A Path to Salvation

The Palestinian people’s condition has not been good for many years, and they have suffered severely from the harshness of conflict and displacement. There was hope that circumstances would change and develop for the better after the 1967 war and the emergence of the Palestinian revolution in all its factions. But events proved that the revolution was not a revolution, and that the people were led from one tragedy to another and from one frustration to another. People thought that the Oslo Agreement would provide a way out and herald a new dawn, but the people entered from darkness into an even darker and harsher darkness, until they began to mourn the days that had passed. The Oslo experience proved that the people had deliberately been led from one predicament to another, and that everything they had believed in concerning liberation struggles had been nothing but illusions.

The Oslo Agreement placed the Palestinian people, wherever they were, in a dangerous predicament whose most important features were the moral and psychological fragmentation of the people and placing the Palestinian in confrontation with the other for the sake of Israeli security or, as some call it, in defense of the national interest embedded in the agreement. This dangerous predicament is manifested wherever the people are found, but it weighs most heavily on the West Bank and Gaza. Tensions in these two areas increased after the agreement was signed, corruption increased, morale deteriorated, and the sense of unity began to erode. So what is the path to salvation, to the freedom through which the Palestinian and Arab person can together break free from the misery of the past, the defeats of the present, the backwardness of thought, the power of repression and oppression, and the loss of the self? The question is not simple and does not await an easy answer, especially when one stands stunned before the weight of the task in words and bewildered before the force of its power in action. I do not hide my feelings from the reader: whenever I take up my pen to write about the condition of the nation and the way out of tragedy, I feel that the pen refuses to be generous and becomes confused in formulating sentences and phrases. Of course, this is due to the lack of clarity of ideas, the enormity of the task, and the complexities of the situation.

In seeking salvation, I believe there are two tracks that should be pursued simultaneously: the Palestinian track and the Arab track. Each track has its own characteristics, but they cannot be separated, and each reinforces the other. The Palestinian track concerns the Palestinians and their own experience, while the Arab track concerns the Arab situation in general, which can provide broad outlines for escaping the predicament suffered by the Arab nation as a whole.

The Palestinian Track

The question of an alternative was raised in the Palestinian arena, especially after the Oslo Agreement. Supporters of the agreement argued that Palestinian and Arab conditions were extremely bad, that the enemies were powerful, and that there was no escape from bowing one’s head, accepting the fait accompli, and following the path of American solutions. I have already explained this matter. In response to their opponents, they asked what alternatives those opponents possessed and what they could offer the Palestinian people.

For my part, I believe that the first step toward an alternative is to relieve the failed person of his duties and responsibilities. Arafat failed to achieve any of the Palestinian hopes and objectives, went beyond what had become recognized within the PLO as the Palestinian constants, repeatedly violated the provisions of the Palestinian National Charter, and brought the Palestinian people to deteriorating economic and administrative conditions, and to some extent social and moral ones. Arafat failed in Jordan, in Lebanon, and in the territories occupied in 1967, and failed in many details and daily tasks. He is primarily responsible for all the failures that the Palestinian people faced over decades. Therefore, logically, politically, morally, and nationally, he should have resigned and made room for political change.

Arafat might say that he submitted his resignation to the PLO Executive Committee several times, but that the committee refused to accept it. Formally, this is true, but substantively it is not accurate, especially since Arafat held the members of the Executive Committee in his grip, as I explained earlier, and knew perfectly well that they were unable to accept his resignation. Moreover, Arafat never submitted his resignation on the basis of logical reasons and justifications related to the national interest; rather, he submitted it after becoming upset or in a fit of resentment. In other words, the resignation occurred under circumstances that did not indicate seriousness or a considered approach to the interests of the Palestinian people. He had become accustomed to leaving meetings in a state of resentment because he knew that some of those attending would follow him to placate him and soothe his feelings. On the occasions when he submitted his resignation, he heard expressions portraying him as the caring father who bore everyone’s burdens, while criticism of his policies was presented merely as discussion that did not touch the confidence and political acumen he supposedly possessed.

Arafat’s resignation would establish an important principle in the Palestinian arena: public life is not a game, it must not be treated carelessly, and the official is not above questioning or accountability. Many important causes and interests at both the Arab and Palestinian levels were lost because the person ultimately responsible was neither questioned nor held accountable. The nation was defeated again and again, while the responsible official remained enthroned as though nothing had happened, or as though the defeated person belonged to another world. Of course, the official always recruited ranks of apologists who spun myths about his extraordinary abilities and fabricated stories about the shortcomings and immoral conduct of his aides. Of course they were weak and immoral, but only because they were his creations. If the Palestinian people begin holding their leaders accountable, that leader can be expected to feel a deterrent force preventing him from tampering with the people’s destiny.

But for that to happen, there must be a living people who rise up to hold accountable the official who fails, is unable to perform his duties, or exceeds his authority. So, at this historic moment, is the Palestinian people alive and capable of holding their leaders accountable?

After removing the failed person and those who helped him fail from their positions, I believe the following steps should be taken:

First: Gradually disengage from the Oslo Agreement in a way that avoids the additional problems it created on top of the problems of occupation. These problems involve two matters: the returnees whom the agreement allowed to return to their homeland, and the livelihoods created by the Palestinian Authority. Regarding the first matter, tens of thousands of returnees are threatened with deportation if the agreement collapses. These people came to their homeland to settle and find relief from a life of departure and displacement, and they may become victims of a sudden collapse of the agreement, after which Israel could order their expulsion on the grounds that their presence on the land was tied to the agreement and ends with its termination. This complicates the possibility of taking a sudden political decision and places the people before the need to find ways to avert a new displacement crisis.

To escape this displacement predicament, I believe the returnees should integrate into ordinary life by leaving their jobs in the Authority and making their livelihood with its assistance but outside its official structures. But another problem emerges here, related to the Arab view of public office and the use of positions for political patronage. Positions in Palestine are generally based on patronage, that is, on political loyalties rather than national loyalties, and they are an important source of prestige. It is therefore necessary to abandon the policy of political patronage and reshape attitudes so that people become convinced that their importance and status do not arise from office, and so that the official becomes convinced that wise policy comes from having competent people at its helm, not from having hypocrites around him.

The second major problem created by Oslo is the enormous administrative staff that came to live on public funds even though part of it performs no useful work for the public or the homeland. Some of this staff accumulated enormous wealth at the people’s expense in a short period, but this group does not concern us because its members smuggle their money abroad and are ready to flee at any moment. The part that lives on salaries requires political and economic efforts on our part to absorb them in the event of an emergency. It should be noted that the policy of corruption that characterized the Authority’s performance has dangerously reduced our options. The Palestinian Authority squandered and dissipated a high proportion of the Palestinian people’s money, and the head of the Authority was the greatest squanderer. The money was used to buy loyalties and political positions and also to satisfy personal desires and appetites. The Authority’s corrupt policy even created a crisis of confidence that makes it difficult for the public to respond to any serious public policy.

If the Authority can restore trust and prove to people that it has abandoned its policy of corruption and corrupting others, then disengaging from the Oslo Agreement requires an economic policy approaching a primitive economy whose goal is self-sufficiency. Such a policy requires reducing consumption by waging a war against the consumer mentality that has developed in the country, and lowering the standard of living and material requirements. It should focus on production, especially in agriculture and crafts, and pursue a strict and firm fiscal policy in which every dirham is monitored and its expenditure supervised. To be able to pursue this policy, current sources of funding must be changed so that Palestinians have greater freedom to determine priorities that serve their interests. The current sources of funding are Western countries, which see Palestinian weakness and Israeli dominance as a firm guarantee for the continuation of Israeli control and the dependence of Palestinian decision-making in various fields.

Changing funding sources and adopting a productive economic policy and a strict fiscal policy requires changing the current teams supervising economic affairs. This brings us back to the question of patronage. Are the Palestinian leadership, specifically Yasser Arafat, prepared to abandon this policy in favor of a policy that serves the Palestinian people? And does the Palestinian people have the ability to produce leadership that relies on modern methods of administration, or will it remain within the circle of Arab traditions of sheikhdom?

Second: Alongside the first step, work must be undertaken to rebuild Palestinian society wherever it exists, especially in the eastern central part of Palestine and the Gaza coast. Morality in the country has suffered a major disruption, and corruption, deceit, and the scramble for private interests are spreading. The public interest is the last thing that attracts attention. In other words, the situation in Palestine is experiencing a state of psychological, moral, and ethical ebb, accompanied by growing frustration, despair, and a sense that surrender is necessary. In such a situation, accompanied by educational decline, deterioration of social cohesion, and weakening feelings of belonging and responsibility, the people will not be able to accomplish anything of value.

Rebuilding fundamentally requires a focus on moral construction and a war against corruption, the corrupt, and those who corrupt others. We need to reformulate educational foundations and ethical conduct so that the values of collective work and mutual cooperation develop, the public interest is placed above private interests, and there is awareness that private interests cannot be achieved by parasitically feeding on the public interest. Therefore, educational programs need to be implemented at various levels, especially at the highest levels of responsibility. Officials, headed by the head of the Authority, must adhere rigidly to new values so that people no longer hear one thing while seeing another practiced. When the situation begins to improve morally, it becomes easier to implement various political, economic, and social programs.

A society founded on a moral basis is cohesive and resilient. It can withstand the sources of suffering imposed by occupation, drain those sources of their content, and direct counter-pressure that imposes itself on the occupation’s policy, forcing it to think carefully about its aggressive steps. This confirms that our confrontation with occupation is not merely a media confrontation or an appeal for favors, but a confrontation of wills and a contest of strength. Then we can win the confidence of the Arab and Islamic masses, placing the regimes in positions they cannot evade.

Our moral policy, aimed at creating a radical transformation on various levels, confuses the enemy and mobilizes the energies of our friends. This would bring the Palestinians out of the shell of parochialism and isolation that had been a destructive factor for the Palestinian cause as a whole.

But this approach does not appeal to the Palestinian leadership and cannot be acceptable to it. The leadership of the PLO, and later the Palestinian Authority, worked to isolate Palestinians within a parochial mentality, to alienate them from themselves, and to undermine their confidence in their abilities through continuous frustrations carefully planned. This leadership opened the doors to hostile security penetrations of Palestinian society, entrenched the policy of patronage, and used money in ways that brought shame upon the history of Palestine and its people. I do not think it will now accept proposals that would take it years backward.

So what is the solution? The solution lies in reorganizing at the Arab level so that it becomes possible to overcome the defects of the present and move toward the future. I believe it is important to move toward building a new organizational structure that leaps over all the mistakes of the past and looks toward achievements far removed from the heat of speeches and the glitter of promises. I believe such an organization deserves success if it focuses on the following matters:

First: Recognize that Arab concerns in general and Palestinian concerns in particular will not find a solution within a state-centered framework or a regionalist orientation. That is, we must return to the idea of Arab unity, not merely from an emotional standpoint but from the conviction that the Arab peoples are one people and that their destiny is linked to their unity. There is no longer a special place in this world for small states or small peoples attempting to create a history and culture for themselves apart from their historical, religious, and civilizational roots and apart from their shared interests and foundations of existence. Egypt, for all its greatness, cannot make its way in this world apart from the Arabs, so what about the people of Palestine, Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia, or the United Arab Emirates?

The Arabs are all responsible for confronting their concerns, and each Arab state or Arab people isolating itself with its own concerns makes it easy prey for others. Perhaps the Arabs have learned a lesson from the repeated defeats inflicted upon them by great and small powers. Even Eritrea was a case in which the Arabs failed to confront the occupation of the Arab islands in the Red Sea.

Our adherence to Arab unity should not come at the expense of the Islamic dimension or constitute a denial of it. Rather, Arab unity should be viewed as a goal that can be pursued within the foreseeable future and whose requirements can be brought under control, without affecting the possibility of achieving Islamic unity. Arabs are the heart of the Islamic world, and the Islamic world is a shield protecting Muslims everywhere. The strength of the Arabs is strength for Muslims, and the strength of Muslims is a fortress for every Muslim everywhere.

Second: Recognize that Arab unity cannot succeed without Islam. Islam is the fundamental civilizational and intellectual foundation of this nation. The Arabs became known through Islam, and Islam became known principally through them. The Arabs carried the message and spread it throughout the earth, built civilization through it, and made their way toward knowledge and progress through it. Islam is not merely a starting point for the religious; it is also a foundation for others whose conduct and culture have been shaped by Islam. It is a civilizational source for everyone, including Christians and others. Islamic culture brings Arabs and non-Arabs together on Arab land, just as it brings Muslims and non-Muslims together.

But what is the Islam that forms the starting point? Without returning to the ideas of the various Islamic groups, I believe Islam means the following:

A- Revitalize research, discussion, and dialogue about what is Islamic and what is not Islamic, with the aim of purifying Islamic concepts of non-Islamic tendencies practiced in the name of religion. Rational thought, reflection, consideration, and contemplation are essential parts of Islam, and abandoning them means abandoning a vital pillar of Islam necessary for the nation’s survival, development, and progress. In other words, Islamic answers to various issues must remain open to interpretation and independent reasoning.

B- Focus on the Holy Qur’an as the basis for deriving various rulings and regard it as authoritative over all other sources of legislation, including what we inherited from the Sunnah. This means subjecting the Sunnah and other sources to Qur’anic examination to verify their authenticity. This does not mean abandoning the Sunnah, but rather regarding the Qur’an as its reference, especially when we disagree about the authenticity of some of its texts. If we adopt the Holy Qur’an as the reference, Islamic sects must disappear, and the history that divided Muslims must return to its proper place: a historical place free of doctrinal dimensions. Returning to the Qur’an means returning to the worship of God instead of worshiping or sanctifying historical events. Here I point out that the Qur’an places before us levels whose sequence must be observed:

1- Creed, which is the substance of faith. This is constant across time and place, and its firmness is measured by the firmness and continuity of action.

2- Truth and falsehood, which are the substance of thought. They change according to human scientific development and the development of humanity’s ability to understand the laws of nature or the laws of creation, which include the human being himself.

3- The lawful and the forbidden, which are the substance of jurisprudence. These too change according to the development of understanding of Islamic legislation. They are governed by truth and falsehood, or the substance of thought, because the forbidden and the lawful do not contradict divine laws, and human understanding of these laws is linked to the development of knowledge over time.

C- Islamic piety consists of levels:

1- Religious rituals, which constitute the substance of remembrance of God that awakens within people the readiness to answer God’s call and work to cultivate and build.

2- Social piety, which means translating heavenly teachings into virtues whose effects extend to the Muslim’s surroundings and society.

3- Constructive piety, which means contributing to organized work capable of establishing the nation and moving it toward progress on scientific foundations.

These are levels that cannot be separated; each one leads to the next.

D- Do not oppose Arab identity, but regard it as kinship bonds that have social functions strengthening our internal forces. Just as a family includes its members, Arab identity includes its members without fanaticism or racism, and without bias against non-Arabs on Arab soil.

E- Do not discriminate against non-Muslims, and affirm that Christians in particular are an inseparable part of the homeland and the people. They belong to Muslims and Muslims belong to them, without tension or even contemplation of discrimination. Their religious pattern is their own, and they are partners in the general cultural pattern.

Third: Freedom is the foundation of creativity. The greatest problem facing the Arab is repression, oppression, and authoritarianism. Arabs have been deprived of freedom for centuries, shackled by political and social systems, and hemmed in by the concepts of shame and prohibition, which have become extraordinarily broad in scope. Because of the intensity of the oppression suffered by Arabs, there is doubt that they are capable of exercising freedom. They were defeated from within and deprived of confidence in themselves to such an extent that they became like fools unable to act or think soundly.

If the Arab struggles for freedom, then it is more appropriate that he first liberate himself. One who is defeated within cannot defeat enemies outside himself. Therefore, the Arab must enjoy freedom of expression, participation, and movement so that he can mobilize the means of moving toward progress and confronting those lying in wait for him and his nation.

Fourth: Recognize that men and women constitute one society and that each is a garment for the other. Freedom is human freedom and includes men and women equally, and there is nothing in Islam that restricts the freedom of either. Islam requires adherence to virtue, which is liberation from enslavement to evil, sins, and sensuality; it does not require suppressing women or limiting them through flimsy arguments rooted in backward traditions and customs.

Fifth: Recognize that openness to other nations is neither shameful nor forbidden. Openness means, first, knowledge, and second, mutual benefit. Arabs and Muslims may benefit from the experiences of other nations, and they may transmit their own experiences to them. This accelerates human progress.

Sixth: Recognize that all theorizing has no value without ethics. What is said must be followed by committed action. It is true that Islam contains virtues within it and a continual call to apply them, but the problem of Arabs in general is ethical implementation. People do not assume that they must apply in reality what they say. This is our real problem as Arabs in this age; the problem is not that we tried different ideas and failed and that nothing remains for us except Islam. With the ethics currently prevailing, based on mood, magical and unseen thinking, and tribalism, the Islamic idea will not succeed either. The slogan of Islam raised by some parties and groups is not enough. If some Islamists succeed in taking power now, it is because of the poor state of Arab regimes and the defeats and frustrations they have produced. In other words, political success requires a review of various moral values so that they correspond to the Islamic requirement set out in the Qur’an.

By this application I mean adherence in daily and public life to the basic foundations of ethics, such as keeping appointments, avoiding favoritism in employment, rejecting impulsiveness, developing tolerance, understanding others, maintaining ease in social relations, and so on. Whoever lacks basic ethics will not be able to develop free thought and scientific thinking and, ultimately, will not be creative or innovative.

Seventh: Recognize that self-reliance is the foundation of moral construction and the starting point on the path of progress and achievement. Dependence on others breeds laziness and passivity and weakens self-confidence and awareness of what a person can accomplish. Through the stages of historical development, humanity has concluded that no one scratches a person’s skin except his own fingernail, and Arabs would do better to turn toward treating their own ailments with their own hands. We are now a lazy nation, negligent of our duties, postponing tasks until they accumulate beyond our ability to carry them. In the end, we find ourselves in the embrace of the United Nations or the United States, seeking solutions to our concerns, exactly as the Palestinians found themselves dependent on others, especially Israel, for their daily bread, and sometimes working as guards for its security.

Dependence on others produces subordination and deprives the believer of the ability to take initiative and make independent decisions. One who depends on another does not possess himself and does not decide for himself; rather, he becomes a tool in the hands of another, with no will, power, or ability of his own.

Conclusion

I fully realize that the project I have outlined here is difficult to achieve and requires great effort, long nights of work, and ironclad commitment. But I also realize that the tragedy we live through is enormous and heavy, the weight of injustice is immense, and the defeats inflicted upon us are almost countless. A situation like this does not await easy solutions. The scale of the challenge is terrifying, and it can only be met by a challenge greater in both quantity and quality. I do not think anyone outside the nation will volunteer for the task.

Escaping the predicament and setting foot on the road toward freedom is a difficult process requiring endurance, suffering, and sacrifices. Anyone who thinks the matter is subject to a political decision or merely to an announcement or statement is mistaken. The road is very long, and traversing it requires a heavy price. The people of the nation will pay the price, especially since Arab regimes are harsh and criminal and show little mercy toward people. But we can reduce this price by working together and insisting on accomplishing the task, and the more we delay, the greater the price that future generations will have to pay.

If the task is difficult and the sacrifices required are enormous, and someone comes along saying that we are incapable of doing anything substantive, then I have something to say to him. I tell him to surrender completely and accept defeat and whatever the hostile powers impose upon him. Surrender saves lives, effort, and suffering. Exactly as happened with the leaders of Palestine. It would have been better for the leaders to surrender in 1917 and advise their people to surrender. In 1917, the Balfour Declaration was issued, promising the Jews a national home in Palestine provided that this would not prejudice the civil rights of the non-Jewish communities living in Palestine. The Palestinian leaders rejected the declaration and the various peaceful proposals over time, which cost the Palestinian people displacement, the scattering of tens of thousands of people, the destruction of homes, imprisonment, and torture. In the end, these leaders came to accept something less than the Balfour Declaration by signing the Oslo Agreement in 1993.

Surrender is an easy path for anyone who wants to become a vehicle for others and a tool in the hands of enemies. It requires no effort and no sleepless nights; it requires only a decision to bow down and abandon everything moral or connected to dignity, honor, and progress. If a person is going to fall halfway along the road, it is better for him to fall at the beginning.