Tarek
Heggy - طارق حجـى
110 Al-Sayed Al Merghani Street, Heliopolis, Cairo,
Egypt
Office: (00202)
6901020/30/40/50, Fax: (00202) 6901060
E-mail:
Heggy@heggy.org
Tarekheggy@hotmail.com
----------------------------------
Tarek
Heggy is both a leading liberal political thinker in the Arab world and
International Petroleum Strategist. His work, which has been published
internationally in English and Arabic, advances the causes of modernity,
democracy, tolerance, and women’s rights in the Middle East – advocating them
as universal values essential to the region’s progress.
Professionally,
Tarek Heggy is a world-renown expert in Natural Gas and has written about the
Middle East’s Natural Gas plans in relation to its political and economic
future.
Tarek
Heggy has written thirteen books and hundreds of essays, many of which have
also appeared in Egypt’s leading publications. He has lectured at universities
worldwide, including Princeton, Columbia, and UC-Berkeley. He is also a regular
guest on Arabic television and radio.
Professional
Experience:
·
Chairman and Executive
Director of the National Centre for Middle East studies (1/1/2005).
·
Founder, Tana Petroleum
Middle East Co., a UK-based oil production company with a business portfolio in
the UK and Egypt (1998).
·
Shell International
Advisor for the Middle East (1996-1998).
·
Chairman of Shell
Companies in Egypt (1988-1996).
·
Chief Petroleum
Agreements Negotiator (1979-1988).
·
Member of the Board of
Directors of numerous Oil producing companies (1988-2004).
· Lecturer at the Faculty of Juridical, Economic and Political Sciences of the University of Fez, Morocco (1971– 1979).
Professional
Memberships:
Tarek
Heggy is a member, board member and a trustee of over thirty Organizations,
Universities, and Societies. Following are examples of some current and former
associations:
• Member of the
Advisory Board of the RAND Organization "Centre for Middle East Public
Policy" of the initiative for
Middle Eastern Youth (IMEY) (http://www.rand.org/nsrd/cmepp/imey/advisory.html#heggy).
• Egypt Supreme Culture
Council.
• The Egyptian Society for Historic Studies.
• MSA University (Cairo, Egypt).
• The Faculty of Economics and Political Sciences of Cairo University.
• The Middle East Research Centre of Ain Shams University (Cairo).
• The Arab Management Society.
• Egypt Bar Association.
• Egypt Writers Association.
Education:
Tarek
Heggy studied Law and Comparative Law at Ain Shams University (Cairo) and
Modern Management Techniques at the International Management Institute
(formerly “IMI’ and currently “IMD” – Switzerland).
The Arab-Israeli
Conflict
Between Reason and Hysteria. (*)
-A-
There are those in the Arab world today who do
not recognize Israel’s right to exist in the first place, and whose ultimate
aim is its destruction. Despite our complete rejection of their logic and the
premises from which they proceed, and our conviction that they have set
themselves a goal that is not only unattainable but one that will bring about
unimaginable loss and destruction, we will content ourselves here with merely
expressing our profound disagreement with their viewpoint, without resorting to
the mud-slinging tactics they do not hesitate to use against whoever disagrees
with them. We want to state for the record that, on the one hand, their logic
is seriously flawed and that, on the other, they are, thankfully, in the
minority. The vast majority in the Arab world, at the grass roots level and at
the level of political movements and organizations, favours a settlement along
the lines of the Arab initiative endorsed by the latest Arab summit in Beirut.
Initially launched by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, it was previously
known as the Saudi initiative. In other words, the majority of Arabs would like
to see a final settlement based, either in absolute or relative terms, on the
following five points:
1-
The creation of a Palestinian state on all or most of the
territory occupied by Israel in June 1967.
2-
The establishment of a capital for the Palestinian state
in Arab Jerusalem, and an end to Israeli control over important Muslim and
Christian holy places.
3-
A unanimous Arab recognition of Israel, an end to the
state of hostility and the establishment of normal political, economic and
cultural relations between the Arabs and Israel.
4-
Removing all Jewish settlements from the Palestinian
state, which are a tinder-box waiting for a spark.
5-
Solving the issue of Palestinian return in a
manner acceptable to both parties, not on the basis of the absolute right of
return but on the basis of a set of compromise solutions (and indemnity
agreements) agreeable to both parties.
It is to this majority
that the present article is addressed. If the vision outlined above is acceptable,
it follows that political negotiations conducted around an agenda made up of
the five points proposed as the basis for a settlement are the only way to end
this bloody conflict. It also follows that if the Israelis are not ready to
conduct peaceful negotiations, the Palestinians are entitled to resort to armed
struggle to bring an end to the occupation and achieve their national
aspirations.
However, I believe the
right to armed struggle is subject to limitations, the most important being
that it be directed against the occupation forces, a limitation that was
strictly observed in the first Palestinian intifada. Overstepping the limits
and focusing on suicide operations against civilians inevitably swells the
ranks of Israeli refuseniks opposed to a peaceful settlement; it also erodes
international sympathy for the Palestinian cause and alienates global players
who might otherwise have played a more forceful role.
As I write this
article, the BBC has just broadcast a statement by a group of prominent Palestinian
intellectuals, including Hanan Ashrawi, condemning the suicide attacks in
principle, and accusing them not only of not serving the Palestinian struggle
but of provoking a backlash detrimental to the Palestinians. This viewpoint is
shared by most of the Palestinian intelligentsia, whether those in the diaspora
or those who did not leave their towns and villages since 1948, who are now
known as Israeli Arabs.
-B-
In my opinion, and notwithstanding
the unforgivable excesses and atrocities committed by the Israeli side, the
Arab side urgently needs to make a sober reappraisal of its positions and
policies and to realize that years of allowing itself to be driven by passion,
years during which it suspended its critical faculties and turned its back on
reason and common sense, has sucked it into a vortex of tragic losses and
missed opportunities. For example, if reason had prevailed in 1947, the Arabs
would have accepted the Partition Plan; if it had prevailed in 1948, they would
not have been led into a war by leaders who knew, or should have known, that
the outcome of a military confrontation would not be in their favour.
Similarly, creating a
climate that led to the 1967 war was far from rational. We are still reeling
from the devastating effects of that war, still scrambling to recover part of
what the Arab side lost in less than one fateful week in June 1967. Lack of
reasoned judgment, of the ability to make a sober assessment of political
imperatives, manifested itself once again with the stand taken by most of the
Arab world against Anwar Sadat in the late nineteen seventies. It was also
evident in Yasser Arafat’s decision to abort the efforts made in Taba in early
2001 to work out an acceptable and balanced framework for a final settlement,
when common sense dictated that he accept what was on offer in principle while
announcing that a number of issues remained unresolved.
This aversion to
allowing considerations of rationality and wisdom to prevail is one of the main
reasons why Sharon and his like-minded cohorts were able to come to power in
Israel in February 2001, running on a platform that defies all modern political
norms. For they represent a political ideology predicated on theological
considerations running counter to all that humanity has achieved, invoking what
they call ‘religious rights’ and others see as beliefs rooted in mythology and
legend to pursue what is clearly a political agenda.
In focusing on Arab
mistakes and miscalculations, I am in no way absolving the Israelis of blame
for missed opportunities. A great deal can be said about the number of times
Israel has slammed the window of opportunity shut, the way it has seized every
chance it could to abort any settlement, starting with Ben Gurion in the early
fifties up to Sharon half a century later. But our concern here is with our own
mistakes; for it is only by correcting those mistakes that we can hope to move
forward.
-C-
To that end, we must
first review the file of how the Arabs have been dealing with the Arab-Israeli
conflict from the nineteen forties to the present day in order to avoid
repeating the same mistakes. An objective and neutral person looking through
the file will discover that the position adopted by the Arab communist parties
in 1947 (as well as by a number of prominent Egyptian politicians like Ismail
Sidki and Hussein Heikal, even by Mahmoud Fahmy el Nokrashy before he too
succumbed to the war fever, and by the renowned thinker and writer Taha Hussein
as defined in his literary review, “The Egyptian Writer”) was the most rational
and sensible position, even though we all attacked it in the past.
A review of the file will also lead to
the inescapable conclusion that the Palestinians are in dire need of a new
leadership that is very different in terms of background and educational and
cultural formation from the cadre that came back from Tunisia after Oslo. Not
only does the current leadership have a dismal record of missed opportunities,
but it has been instrumental in reinforcing the status of the Israeli right. To
watch the members of the current leadership spouting the resounding slogans of
which they are so enamored is to realize that they are fossils from another
age, exactly like the representatives of the extreme right in Israel, some of
whom are even more out of step with the times.
It is essential for
the countries sharing common borders with Israel-Lebanon, Syria, Jordan,
Palestine and Egypt- to realize that ending the Arab-Israeli conflict is the
gateway through which they need to go before overcoming the many other problems
they are facing, the only way they can embark on a process of democratic
reform, economic development and social peace and not fall prey to forces
opposed to education, civilization and modernity, indeed, to the values of
progress in general. Long before the conflict attained its present unmanageable
proportions, that is precisely what the Egyptian Marxists were advocating in
1947 and 1948. We condemned them for their stand, but we now know that theirs
was the voice of reason. As we see the predictions they made at the time
turning into reality before our eyes, we can only admit that they were among
the few whose vision was rational and far-sighted.
-D-
The time has come to
translate this vision into reality. This can only come about if Arab public
opinion is made to see that the five points outlined at the beginning of this
article, which are the essence of the initiative endorsed by the Arab summit in
Beirut, are a matter of life or death for the region. The Arab public must be
made to realize the dangers of blindly following the school of ‘big talk’ which
has cost the countries and peoples of the region dearly and which is capable of
costing them even more if they continue to follow slogans which, though
apparently nationalistic or religious, are in essence an invitation to remain
in thrall to a conflict that is destroying the very fabric of our societies.
-E-
To that end, we need
to focus on forming new generations driven by reason rather than by volcanic
passions fuelled by voices which give themselves the right to speak in the name
of religion or nationalism. It is a task that is rendered all the more
difficult by the victim mentality that has developed in our part of the world,
where a deep conviction has built up over the last few decades in the minds of
many that everything negative in their lives is the result of conspiracies
hatched against them by the outside world. True, conflict and competition are
facts of life, and the annals of history are rife with conspiracies. But what
is certain is that our responsibility for the negative aspects of our life is
far greater than that of anyone else.
What is also certain is that the world
is not made up exclusively of wolves waiting to pounce on us. Here we must have
the courage to ask ourselves an important question: Four decades ago, India,
China, Japan and Russia (the Soviet Union at the time) supported us on many
issues, including the Arab-Israeli conflict. Today, these countries are not
only no longer as close to us as they once were, but have moved closer to
Israel than ever before. Why is that? The answer to that question holds the key
to a solution of many of our problems. Most societies are concerned today with
improving their lot by optimizing their potential in all areas: industry,
construction, services, economic life and social welfare. We, for our part, are
locked in a time warp.
We alone continue to
talk in the language of the Cold War, not realizing that no-one today can
remain in a cave isolated from the rest of the world. We must wake up from the
dream that any country can be important outside its own borders without first
ensuring that it is internally strong, stable and solid and without
contributing to the march of history. Any country that is weak on the domestic
front can only be weak on the international front; there can be no exceptions
to this rule.
-F-
It is all too easy to
get caught up in the big talk syndrome, to succumb to the resounding slogans and
impossible, not to say illogical, demands made by those who pass themselves off
as warriors battling against impossible odds, when in fact they are nothing but
false prophets drawing the gullible into a net of false hopes and dreams. The
worst of it is that it is not they who bear the consequences of their
irresponsible talk, but the destitute denizens of the refugee camps. What is
more difficult is to adopt a position based on reason, common sense and a
realistic assessment of the situation, and which does not involve making
enemies of influential parties capable of affecting the course of events. Big
talk deals with impressions and generalities, common sense with facts and
specifics. The record of the former is abysmal; the latter can be the way to a
brighter future.
- In conclusion -
I am well aware that
in writing this article I am inviting trouble. The self-appointed knights in
shining armour riding on their steeds of big words and empty slogans will rush to
fire their arrows of insults against my person and accusations against my
integrity. For personal defamation is the fate of all who dare to cross them,
regardless of whether their proposals have any merit.
This will not deter
me, however, from calling on Arab public opinion and on those responsible for
shaping it to turn their backs on meaningless slogans in favour of reason and
common sense. It is all too easy to play to the gallery, to tell people what
they want to hear.
But the task of any
intellectual who is consistent with himself is not to pander to his readers but
to write what he believes can contribute to creating a future better than the
dark days our region has lived through for over half a century by suspending
its critical faculties and allowing meaningless slogans rather than rationality
to shape its destiny.
(*) The original
English version of this article was published at “Watani” newspaper on 7th July
2002.
------------------------------------------------