It has been some time since I wrote a serious entry. So I thought I’d tackle one of my most controversial opinions. This word Tatbee3 (التطبيع) has become a dirty word. In the Arab world it seems to have lost all other meaning, and now only refers to normalizing relations with Israel. Why is this unthinkable ? I tried to think of a few objections.
Objections:
- It requires acknowledging and validating Israel’s existence
- Pride - Some would consider it a form of surrender and defeat
- Israel has not permitted an independent Palestinian state to be established
- Palestinians are still being oppressed, hostilities continue on the Lebanese border, as well as mounting tension between Israel Syria
- Shame, whoever is first to make peace will be branded a traitor
- Religion: Israelis are Jews, so we can never make peace with them.
Responses:
- Like it or not, Israel has existed for more than 50 years now
- We have been defeated several times and on different levels (Military, Economic, International-Support). In all respects Israel remains ahead, and this is likely to continue. This isn’t defeatism, it is realism.
- As long as we maintain a state of belligerency, we are certainly in no position to attempt to influence Israel to allow this, quite the contrary.
- Is this the last bastion of Arab unity ? That we stand united in opposing Israel from our individual podiums ? The hostility and tension are a result of the state of relations, so they can’t be used as an excuse to prevent normalizing them.
- Since when is courage something to be ashamed of. This is a difficult and very unpopular step, but one I believe must be taken to make progress.
- According to the Quran, the fact that they are Jews should make a Muslim more willing to make peace with them. At least that’s how I interpret the verse below from Surat Al-Baqarah (Chapter 2- Verse 285). The Torah is included in (his books), and Abraham (ابراهيم) and Moses (موسى) are among his messengers.
Note: After numerous insults received subsequent to publishing this post, I have decided to setup a page dedicated to Comments Policy and Hate Mail to document abuse, and to keep the posts clean.
30 Users Commented In This Post
Posted from
9-21-2007 at 14:17:42
amazing how you have the guts to speak of peace and quote the quran, in ramadan, when Israelis are killing innocent Arabs as we speak. have you heard of the last victim? a young Palestinians gut crushed under an Israeli bulldozer. have you no humanity have you no dignity?
Posted from
9-21-2007 at 14:19:45
Raed, I have both humanity and dignity. If you are trying to shame, and guilt me, I am immune. It is precisely because Palestinians are dying that we must make peace. Hate begets violence.
Posted from
9-21-2007 at 15:08:39
Ya Hani, though I don’t agree entirely with your stance, I commend you for seizing this prickly subject! I agree with you on point six, but on responses 1 and 4, contention must be maintained. The issue will never simmer down, simply because Palestine is so much more than just land: it is history, culture, identity and so much more.
Equally, it would be terrible to lose fifty years of struggle to endorse a state that has carried out numerous heinous acts against innocent civilians and children. Peace is needed, yes, but at what cost? Life will not improve for the Palestinians once Israel is globally accepted.
I could natter for several days on this subject, but I know that it is likely you know the facts well enough! :-)
Posted from
9-21-2007 at 15:37:30
Layla, I lived there 16 years, so yes I do.
I expected most people to disagree with me on this one. Thank you for doing it politely :)
Posted from
9-21-2007 at 20:44:44
Shlomo killed Fatima, therefore I must be friends with Shlomo. What sort of sick logic is this?
Posted from
9-21-2007 at 20:47:49
Raed, that’s half the story, you forgot, Fatima’s brother-in-law Mahmoud killed Shlomo’s best friend Avi, then Shlomo killed Fatima. Moreover, if Mahmoud’s rich 2nd cousin Omar had business dealings with Shlomo, he would have thought twice before killing Fatima, and if Fatima’s sister was married to Avi’s brother, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
Posted from
9-21-2007 at 22:46:03
Tatbee3 comes after peace.
Look at the normalization of relations between israel and jordan.the peace treaty deals not only with an end to war,but also NORMALIZATION,various articles of the treaty deal with practical issues of normalization in such matters as CULTURE and SCIENCE,the war against crime and drugs,transportation and roads,postal services and telcommunications,tourism the environment,energy,health,agriculture,and the development of the jordan RIFT VALLEY and the aqaba/eilat area.Economic cooperation is seen as one of the pillars of peace,vital to the promotion of secure and harmonious relations between the tow people.
After 13 years of peace with israel,no Tatbee3,we did not get any thing from WADI 3ARABAH,thats why people FEEL LIKE THAT.
Posted from
9-21-2007 at 22:49:57
Hamede, very true, but there’s too much at stake for us not to keep trying.
Posted from
9-22-2007 at 02:07:08
مرحبا هاني ،
في قصة حلوة عن هالموضوع ، في 20 فار كانو عايشين في بيت وكانو مجننين صاحب البيت ، المهم أخينا في الله راح جاب قطة وحطها في البيت علشان يخلص من الفئران المزعجة ، المهم عقدت الفئران اجتماع واتفقت إنهم يجيبو جرس ويعلقوه في رقبة القط علشان يسمعو صوتو وهو جاي فيهربوا بس كان في مشكلة وحدة ، مين بدو يعلق الجر في رقبة القط ؟؟!!
فالكلام سهل لكن التطبيق شوي صعب ..
hani , Did you read my blog recently ?? .. i added new “makamat”
Posted from
9-22-2007 at 02:12:57
Mohammad,
A lovely story, and yes it is so difficult I don’t see it happening in my lifetime, if at all.
I just hope by the time it happens, there will still be some Palestinians left to save, so make sure you have lots of kids.
Regarding the Maqamat, I haven’t seen the 2nd and 3rd installments, I will read them tomorrow, as I’m gonna get some sleep now.
Posted from
9-22-2007 at 10:37:57
“f Mahmoud’s rich 2nd cousin Omar had business dealings with Shlomo, he would have thought twice before killing Fatima,”
So I have to pay protection money to zionist killer to save Fatima? How is that different from paying off terrorists to release hostages or to stop them from killing more innocents? If we do that once, next thing you know, whenever the Zionists want more, they will kill Fatima’s sister and brother and we have to keep paying the killers more and more protection money.
I am not sure I agree with you Hani.
Posted from
9-22-2007 at 11:10:55
Raed, my apologies, it was a simplistic answer to a simplistic question you asked earlier. You misunderstood that phrase, it is not about paying ransom or negotiating with terrorists. It was meant to imply that countries are far less willing to risk war and belligerency with their economic partners, that’s all.
eg. Israel has great expertise in Agriculture that could help us. They have already helped Egypt in that department. Thinking back, Israel would hardly send bombers to Iraq if they were buying oil from Iraq. Moreover, if Syrian tourists were sunbathing in Eilat, Israel would hardly need to hold on to the Golan heights. If we were on good terms with Israel, Muslims could go pray in the Aqsa mosque, have lunch in Jerusalem, and come home for dinner all without even needing a passport.
Again, the point was not that we must do these things as a ransom in return for ending the violence, but because the violence will end all by itself if we start taking these minor conciliatory moves (baby steps).
Yes, it sounds like a dream, but that’s how most big ideas start. What is the alternative ? What have we gained from the current cold war stance ?
To quote Qwaider, I never learned anything from anyone who agreed with me. So feel free to do so.
Posted from
9-22-2007 at 12:18:36
“Israel has great expertise in Agriculture that could help us.”
The Nazis had great technology too. So what?
The French have great Agriculture technologies, why not work with them.
Why pretend that murdering arabs is something that can be ignored?
since when is money is more important than human lives?
Doing business with killer is not a dream to me. killers must be brought to justice. what about the millions who were thrown from their homes because they are not jewish? how will nortmalizing with those who expelled them be considered a dream or something that is good of peace? doing so will encourage the jewish supremacists to repeat it. All they have to do is repeat it again when they need more land and no arabs. How will you protect yourself then?
I could care less about having lunch in jerusalem is an arab is eating sh*t in sabra & shatila so jews can find a safe heaven. there a correct order to doing things and you are asking us to go against international norms. germans had to pay before world normalized with them after WWII. Japanese too.
the fact we have no power to win justice for the millions wronged does not somehow tranlate into a desire to cuddle up to murderers. it only makes us want to work harder until the day we bring justice to those who only speak the language of force. Unless they do what is right: end the aparhied, reverse the ethnic cleansing, make resititutions. I will be the first one to normalize.
What you are asking for is totally unacceptable. I know as an Arab i have lost most of my human rights, thanks to arab despots, the americans, and zionists. But I will resist by all means available. It may take 100 year, 200 years, 500 years. It took us quite a long time to evict the colonialists, more than once. during the crusades and after WWII. We will do it again. but to drop my pants and bend over while the suffering continues and just to make a few bucks is not in my dictionary, and it’s not in the dictionary of most arabs.
my advice, find a more worthy cause. take the victims’ side not the butchers’. it’s more fullfilling.
Posted from
9-22-2007 at 12:38:52
It is precisely because I don’t want Arabs to be murdered that we should make peace. We can’t win militarily, in fact we’ve already lost. do you dispute this ?
The killers are on both sides by the way, and if you don’t see that, you’re only listening to one side.
I wouldn’t pull the German analogy too far if I were you, you seem to forget that international opinion was against the Germans, and that they lost the war. In the past decade support for our cause has only dwindled, and again, it is we who lost the war. Japan now is an excellent example of how to win the peace once you lose the war. We should make them our idol in that regard.
You may not care about having lunch in Jerusalem, that’s your opinion, but many Muslims still consider it a holy city, and consider it a privilege to pray at the Aqsa.
When you say work harder rather than make peace, do you realistically see us regaining what power we had hundreds of years ago ? I don’t. We have to make do with what we have, and again there are murderers on both sides. Not to mention those of us who have decided they prefer to kill each other if you know what I mean.
This is where we disagree, it doesn’t make sense to subject our children to the same cycle of violence.
Who said making peace is dropping your pants, there is no shame in admitting defeat.
It is precisely the victims I am thinking of, except, I am considering the victims on both sides. Remember they are human too.
Posted from
9-22-2007 at 14:34:37
I don’t understand why do we have to normalize with the zionists before the occupation ends and before the refugees return to their homes?
Posted from
9-22-2007 at 14:50:55
Raed, we don’t have to normalize, we can maintain the current status, and the refugees won’t be allowed to return anyway. Jerusalem and the refugees are 2 of the points Israel will never back down on.
Posted from
9-23-2007 at 04:45:12
So after all what you just said in your reply to-sana- why you still think it can hapen .
Posted from
9-23-2007 at 08:46:13
Hamede, because Jerusalem is as good as lost no matter what we have to say about it. If we get stuck on these points, we will never make progress, as for the refugees its not something we need to negotiate. If we get to the point where a genuine Palestinian state (not the current mockup) exists, they will of course have control of their own border. So the refugee issue will solve itself.
Some of the people who responded above have the impression that by taking their current stance Arab states are applying pressure on Israel. This is rediculous. We are in no position to apply pressure through a speech from a podium. Real pressure is either military (which we are clearly too weak to apply), Diplomatic (which we have failed to apply), and most importantly Economic (which would require normalization to apply).
Posted from
9-23-2007 at 13:58:08
when you say that the only solution to the conflict with Israel is “Economic (which would require normalization to apply).”
please give us a historical precedent where having good business relations with an enemy state resulted in reversing injustices? ONE PRECEDENT!
The only precedent in a similar case is the global embargo against apartheid south Africa. That worked.
Posted from
9-23-2007 at 14:04:23
Hana, this is your quote, and I disagree with you. I did not say it was a solution. I said Arab nations are currently in no position to influence Israel towards a solution. Whenever something happens in Palestine, we get a nice speech which does nothing. Economic partnership has a way of cementing peaceful relations more than anything else, I gave examples above. No it will not correct past injustices retroactively. I agree with you there.
Regarding an economic embargo, that would only work if we had international support. Which we do not.
Posted from
10-15-2007 at 04:03:38
you are indeed an israeli propagandist, many sentences (you came up with them or quoted them off some israeli politician?) prove it. look i am not against peace or anything, in fact i think the 2 states solution would be good as long as it is based on justice, and arabs’ countries system laws would be better off learning from israel’s. although the palestinian people will have so much pain to overlook, but i think about time we deal with each other as humans rather than, well you know what.
funny logic you have there, it’s ok to be moderate and realistic but you are being neither, nor fair.
Posted from
10-15-2007 at 09:02:31
While I was born in Israel/Palestine, I am not considered Israeli. Remember Israel considers Palestinians inhabitants (like the animals in the forest).
Incidentally, since you used an alias, I took the liberty of looking up your IP, and it comes from the Technion in Haifa. Please excuse the intrusion, but while using an alias is a choice, I like to at least know the nationality of the person I am conversing with.
We are all propagandists for our own ideas. I’d be hard-pressed to find many Israeli politicians who agree with mine, and whatever sentences I used were original as far as I know since I do not follow the Israeli press.
Keep in mind that most of the responses above (aside from Hameed, Laylatoot and Wali) were initiated by the same person from different IP addresses (using proxy servers). This person could only discuss the issue for so long before resorting to insults, at which point I would delete their posts, and they would switch IPs and aliases, and come back with more. Rather than calling my logic funny, unrealistic, extreme, and unfair; which is vague, and not very constructive. Please be specific about what you disagree with.
Despite all of what I said above, the main objection to tatbee3 has been the idea that all Arab nations should hold off on peace negotiations with Israel until the Palestinian issue is resolved. This logic comes from 2 points:
1. Of all Arabs, Palestinians negotiate from the weakest position.
2. If Arabs present a united negotiating front, they expect to obtain a better offer from Israel.
Here’s how I see it, aside from a few misguided sentiments, Pan-Arabism died with Abdul-Nasser, and expecting Arabs to present a united front is in itself unrealistic. As you can see, even the Palestinians themselves cannot present a united front, and have now crossed a line once considered sacred by killing each other. Iraqis have done the same, and will be lucky if their country remains in tact when all is said and done.
It is Abdul-Nasser who was unrealistic. His delusion lost the Sinai. Sadat on the other hand decided to negotiate, and got the Sinai back, and for his trouble, they called him a traitor and a sell-out and assasinated him. He got the land back without bloodshed. What could be more patriotic?
If Syria were to negotiate in the same manner as Egypt, they would have got back the Golan as well. Lebanon, well that was more complicated, but I hope things will stabilize now that Syria and Israel have mostly withdrawn.
I agree, this would be the first step towards peace, since if we consider each other animals, our only option would be to run each other to the sea. If it wasn’t for religion, we could have become one people. England pulled it off when the Saxons and Normans started out as distinct. Then they started inter-marrying until it became irrelevant, but religion is becoming more not less important as things get harder for Palestinians, so I won’t hold my breath.
Posted from
10-15-2007 at 21:36:02
i don’t consider it an intrusion, however i am not in haifa, i am just using the Technion as my ISP.(i chose this nickname to be sarcastic to “so i know you are human” and i sticked to it so you can figure i am the same person, since i am not always using the same ISP). i was not criticising the fact that piece should be achieved for survival for you to say “It is Abdul-Nasser who was unrealistic. His delusion lost the Sinai. Sadat on the other hand decided to negotiate, and got the Sinai back, and for his trouble, they called him a traitor and a sell-out and assasinated him. He got the land back without bloodshed. What could be more patriotic?”
it is the way you stated your position from everything, it felt more like a propaganda, stating stuff that’s meant to undermine palestinians wihout even feeling their misery, i don’t know your motives for wanting a normalization but it honestly didn’t sound like that it’s people slaughtering that is concerning you (sorry about being blunt, but after all you were too).
Posted from
10-15-2007 at 21:36:38
p.s. i am not expert in arab politicians history.
Posted from
10-15-2007 at 21:57:26
Bot, why would I want to undermine Palestinians when I am one ?
Some of the posters above assumed I wanted Tatbee3 because I wanted to make money ! In reality, it won’t affect me whether there is tatbee3 or not.
Blunt and polite is how I like people, so be my guest :)
I already explained why I think the position that all arab states should hold off on permenant peace with Israel until Palestinians make theirs doesn’t make sense. I don’t need to emphasize people being slaughtered to be concerned about it. There was no need to state it because it is obvious.
Moreover it is not just Palestinian blood I am worried about, but everyone’s. Tensions are running high between Syria and Israel since the recent bombing. Israeli planes are now conducting drills on the Syrian border. We don’t need another Lebanon.
It wasn’t because of peace for survival that I mentioned this. Pan-Arabism is the movement to unify the Arab states supported by people like Abdul Nasser and Sadam Hussein, enough said. Abdul Nasser was the President of Egypt after a military coup in which the Army overthrew the King (Farouq). Sadat was Abdul Nasser’s deputy, and took over when he died. Mubarak, the current President was Sadat’s deputy, and took over when Sadat was assasinated for negotiating peace with Israel. They are an important part of Israeli history as well. My point was the hardliner who wouldn’t negotiate peace was hailed as a hero, wheras the guy who negotiated peace and got his country’s land back was killed as a traitor. History teaches us an important lesson here that Syria should learn. Palestinians too since the deals they are being offered are getting thinner by the year.
Posted from
10-15-2007 at 22:01:12
The best way to do this is to use the same email address. Since anyone could now come in and make a new post as “Bot”, but only I can see the email address, and it doesn’t have to be a real email address either. I’ll remove the so I know you’re human part. It was added by the theme, and i hadn’t noticed it.
Posted from
10-16-2007 at 00:04:23
I think that attempts to make a palestinian state will always be thwarted by extremists from both sides, the normal israeli people (by that i mean non extremists and probably satisfied with retreating to the 1967 borders resolution) believe that palestinians want them eliminated, it is a sensitive issue for them after what the Nazis did to them in WWII and that the “accidental” slaughtering or occupation in palestine is only a means of defence, although some do actually admit that it’s exaggerated. as to their leaders i don’t think they want a 2 state resolution and that’s why there will always be pretexts to postpone it to infinity. while the normal palestinian people believe that what is being done there to them is heinous, unjustified and only meant to make them suffer (regardless of all history of lands now), i don’t think anyone could blame them. and of course palestinian leaders in power, who are not even worthy of speaking of,don’t really care about what happens to the palestinian people people as long as they have money smuggled into their pockets.so i don’t understand what’s there to negotiate about if the whole thing is settled ahead.
Posted from
10-16-2007 at 00:23:56
This is a cycle with no discernable begining now. Israel sends out its gunships or tanks kills/arrests some Palestinians. Palestinians send out a suicide bomber, and on it goes. No happy ending until the people change their attitude.
For Syria, the Golan, and security guarantees (eg. no development of nuclear weapons, no placing troops on Golan etc…). For other countries, further normalization, for Palestinians, everything.
Who controls the airspace, who controls the borders, where the lines on the map are drawn, how security will be guaranteed, how incidents will be dealt with etc…
This is one of the reasons the idea of a ‘unilateral solution’ along with the Wall was introduced. Israel was complaining they had no viable negotiating partner. 9-11, Arafat’s death, and Hamas winning the election combined to create those circumstances. No one man has been able to lead Palestinians as Arafat had. Again no happy ending is foreseeable at the moment.
Posted from
10-16-2007 at 13:09:16
“Israel was complaining they had no viable negotiating partner. 9-11, Arafat’s death, and Hamas winning the election combined to create those circumstances.”
really? then why did israel and USA favor Abbas when it come to negotiation over peace some years ago? and by the way, Hamas agreed to sign a truce treaty with israel to be valid for years (maybe 15 if i remember correctly), that’s, to me at least, is an indirect acceptance of israel as a state, because Hamas realized their whole dream of the 1948 palestine was unrealistic and futile.
“No one man has been able to lead Palestinians as Arafat had. Again no happy ending is foreseeable at the moment.”
maybe just because the palestinians were still not indulged in the bloodshed of themsleves, i admit that was an achievement, though it’s just probably based on the fact that he’s just some symbol of palestine, but he still falls in the category of palestnian leaders i described above, it’s not only i who believes so.
Posted from
10-16-2007 at 22:38:27
Bot, the best apple from a crate of rotten ones. Whatever moves the peace process forward is ok in my book.
Sharing Is Caring.....