growth and the advance of scientific research in China, Russia, England, France and Germany, theoretically the counterpart countries capable of achieving a high degree of advancement, whether as individual states or unions (incidentally, I foresee that Russia will become part of the European Union in less than ten years’ time). Accordingly, to those who are angered by the concept of the world’s being “managed” as if it were a corporation, I say that it will do no harm to exercise a little self-restraint when reading a perspective on the Arab-Israeli conflict that differs from the customary refrain, particularly as so much has already been said on the subject.

Let us then, even if only for the sake of change, consider a different perspective on the Arab-Israeli conflict; one that examines it with a corporate management mentality or rather, that deploys the principles, concepts and mechanisms of modern management sciences. To my mind, any leader of a large corporation if faced with the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict from 1947 up to the present date would make the following observations:

It is clear that this conflict is now at a stage where it must be subjected to what is termed in modern management sciences “Manage the Change”. One of the most important techniques of modern management is to change the method by which a problem is addressed when the surrounding factors change, and when it becomes apparent that the method adopted for a long time has proved ineffective. It is only too painfully obvious that the situation (or status) of the Arabs within this conflict is that of the losing party throughout the years. Accordingly, this would compel any corporate leader worth his salt to radically change the methods by which this conflict has been dealt with

Changing the method by which this conflict is addressed is inevitable for both parties involved, not just one (with varying degrees according to the differences in power, control and influence).

A scrupulous and thorough examination of the history and events of the Arab-Israeli conflict will lead us to the undeniable conclusion that attempting to solve the problem by military means is inconceivable. That being the case, one wonders why public opinion in the Arab countries raises such a hue and cry when called upon to reconsider the methods by which the Arabs have addressed the conflict for more than fifty-seven years. And why is it that, while in any society there is always a diversity of opinion concerning any issue, the Arab world is characterized by voicing one prevailing opinion and one only; in this case, to continue to deal with the conflict as we have always done since 1947 and up to the present moment?!

As a management man witnessing this tragedy, it is my compelling duty to make it possible for public opinion to know that there is another side to the story, and that there are others who see the conflict in a way that differs from that of the Arab media, who have not ceased to bombard us with the same old refrain that purports to be the only valid means of addressing this conflict.

A comprehensive look at the opinions that have been expressed concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict reveal the existence of one school of thought that has, for the past fifty-odd years, been advocating that we continue to deal with the conflict (from the Arab point of view) using the same tools, slogans, methods and mechanisms. It is a school that likes to refer to itself as “the culture of resistance”. It is heartening to know that there is another school of thought that realizes that without a radical change in the means by which the Arabs deal with the conflict, we shall simply carry on as we have been since 1947 – or witness an even further deterioration of the Arab position.

The raucous voices clamoring for war and for the Palestinians (and Arabs) to continue along the same path (opposition + denunciation + blaming the United States + armed uprising “Intifada” + the culture of resistance + random acts of violence, etc.) are voices well-known to us all and can be found everywhere on the Arab front. It is not necessary for me to pinpoint any of these and introduce them to the reader, for they are familiar to anyone who reads the papers or watches television, particularly the satellite channels.

However, there are other, softer voices that readers – whom the Arab media have endeavored to control over the years – are entitled to know of. Readers have every right to become acquainted with other viewpoints and other perspectives that they have been kept unaware of, and to understand the message, mission and objectives underlying this other point of view. I shall start with the words spoken by Ismail Sidky, the former Prime Minister of Egypt, when addressing the Egyptian Parliament after the United Nations issued its resolution to divide Palestine into two states, Jewish Israel and Arab Palestine, and before the first war was launched by the Arab armies against Israel in May, 1948. Ismail Sidky opposed the idea of entering into a war against Israel, and called for compliance with the UN resolution to divide the country. As he put it, a war with Israel would turn it from a “small state” into “a much larger” one. He called upon the Arabs to avoid the tragedy of “refusing the possible in order to strive for the impossible”. Let me now move to more modern examples of this school of thought, beginning with Mahmoud Abbas – “Abou Mazen” – the number one figure amongst the remaining members of the PLO after the death of Yasser Arafat and the first Prime Minister of Palestine. Abou Mazen summed up his overall standpoint on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in an interview with the Al Ahram Al Araby Cairene periodical on September 25, 2004, as follows:

“I do not support the resistance option; we have tried it for four years and what have we achieved? Military armed resistance has been tried for four years and has only resulted in devastation. We cannot face Israel in armed warfare; Israel is capable of defeating all the Arabs put together, so we cannot resort to the war option and hope to succeed. This is borne out by the fact that we have witnessed four years of armed resistance and the result: nothing” …” I do not think so; Israel has historically referred to Gaza as a cursed land that they should depart from; had they wished to, they would have stayed, so let us not misconstrue the matter and claim that they left because of the resistance and expect to gain more by the same means”…. “At the beginning of the armed military Intifada, some said that it would lead to the liberation of Palestine, in fact the result is that Israeli settlements have doubled; they said it would topple Sharon, but the outcome is that Sharon is more popular today than even Ben Gurion ever was. I dismiss military resistance as an option completely; we entered the Palestinian territories in 1994 in the name of peace and for the sake of peace, and we are bound to continue with this option, for we have no other”. Thus end the quotes from the interview with Abou Mazen.

There are other “softly-spoken” voices that champion this school of thought, from which I have chosen an article featured in Al Sharq Al Awsat (The Middle East) newspaper published in London on September 30, 2004, by the Palestinian writer Mona Al Ghusain and entitled “Four years of the Intifada…with what results?” in which she states: “The method of using suicide bombers to penetrate Israel and target civilians has weakened the support of the international community, public opinion, and the Arab governments for the Palestinians. For no matter how legitimate the right of the Palestinians is to a homeland free from Israeli occupation and settlements, this random targeting of civilians has weakened the Palestinian cause and has given Sharon free rein to wreak vengeance upon the Palestinians without any opposition or reproof worth mentioning from the international community. At the same time, we are witnessing the bickering that takes place openly between our leaders and their opponents in a manner that is utterly disgraceful, over matters that are negligible when compared to those related to the plight of the Palestinian people”. (End of quote from the Palestinian writer Mona Al Ghosain).

From amongst Egyptian writers, I have chosen the words written by Mr. Hazem Abdel Rahman in his column “Foreign Policy”, published in the largest Arab newspaper Al Ahram on October 6, 2004, in which he states: “It was not in the interests of the Palestinian resistance movements to use “Qassam” missiles to attack Israeli settlements”… “A quick glance at current events and the extent of the suffering to which the ordinary Palestinian civilian is subjected as a result of the foolhardy acts carried out by these organizations, makes it quite clear that the “militarization of the Intifada” and the use of armed violence have achieved nothing whatsoever for the Palestinian cause. Neither the United States Russia, Europe, nor the United Kingdom support the militarization of the Intifada, with its grim harvest of civilian victims inside Israel, whose deaths Israeli forces use as an excuse to justify the massacre of Palestinians in far greater numbers as well as the wholesale destruction of the already poverty-stricken areas where the Palestinians live. For the thousandth time, striving for a just solution does not mean aiming missiles at Israeli settlements, for the revenge brought about by such acts far exceeds their negligible, paltry effects. The struggle should be undertaken in a manner that spares an already miserable people yet further misery and hardship, and does not alienate the rest of the world. The Palestinian parliament did well when it called for the prompt cessation of these ill-advised missile attacks.” (End of quotes from Mr. Hazem Abdel Rahman’s article in Al Ahram).

Along the same vein, I quote from Mr. Maged El Keyalli’s article featured in the London-based Al Hayat newspaper in its issue published October 7, 2004:

“It is customary for the proponents of ideologies, slogans and eternal, never-ending struggles to avoid any kind of analysis of parameters, examination of facts, or study of statistics, simply because these are all processes that conflict with their illusions and their flights of fancy, as well as their patriarchal guardianship of history, identity and the nation…” …” The Palestinian struggle might perhaps have been more effective if it had been conducted in a more rational, realistic manner; and the Palestinians most certainly would have incurred far fewer losses. It is remarkable that throughout the years, the Palestinians have never been able to achieve this, but have preferred to found their struggle – which itself is based upon dreams and wishes – on a veneration of deeds of sacrifice and heroism per se, in a climate where emotions run high and primal instincts and a tribal spirit hold sway. This explains why they have never stopped to ask, throughout their history of resistance to the Zionist entity, what, if anything, they have managed to achieve.”…”The Palestinian people, after all they have been through, no longer need to prove that they are a courageous and dignified people who are willing and able to sacrifice themselves; what they do need to do is prove to themselves and to the world at large that they are capable of transforming their acts of heroism, their sacrifices and their suffering into political achievements; i.e. into tangible realities.”

To sum up, there are two schools of thought regarding the Palestinian issue; one that deems it possible to achieve the Palestinian national aims by means of violence, and another that sees that the use of violence will result in even further losses for the Palestinians and indeed the possibility that they might follow the path of the American Indians – to the same bitter end. What really matters to me is not simply to state that I am fully convinced of the judiciousness of the second school (the Mahmoud Abbas school); my real concern is that while all points of view can be freely expressed throughout the civilized world, and indeed find numerous outlets by which to make themselves heard, we, on the other hand, live in a region where one point of view and one only is allowed to prevail regarding this most crucial issue. The media, the pulpits, our teachers, our writers, all join in one repetitive refrain that echoes that of the first school: the culture of resistance. This is, to put it mildly, an uncivilized and indeed, inhuman phenomenon; free societies that have an abundant share of education, knowledge and culture will naturally differ over major issues. The United States was divided over the war on Iraq as were the British; likewise, American society stands divided over a number of issues such as taxation policies, abortion, and numerous other concerns regarding which it is only natural and logical that opinions should differ. As for us, every hundred of us (with the possible exception of one or two brave souls) will dutifully express the same opinion regarding the Arab/Israeli conflict in general and the Palestinian/Israeli problem in particular. I have witnessed the astonishment expressed by intellectuals and thinkers in universities and research centers in America, Canada, Europe, Russia and Japan over the fact that we are a society that voices one opinion and one only when it comes to this most critical issue; and I invariably endeavor to explain that we are not really a nation incapable of thinking for ourselves and having a mind of our own; we are simply the victims of a systemized brainwashing process carried out by the media, the mosques, the educational system and every possible means of influencing the public in an environment where the illiteracy rate is around 50%. For this reason, my objective in writing this article is not to champion either the school of resistance or that which favors a peaceful solution, but rather to express my wholehearted support for the school of freedom that assumes that a unanimous opinion on any issue can only be born of oppression, coercion and despotism. In a climate where freedom prevails, it is natural for people to be divided (if in varying degrees) over matters of major concern, but for every single person in our society to express the same opinion as the resistance school and advocate the use of violence is, to my mind, ample proof that a brainwashing process of a kind hard to find in today’s world, is alive and well – in fact, thriving.