History has proven that states rise and states fall and only the tolerant and open survive long, writes Ammar Ali Hassan* The six decades that have passed since Zionists declared a state of their own upon the land of Palestine have been replete with pain and mirth, although this has only been a moment in the span of extended time, a blink of the eye in relation to all that humankind has experienced in the way of events. The long run of history has been full of states, princedoms and kingdoms that ruled until their necks reached the clouds and then expired or were killed off, nothing remaining but ruins and stories to be told. In the same place that the "State of Israel" was established, and in the surrounding, neighbouring areas, four Latin princedoms were established in the Middle Ages by the Crusaders during their first campaign against the East that began in 1097. They were the kingdom of Jerusalem and the princedoms of Antioch, Tripoli and Edessa, ruled by European princes who seized the land that "flowed with milk and honey," as the Torah says, and were under the clerical guidance of Pope Urban II. Prior to their advance upon the lands of the Muslims, Pope Urban II preached to them in a tone dripping with enthusiasm: "You tried to no avail to incite the flames of war and sedition amongst yourselves. Now, go and trouble the Barbarians, and free the Holy Land from the hands of the infidels and possess it for yourselves." Similar to the differences, discord, and conflicts between the Arabs when Zionist groups arrived to the land of Palestine at the beginning of the last century, and with the blessing of the English occupation, the political fragmentation of Arab and Seljuk rulers was at its greatest at the time the Crusaders' armies advanced upon their countries. These rulers were not fully aware of what was taking place, and they did not have the ability to evaluate the danger staring them in the face. They confronted the Crusaders split ethnically into Arabs and Turks, and split by school into Sunnis and Shias. Even the Shia Fatimids who ruled Egypt at that time did not offer to rescue the Sunni Seljuks from the Crusaders, but rather attempted to reach an understanding with them over the splitting of land and influence. The princedom of Edessa lasted for 46 years, until Emadeddin Zinki regained it in 1144. The rest of the Crusaders' princedoms sensed danger and called for help from the Pope and the kings of Europe. They answered their call and mobilised the second Crusaders' expedition in 1147, one that failed to a large extent. In 1149, Noureddin Zinki regained some of the cities in the Antioch princedom, but the Crusaders succeeded in annexing Ashkelon to the kingdom of Jerusalem in 1153, which remained a "Western entity planted in Arab land" until the victor Salaheddin Al-Ayyoubi was able to liberate it following the historic battle of Hattin on 3 and 4 July 1187. In other words, this kingdom lasted for about 90 years until its Western rule came to an end under the hooves of the Muslims' horses. Yet in the Crusaders' third campaign, pursuant to the Al-Ramla Treaty signed in 1197, Salaheddin left the Crusaders a narrow piece of the coast near Acre stretching from Tyre -- which until a few days ago Israel was striking -- to Haifa, which suffered greatly from Hizbullah's missiles. Although King Kamel was forced to concede Jerusalem to the fourth Crusaders' expedition that attacked the lands of the Muslims in 1228, Al-Saleh Ismail was able to regain it in 1239. He conceded it to the Crusaders again, however, and the people rose in fury and publicly denounced him, calling for the liberation of Jerusalem. They got what they wanted with the Khawarzamis, the successors of King Al-Saleh Nijimeddin Ayyoub, in 1244, and the holy city remained in Arab hands until World War I. As for the Antioch princedom, it was the strongest of the Crusader entities in the Levant due to material and moral support from Europe, and contracting an agreement with the Moguls against the Muslims, until Baybars returned it as property of the East. During the reign of Qalaun, the Egyptians succeeded in regaining the princedom of Tripoli, the last of the Crusader entities in our countries, after it had lasted for more than a century and a half. This historical narrative seeks to present a clear example that the Arab body was always capable of spitting out any Western morsels. This occurred repeatedly in ancient history as well, and has been seen in other regions of the world too. When the French occupation succeeded in establishing entities in West Africa, for example, they soon collapsed at the hands of Sufis and revolutionaries. The same thing occurred, in an unmistakable manner, in South Africa, where the black majority succeeded in wresting their historical rights and defeating white racism and arrogance. These historical traditions are not at all far removed from the "State of Israel" as long as it remains insistent on practicing the harshest degrees of racism against its non- Jewish residents and obvious discrimination between Jews themselves on the basis of their place of birth. The Ashkenazim who came from Europe have preference over the Sephardim who emigrated from the lands of the East, and both are better off than the Falasha Jews whom Tel Aviv brought from Ethiopia in the mid-1980s. I believe that the point of transformation on the path of the fate of Israel will form around three changes. The first is for Israel to no longer be simply an army surrounded by a state, and to give up practicing the most abominable forms of violence and hatred against its neighbours and original Arab landowners, both Muslim and Christian. This will not take place until Israel is incapable of defeating its neighbours and loses the support of major powers -- like that of the English and French when their countries ruled the world, and the unprecedented support it receives today from the sole superpower of our present world, the United States. Since the Jews have for centuries had an instinct that has always made them rush to ally with strong powers, any change in the international structure not to the favour of America could put Tel Aviv in a lower position in terms of "image" and "strength," forcing it to return what it has plundered from the Arabs following prolonged obstinacy. The second change will be Israel's inability to continue practicing racism against its Arab citizens, akin to what happened in South Africa. If this occurs due to the rising demographic strength of Arabs so that they form a majority or half of the state, or even slightly less, the possibility of the globally unparalleled religious basis of the State of Israel receding is great. Simply put, this means that the Jews would again be part of an Arab state, just as they were before immigration to Israel. This possibility is not far-fetched for a few decades from now if we take into consideration the dwindling birth rates of Jews in comparison with Muslims and Christians in Israel, as well as the growing likelihood of decreasing immigration rates to Israel and increasing emigration from it. This has become clear during the recent war the Israeli army has waged against Hizbullah. The third change is the wearing away of Israel's capabilities due to the military pressure on it from its neighbours, the splitting apart of its society, and the rising influence of Jews opposed to Zionism, as well as those who view the establishment of a state for the Jews counter to the teachings of the Torah. At some point, then, there may be astonishing numbers of Israelis themselves wishing to emigrate to Europe, America, or elsewhere, especially if the Arabs are able, at some point in the future, to ensure a crushing military defeat of Israel. States are born and grow healthily, and then age and die. God rotates the days among people, but few learn. Everyone is pulled by his will until the final moment comes and they regret what they have done with their own hands. Regret, however, is never of use. * The writer is director of the Centre for Research and Middle East Studies, Cairo.
