Excerpts from the book: The Region: What is It and Where is It Going?
1. There are strange things going on in the region.
We notice direct and indirect activities; whose aims are obvious or secret and whose meanings are clear or obscure. We hear contradictory statements and paradoxical predictions. This is a proof that the region is stirring and that important events will occur in the very near future.
The Region: What is it and where is It Going? 3rd edition p. 10
2. Even in the worst of cases, the Security Council's resolution guarantees the Zionist aggression important gains. At the same time, it does not, in practice, impose on it a commitment to withdraw from positions it has acquired through aggression. There is no example in ancient or modem history of an occupying force that has made a «gift» of its withdrawal.
3. Before the aggression, American interests were the most far-reaching and dangerous imperialist interests in the region. Now, five and a half years later, we find that these interests have grown and intensified, even in the countries, which submitted to aggression.
4. The wise "advice" of a few Arab politicians will not persuade American imperialism to withdraw. American imperialism will not abandon its present position, and it will not "force" the Zionist enemy to turn back unless, obviously, it is forced to, or if "abandoning its present position" yields better results than those obtained by support for the Zionist enemy.
5. Whoever decides to lead a battle must foresee the worst and take it into account, for the possibility of victory does not lie in the joyful hypotheses encouraged by enormous reserves.
6. The chasm between the Arab population and a number of their regimes has not disappeared, it has on the contrary become more and more profound and menacing. In most of the Arab countries, the people are deprived of their most elementary democratic rights.
This state of affairs can only paralyze the leaders and make them incapable of leading a long and victorious battle.
The articles assembled and presented in the work Pertinent problems and questions were published in the newspaper «AI- Thawra» between November 7 and 27, 1973.
The region: what is it and where is it going? Is an appropriate introduction for this kind of book?
The region: what is it and where is it going? Is neither a collection of prophecies, which are being fulfilled in the Arab land, a number of opinions on the events of October 6 and the following days, or a series of conjectures?
This book is very simply a rigorous mathematical analysis, based on tangible truths, first hand data, and an analysis of the developments which inevitably brought «clashes» of arms and «thawing» operations such as those of October.
Many have undertaken such a scientific analysis, inspired by the history of a people who have known liberation movements, their experiences, the realities of the Arab nation, its potential, and the ancient and modern history of the region. They have traced the path that led to liberation and the recovery of the dignity of a nation that had been humiliated and assaulted by a series of schemes and plots, which began before 1948 and continue to this day.
Today, we are trapped in a web of events: the execution of plots in Palestine which consecrate the existence of Zionism and its rape of the Arab land, the denial of the rights of the Palestinian people, and «Arab» recognition of what the press and other news media term «a just and lasting peace». Despite this trap, there are a few voices, which rise in defiance of the confederates, the protagonists, the actors and the directors. They cry:
"Why?"
Why all this?
While the latter hold their ears and pursue their «game», l50 million Arabs fix their eyes more intently one scene, for they know intuitively that the vilest of plots is being prepared and that to «play» in this way is like playing with fire.
*****
More than six years have passed since the aggression of June 1967, which resulted in, among other things, the occupation of Egyptian and Syrian territories and the part of Palestinian territory, which had not already been annexed to the kingdom of Jordan. On October 6, 1973, after this long period, the Egyptian and Syrian governments launched a full-scale war against the Zionist enemy with the rallying cry "liberation of occupied land".
On October 22, 1973, on the concerted initiative of the United States and the Soviet Union, the Security Council voted a resolution establishing a cease-fire and asking for the implementation of resolution 242 which it had voted in 1967. The two super powers, the United Nations and the Security Council offered their guarantees. The Egyptian government accepted this resolution the same day, but the Syrian government only agreed to the second resolution, and not until two days later, on October 24. However, it should be noted that the second resolution is essentially based on the one of 1967.
The Arab populations, our brothers in the Egyptian and Syrian governments and our friends in the world know our opinion of resolutions 242 of 1967 and the one of 1973, which we explained our motives for, rejecting.
They also know our point of view on imperialist Zionist aggression and the best way to confront it. We have explained this on numerous occasions and in many ways, and will not repeat here arguments we have already advanced. We do propose to make an effort to debate questions we consider fundamental by looking at them in light of some realistic and self-evident factors.
The factors, which, to our way of thinking, will not provoke any disagreement among the above, mentioned parties are: patriotism, Arab solidarity and realistic assumptions about the situation in the Arab countries and in the world.
No one will deny the importance of the aggression of June 1967, or its impact on the situation in directly affected countries, the Arab land, the entire region, and international affairs.
We do not wish to question the right of the states directly affected to try to eliminate the after effects of the aggression by any means they consider fit. We do not wish to deny that international organizations and the great powers necessarily have a point of view to express, a role to play and pressure to exercise in the conflict. However, we think that there are two fundamental aspects of the problem, which must not be neglected.
1. The aggression of June 1967, albeit very important, is not the <<origin>> of the acute and explosive conflict in the Arab region. The origin of this extremely complex and serious problem lies in the usurpation of a part of the Palestine soil by Zionism, and the creation of a colonial and expansionist entity, intimately bound to imperialist aims in the region and constituting an enormous obstacle to the liberation, unity and progress of our nation.
The Arab nation has risen against the Zionist usurpation; it has refused to recognize it and has mobilized all of its liberating and progressive forces to fight it in many ways and at many levels. In reality, the June 1967 aggression is only a consequence of the original problem, even if it demonstrates the amplitude and tragic nature of the problem.
The June 1967 aggression was only a consequence of a more basic problem, and we are convinced that without resolving the basic problem equitably and on a global scale we cannot reach a settlement of the so-called regional problem and for this reason, despite all efforts, guarantees and forces in place, will not establish what the interested parties like to call a just and lasting peace in the region. Thus, the situation will remain explosive and the region subject to conflicts, which will break out sooner or later.
2. To admit that the governments of Arab regions directly affected by the June ’67 aggression have the right to try to recover their occupied territories by what they consider adequate means raises the following points:
A. Any patriotic government of a country that has been subjected do foreign occupation will try to put an end to this occupation without abandoning any part of its national territory, no matter what its strategic and economic value, for the integrity of national soil has been one of the most cherished human values for centuries. We are also correct when we say that a government, which abandons any part of its national territory, has lost many of its patriotic values. It is thus normal that the people in question reject this attitude and revolt against the agreements that sanction this abuse. It is equally normal for countries whose bonds to these people are like national bonds and national political forces that sympathize with these people to give their point of view and take a stand.
B. On the basis of considerations such as "Arab solidarity", the governments of the countries which had been occupied or been the object of the ‘67 aggression must try to make the retreat of the enemy total, and under no circumstances accept a partial withdrawal that would leave another country’s territories occupied. We must not forget that all of these states fought under the same command in 1967, and two of them fought together in 1973. We are also not mistaken when we say that any harm done to any one of the parties directly involved in the compromise” will undoubtedly provoke disagreement between the governments in question as well as between different states in the region. In fact, any such wrongdoing would engender problems which other parts of the region —sister parts— could not ignore and which would force them to take certain stands.
The result of either of the possibilities mentioned in paragraphs A and B would be the same, for according to a realistic analysis based on the history of humanity and the history of the region, no compromise whatsoever can be guaranteed, for compromise does not have the essential and universally recognized elements which are necessary for a lasting and just peace. This is true no matter what the various theories on and conceptions of peace are.
There is another question of capital importance for nationalist and realistic points of view. If governments whose territories were occupied in June ‘67 have the right to seek to put an end to this occupation by means they consider adequate, they do not, in our opinion, have the right to accept the recognition of the Zionist entity as either and element of a solution or compromise meant to remedy the effects of aggression, or as one of the prices to be paid.
To recognize the Zionist entity is to recognize the Zionist usurpation of an Arab territory, Palestine. This considered in light of regional sovereignty and Arab solidarity (not to mention the national factor) is not within the jurisdiction of any Arab government. In addition, recognition cannot be justified without taking into account the role that the state taking the initiative played in the October war or preceding conflicts.
According to the Arab conception of right, the Zionist entity is not simply an ‘enemy state’, which can be recognized and with which relations can be established after hostile relations have been transformed or disappeared —as has been the case among us, among Great Britain and France, and generally, among the nations of the world. We are confronted by a usurping entity, imported, imposed on the Arabs by force, and established on a part of their national soil. The result has been the dispersion of the people who live in this territory, the Palestinian Arabs. It is thus natural for the Arabs not to recognize this entity. Once this has been given, it is up to the governments or different Arab forces to decide whether or not to fight the Zionist entity. This is their problem, and they must take the responsibility for it.
We are not mistaken when we say that recognition of the Zionist existence on one part of the Arab soil, no matter what its area, does not differ in principle or result from the recognition of the usurpation of other Arab territories, including the ones occupied at present. The matter never becomes more than relative; in other words, the basic question is the amount of national soil that governments in power in any country will permit the enemy to usurp.
This is the truth.
It is essential to discuss this point further, even if it leads to certain verbosity. In the 1950’s, France still occupied Algeria and pretended that this country was part of French soil. In 1956, France, Great Britain and the Zionist entity together attacked Egypt and occupied part of its territory.
This is the question: if, at this time, France with the aid of any group of nations, had made its withdrawal from Egypt conditional on Arab and Egyptian recognition of Algeria as a part of French soil, would Egypt or any of the Arab countries have accepted such a demand? The logical answer is no, for the French occupation of Egypt was the result of aggression, and it was up to Egypt, its Arab brothers and its friends in the world to put an end to this occupation, the British occupation and the Zionist occupation by any means they considered fit. However, it was not their place to recognize the right of France to usurp Algerian territory and to transform Algeria’s reality as a nation in return for withdrawal.
Similarly, we do not think that it is up to any Arab government or any group of countries to accept Zionist withdrawal from Egyptian, Syrian or Jordanian territories (according to the official order) on the condition that the Zionist entity is recognized.
We insist again that this discussion is based on criteria of respect for the liberty of every government to choose their means to resolve their national problems and on the consideration of Arab solidarity, which is fitting for all of us. We do not want to question the present undertakings of our brother Arab governments now. There will be other occasions and another logic for that discussion.
However, we do insist on asking this question: what are the limits of their present ventures? If these boundaries are within the framework of their rights, patriotic powers, and the principles of nationalism and Arab solidarity, we wish them success. But if their efforts go beyond these rights and political powers to the great national concern of whether or not to recognize the Zionist usurpation of any part of Arab soil whatsoever, and if the cession of a part of Arab soil in Palestine leads to the abandonment of any Arab territories belonging to any other countries.
These are the great questions.