In the writing genre that falls into the “What if?” category, the author presumes the occurrence of hypothetical past events that never happened, and then infers the implications. This is not a futile literary exercise. These texts point to what had, to this or that degree, once been real possibilities, and readers take two things away from these possibilities. First, those non-materialized events underscore the responsibility of those who steered history in the direction it ultimately went in. Second, they allow for measuring the misery of the present against the situation that we would have been in if different policies had been adopted. And of course, this approach always implies belief in human agency and our capacity to shape and control the course of our world.
Since an extraordinary catastrophe- following the criminal “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation and the barbaric Israeli retaliation to it- is weighing down on us in the Levant, it would be useful to revisit the two most significant events we have witnessed in the past half-century: the Egyptian-Israeli Camp David Accords of 1979, and the occupation and liberation of Iraq in 2003. Here, we can assume that there is a foundational, albeit inverse, relationship between current developments and how it was dealt with those two transformative events - not in the sense that they transform a particular regime but that of worn-out ways of life and of practicing politics.
Let us suppose, for instance, that the Arab League and the Arab public had rushed to support and embrace Egypt’s position, providing these six reasons for this stance:
First, our aversion to war and commitment to peace and the need to foster it. We remember the defeat of 1967, the discouraging results of the 1973 war, and the outbreak of the Lebanese civil war in 1975 following the Jordanian civil war in 1970; all of that was the result of paramilitary build-up justified by the conflict with Israel.
Second, Palestinian self-government is guaranteed by the Camp David Accords, which pave the way for electing an autonomous governing authority. We also welcome US President Jimmy Carter’s appointment of Mr. Robert Schwarz Strauss as the Personal Representative of the President to the Middle East Peace Negotiations.
Third, containing Iranian influence, which has become a threat to the region since the revolution of this same year (1979) that has turned “exporting the revolution” into a key objective and slogan. Indeed, quelling tensions and building peace undermine the appeal of these perilous pursuits, as well as the primitive notions and acquiescence to sectarian instincts that come with it.
Fourth, isolating the two Baathist regimes in Syria and Iraq. Both have insisted on “bringing down Camp David” because they seek to perpetuate animosity and polarization in the Levant, as they ensure a source of “nationalist legitimacy” that provides a substitute for the constitutional and popular legitimacy they lack.
Fifth, allowing Lebanon to exit the cycle of violence whose manifestations have varied and multiplied; the Palestinian resistance factions will be disarmed and the Palestinian Liberation Organization could focus on building self-governance in Palestine, and this will be followed by the disarmament of the other Lebanese militias that had fought the PLO.
Finally, we are keen to avoid shaking up the relationship between Egypt and the rest of the Arab world, as that would inevitably have grave consequences for both parties.
In 2003, meanwhile, the Arab League issued a statement expressing a broad, general Arab opinion, no less historic than its stance in 1979. The following is an excerpt from the 2003 statement:
‘‘What has happened is an unwelcome occupation, but it is also a welcomed liberation. Iraq deserves to be liberated after having suffered for so long at the hands of a tyrannical regime. Occupation has been paired with liberation in many countries, including Japan, whose mature approach gave rise to the democratic MacArthur Constitution and fueled economic success that was called a ‘‘miracle’’.
We believe that a stronger Arab presence in Iraq would mitigate the negative repercussions of this development, as well as limit unilateral American domination in Iraq and reduce the potential ramifications of US ignorance of Iraq and the region, or perhaps of ambitions that are not yet apparent. Arab states’ involvement would help prevent a sectarian and ethnic cycle of vengeance from wreaking havoc on Iraq after decades of repression and tension, and it would also support the federalist experiment that Iraqis have chosen as the only alternative to hyper-centralized and hyper-authoritarian rule.
One outcome of this Arab presence and support is that it will remove the threat of Iran exploiting Iraq’s transitional phase to expand its influence at Iraq’s expense. It will also prevent the Assad regime in Syria (which has been expelled from the League) from exploiting the turbulence in Iraq by sending instruments of death to Baghdad, along with the suicide bombers murdering Iraqi civilians whom the regime calls “martyrs” and “resistance fighters.”
The success of this new experiment would probably shorten the lifespan of both regimes, which have been withering away at an accelerating pace. No amount of repression and brutality, as conspiratorial hysteria is pushed as far as it can, can prevent this, especially since, for years now, they have not had any opportunities to toy with the Palestinian cause.
Ultimately, a democratic and stable Iraq would be a tremendous net benefit for both Iraqis and Arabs, just as the success and stability of Egypt’s peace policies have been. These two historical developments broaden our channels of engagement with the world, make it more likely that we will be influenced by all that is enlightening and beneficial, and enhance the Arab world’s own capacity to yield influence elsewhere.”
