Seated on low cushions under a tent on Harbin Patio, people wait for food to arrive, but in typical Israeli fashion, things are running late. Suddenly, there are visitors outside. I invite them to come in, but they are apparently here to protest.
Last week both the Georgetown Israel Alliance and the Students for Justice in Palestine offered the campus community a series of events relevant to their nations. Most interesting, however, was the fact that these events made each party’s radically different approaches painfully obvious. While GIA saw the situation as one of “Dangers and Opportunities” and encouraged coexistence and dialogue, SJP saw it as “Resisting Injustice” and focused on fighting and organizing a “resistance.”
This was epitomized by the Arab Culture Club’s rejection of an invitation to join the list of co-sponsors for last week’s Bedouin Tent Party (co-sponsored by Georgetown Hillel and the Middle East Dialogue and Listening Initiative), as well as the decision by SJP to hold a similar event at the same time. The catch, however, was that in contrast to our “Middle Eastern” party, theirs was advertised as “Arab.”
The Bedouin Tent Party, as the participation of MEDLI demonstrates, was conceived as an opportunity to show the campus community an aspect of Israeli society and culture that is shared by the other countries in the Middle East. After all, Bedouins are Arab nomads who inhabit many of the countries in the region. Israel is no exception. Bedouin tribes live in both the north and the south of Israel and, while proud Arabs, they are also proud Israelis: they serve in the army, in the police and even in the Foreign Ministry.
How this event, which had the potential to foster tolerance and cultural exchange, could be turned into fuel for more political friction is beyond my understanding. However, for the Arab groups who declined our invitation to co-sponsor, who came to our table in Red Square and who stopped by the party to distribute information sheets, it makes perfect sense: the majority of the Arabs (at least those who are organized and vocal) simply do not see Israel as a legitimate part of the region. This is, interestingly, a mirror image of the reality outside of campus and shows the real reason for the lack of peace between Israelis and Arabs in this 57-year old conflict: a total refusal to recognize and accept Israel as a rightful and genuine member of the Middle East.
Two of the three countries that dared to defy this principle now enjoy full peace treaties with Israel. The other, Mauritania, though never engaged in a war with Israel that would require a treaty, also considers it a member of the Middle East. In 1994, King Hussein of Jordan and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin signed a peace treaty between their nations. In 1977, Anwar Sadat, in an unprecedented move, went to Jerusalem to address the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, and accepted negotiations to end the conflict between Israel and Egypt. Despite some harsh words, this gesture truly showed acceptance and was a fundamental pillar of the peace treaty of 1979. These unparalleled examples, however, have indeed proven to be exceptions. They are the only three countries of the 22 members of the Arab League who have reciprocated this recognition.
With the Bedouin Tent Party, we wanted to foster such acceptance, but apparently our hopes were misplaced. For those who believe in the unifying power of culture, this rejection comes as a big blow. This disappointment was reinforced during my conversation with a member of the Arab community who came to our table. She informed us that our event was “offensive” to many members of her community and that we were engaging in “cultural sabotage.” To her, it seems that the division between Israeli and Middle Eastern, between Jewish and Arab, is crystal clear. Something cannot be Israeli and Middle Eastern at the same time because she cannot acknowledge Israel as a legitimate neighbor. The idea that Israeli and Middle Eastern cultures share a common heritage is also inconceivable to her. Even less comprehensible is the thought of a Bedouin Arab as a proud citizen of Israel who also contributes to the country’s overall culture.
She also failed to consider those Jews of Arab descent who, like my grandparents, were driven out of their countries. Dispossessed of their property, they managed to keep their culture alive and brought their linguistic expressions and culinary traditions to their new homes in Israel and the Diaspora. Based on our visitor’s view of the region, however, their cultural traditions should also have been confiscated as Jews were exiled, lest Israeli and Diaspora Jews be accused of “cultural sabotage.” This, quite frankly, is very depressing. After all, if Arabs cannot accept Jews of Arab descent like me, who make up more than half of the Israeli Jewish population and who share their culture, how are they going to accept a country as diverse as Israel, which is made up of people of Arab, European, Russian, Ethiopian, Jewish, Muslim and Christian origins, among others?
The current moment in the Middle East gives me a lot of hope but also a lot of anxiety. There seems to be a window of opportunity to try, once again, that bumpy road of negotiations and finally achieve some results. If we have learned anything from the past, it should be that we are all here to stay, that we are all part of the same region and that we even have some things in common that should facilitate our coexistence. However, as this simple co-sponsoring rejection suggests, and as the emphasis on resistance indicates, it seems likely that nothing will change.
