Arabs Find Togetherness in Shared Fears

Ahmad Esmat Abdel Meguid, secretary-general of the Arab League, gestured to a map showing the vast sweep of one of the world’s oldest multinational organizations: from Morocco on the west coast of Africa to Oman at the eastern end of the Arabian Peninsula, a 4,000-mile stretch of territory inhabited by 200 million Arabs.

As he described it, they are one nation speaking one language, linked by history, culture and geography.

But as sheiks, kings, princes, presidents and prime ministers from 21 of the 22 Arab League member states arrived in Cairo for the first pan-Arab summit in six years today and Sunday, Meguid’s vision of Arab unity contained more hope than reality.

Arab diplomats admit privately that it took the surprise election of conservative Benjamin Netanyahu as Israeli prime minister to get their countries--all except Iraq, that is--to set aside their differences long enough to sit down together.

And before the summit started, it was unclear whether host Egypt would succeed in keeping the participants focused on the two official agenda items--the Middle East peace process and Arab cooperation--or whether side disputes such as the current squabbles between Syria and Jordan, Syria and Turkey, and Bahrain and Iran would end up dominating the meeting.

In either case, that the summit is taking place at all proves how much Netanyahu’s hairbreadth victory May 29 upset Arab assumptions.

Attempts for the past two years to bring together an Arab summit had foundered; this one was organized in two weeks.

Before the Israeli vote, most of the Arab world was banking on Labor Party leader Shimon Peres being elected to continue as Israel’s prime minister, and most believed that by the end of the final phase of Arab-Israeli talks Israel would come to accept the key Arab demands.

Instead, Arabs say they now face an Israeli leader who seems unequivocal in his “No’s” to what they had hoped to obtain: “No” to a Palestinian state, “No” to returning the Golan Heights to Syria, “No” to sharing or dividing Jerusalem, and “No” to the return of Palestinian refugees.

“The Arab regimes, especially the moderate regimes, are in a corner,” Egyptian commentator Mohammed Sid Ahmed said. “More than ever, they are vulnerable, because they have been identifying themselves with a peace process that may no longer be there. . . . The only thing that the Arabs have in their own hands is to come together.”

The dilemma facing Arab leaders is finding the right balance between acting concerned and acting tough.

For weeks, Arab newspapers have been filled with angry commentaries calling for a strong response to show that the Arab world is not going to roll over before the new Israeli government.

At the same time, the United States, the main sponsor of the peace process, has been urging moderation, warning Arabs to not do anything that would “close the door” on peace.

A draft communique approved at a pre-summit meeting by Arab foreign ministers Friday attempted to strike a middle course.

It proposed that the summit conclude with a firm challenge to Israel’s new leadership to “save the peace process” by clearly accepting the “land for peace” principle that has been the foundation of the Arab-Israeli negotiations since 1991.

In other words, summit organizers said, the Arabs will portray themselves as the defenders of the peace process and cast the Israelis as backsliders.

Anticipating the Arab position, Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister David Levy met Friday with Egypt’s ambassador in Tel Aviv and denied any change in Israel’s commitment to peace.

Unlike past Arab summits, this meeting is unlikely to result in denunciations and threats, diplomats said, now that the Arab countries have a consensus for pursuing peace.

“It is going to be a strong summit, and it’s going to give a clear message. But I would argue that it is going to give a positive message,” said Nabil Fahmy, Egypt’s assistant foreign minister for political affairs. “The Arabs understand that peace is the only option.”

Meguid agreed: “Let me say emphatically, we are not meeting against anybody. . . . We are offering them the road of peace--a just and comprehensive peace.”

At the same time, the diplomat said, it would be a “very serious mistake” for Netanyahu’s government to take Arab sentiments for granted: “Then peace will be very far away, and I don’t think this is beneficial for them, or the Arabs, or the Middle East.”

Ahmed Nafei, an Arab affairs analyst at the Ahram Institute in Cairo, outlined what the costs to Israel might be if Netanyahu refuses to negotiate seriously on “land for peace.” He said there would almost certainly be a slowdown or freeze in normalization among those countries that have already embarked on new relations.

Besides peace, the summit’s main thrust is supposed to be building Arab solidarity.

But the decision by conference organizers Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia to exclude Iraq suggest that unity is still a long way off.

Rifts have not healed since the Persian Gulf War, when most Arab League states sided with the U.S.-led alliance against Iraq.

The divisions mean that the Arab League had been unable to meet since its failed crisis session on Aug. 10, 1990, just days after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Iraq is not the only regional sore point.

In recent years, Syria has been angry with Jordan and with Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority for reaching separate peace deals with Israel; Egypt has accused Sudan’s Islamic government of sheltering anti-Egyptian terrorists; and Bahrain has been disturbed by Syria’s coziness with Iran--a non-Arab country that Bahrain holds responsible for an insurrection against its ruling dynasty.

More recently, Syria has accused Jordan of complicity with an alleged Turkish-Israeli military axis being put together against Damascus, while Jordan has accused Syria of sending terrorists to destabilize King Hussein’s rule.

At least the summit can start the process of repairing such disputes, Meguid said. “I see a rapprochement coming as a normal consequence for such a big gathering.”

As in any “family,” unity will prove elusive among Arabs, Fahmy predicted.

But if this weekend’s meeting manages to let off 5% of the steam, it is better than nothing.

“Why should you necessarily have Arab unity in every detail?” he asked. “Our initiative is based on the need to get the Arabs to work together, not necessarily that they have to say exactly the same thing.”