By Osama El Sherif
THIS REGION was never in short supply of momentous contributions to human history. In fact, most of history's earlier annals are dedicated entirely to mostly extraordinary people and their activities, be they good or bad, in this part of the world.
One should mention the fact that in addition to bearing the burden of history, this region also carries a precarious freight of religious legacies for which it had endured unbelievable hardships. So where do we place President Bill Clinton's visit this week to Gaza and his address to the Palestine National Council? The visit and its consequences are already being termed as historic by today's historians, the likes of CNN, New York Times and BBC World.
Of course not all sorts of human activity are deemed unprecedented, momentous or unrivaled that they are dubbed as historic. History, through the people, agencies, organs that eventually write it, has its own way of classifying feats such as presidential visits and declarations. Clinton's visit to Palestinian territories is the first of its kind, implying recognition of Palestinian nationalism and identity. Clinton's statements are also historic because they come from the leader of the most powerful country on earth, the very same country that has stood firmly against Palestinian statehood, self-determination and fulfillment of national aspirations for almost half century.
The Palestinian vote, by raising hands, clapping and standing up to imply approval, to drop anti-Israel clauses in the 34-year-old Palestinian Charter, in the presence of President Clinton is also an historic event. Historians will be busy documenting these developments, classifying and sorting them out so that they can make sense to future generations. Of course much of what happened does not make sense to us today.
For instance, where does the significance of Clinton's visit lie exactly? Is it in the fact that he had set foot in Gaza International Airport, spoken to Palestinian dignitaries at Rashad Al Shawa Hall in downtown Gaza City, uttered the magic words of self determination and legitimate rights? Is the historical value of these events real or fictitious. And then can we all be objective about how we see or understand certain events within the context of history. Arabs and Israelis have a different historical appreciation of the Balfour Declaration, for example, or of 14 May 1947, the day Israel was born. That date has a different historical taste, if you will, for both people.
President Yasser Arafat also made history in the past few days. He had his day in the sun, receiving his American guest as a leader of the Palestinian people, parading honor guards, hosting official banquets and holding joint press conferences among other activities that only heads of state engage in. But apart from the official receptions and farewells and the overdose of symbolism that the Palestinians have had to last them a lifetime, where in history will this whole charade be recorded? Will it be entered as a chapter heading, a sub-head or a footnote?
This is not to belittle the importance of Clinton's visit to Gaza and it's significance within the framework of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Indeed, the visit indicated a change in US strategy with regard to the Palestinian cause. It now seems willing to accept that in eventuality the Palestinians should be allowed to set-up their own mini-state on bits and pieces of land, that Israel reluctantly regurgitates every now and then, within a final status solution. That solution, of course, aims at sealing the fate of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for a long time to come.
From a historical perspective, a century that began with Europe experimenting to find some sort of a final solution to the Jewish Question, from relocation to extermination, from carving up a homeland to the Holocaust, is about to end with the United States hoping to broker a final solution to the Palestinian Question. Israel, is now a reality and its destruction, the amendments to the Palestinian Charter notwithstanding, is no longer imaginable or feasible. What is left is the Palestinian issue, which had remained inconclusive for decades, getting more complicated as time goes by.
History was made several years ago when the Arabs endorsed the peaceful solution, as opposed to a military one, so long as it's goal was to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. That naturally entailed implementing UN resolutions and granting the Palestinians the right for self-determination, which is an unalienable right according to the community of nations. But in a truly historic twist, none of the above was achieved.
The peace that we have now is a freak. It is neither just, nor comprehensive and it is definitely not lasting, for history tells us that nothing lasts forever. Which bring us to the final status negotiations, which is the buzz phrase now that Wye has replaced Olso, for now, as a benchmark of Palestinian national rights and Israel's security requirements. Both seem to have developed a sort of uneven relationship where the first diminishes as the second inflates. More importantly, we have arrived at a situation where the more the Palestinians give the less they get back in return. The final status negotiations promise to be as "just", "balanced" and "unequivocal" as the whole Middle East peace process has been starting from Madrid, through Oslo and Washington, into Taba and Hebron and culminating with Wye River. So much for Jerusalem, the refugees, water, borders, security..etc
So looking beyond the Gaza visit and the famous show of hands and the forceful words of a fine American statesman, where does history stand?
Within a proper historical context the visit may prove to be much more important than most of us had thought. It's place in history, at least for the region, may prove to be prominent indeed. The question we should ponder is not if history will recognize these feats as eligible for mention or not, but how will it judge them. Will history mention the thousands of dunnums of virgin West Bank land that Israel grabbed soon after it gave away control of Palestinian towns and villages? Will history point to the endless plight of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees? Or will it detail the hundreds of Israeli violations of agreements and accords that it had signed with the Palestinians? That could make a boring reading compared to the flamboyance that comes with presidential visits, statements and gestures.
So far history has not been kind or generous to us. For almost a century we have been paying the heavy price of historic crimes that resulted in a homeland being wiped out and a nation being fragmented. To think we are closer today to seeing a Palestinian homeland born out of the peace process is a historical mistake. To believe that Israel will eventually hand out portions of Jerusalem, allow refugees to return and tolerate a Palestinian state along its borders is equally wrong.
History is not only about looking back but looking ahead as well. We are not merely observers of history as it folds everyday but are active authors of its annals and records. And just as history is a point of reference for great events, good or bad, it is also a judge, a harsh one indeed. Again we are haunted by the burden we carry as our precarious freight weighs in.