The Star and the Crescents

For the Arab Gulf countries, having a normalized relationship with Israel is the sensible thing to do.


Today, some Lebanese newspapers brought to our attention the fact that major Kuwaiti newspapers are advocating the normalization of the relationship with Israel. A move deemed very unpopular among the general Kuwaiti populace.
Ahmad Jarallah, editor in chief of the English-language “Arab Times” wrote:

"After a long time, we have finally decided to leave the Palestinian cause to Palestinians, because it is they who are really concerned with this issue. […]Arabs will never be able to improve their economy unless they end their perpetual state of war and resort to peace."

Other writers like Youssef al Suwaidan of Alsyassah wrote that Arabs should follow the example of Pakistan who had recently broken the ice between it and Israel after the Ghaza withdrawal.

Are the Kuwaiti writers going against everything that Arabs and Moslems stand for, Or are we finally starting to hear sensible voices coming out of that region?

People who are against normalizing ties with Israel usually have four arguments.

The first argument is the crudest. It’s a religious one that argues as following: God asks us in the Koran to fight the Jews, therefore, the Jews are the enemy.
This argument is flawed for obvious reasons. The least of which is that it would put us in par with Bin Laden and his Ilk who have a literalist reading of the Koran. We might as well declare war on the Nassarah (Christians) if that is to be the case.

The second argument is the one most popular among leftist and secular intellectuals (read Ghassan Tweiny). The argument, simply put is this: Israel is brutal force that wants to establish a homogenous state in the middle of a culturally diverse region, to prove that our model of diversity and tolerance is inferior to theirs.
This argument makes sense, but it’s not Israel’s problem, it’s ours. The burden is on us to compete with Israel and prove that our model is superior. It’s a healthy competition between two culturally different neighbors, and you don’t need a war for that (look at France and England)

The third argument is the Arabist one. How can we make peace with Israel if it’s treating the Palestinians, our brothers and sisters, the way it is? How can we abandon the ‘kadiyya’?
This is an obsolete argument. You can find counter-arguments all over the place on why Arabism is dead and why we shouldn’t be more royal than the king. (in other words, why should we make war if the Palestinians themselves want peace?)

The fourth argument on why we should still be at war with Israel is the most substantial one. But it only applies to countries that share a border with Israel like Lebanon.
I would call it the Hezbollah argument: Israel has expansionist ambitions in our land and water resources, and it can wiggle its way out of the international community’s watchful eye. This is why we should have deterrence capabilities. But the question is, do you need to be at war with someone to have deterrence abilities? Switzerland has one of the world’s strongest armies, but it’s one of the most peaceful countries in the world.

In other words, it is time we threw behind us all the rhetoric and started thinking progressively. I applaud the brave Mr. Jarallah. He will produce a shockwave throughout the Arab world, but it will be a good shockwave. Next time though, he should write his article in Arabic.