ISRAELI TIME IS NOT JORDANIAN TIME - 28-Dec-94

(Article by Jacques Neriah, "Yediot Ahronot", Dec 28, 1994, p. B5)

Not long ago, I took my first trip to Jordan. I could not help but compare it to my first trip to Egypt following the signing of the peace agreement with it in March 1979. There the atmosphere was saturated with tension, the stares were hostile, you could feel that the time was not appropriate for an official visit and that then Prime Minister Menachem Begin had forced himself on his guest, Anwar Sadat. During the visit to Jordan, there was no hostility, but neither were there high spirits.

Nevertheless, what are the similarities between the peace with Egypt and Jordan? This question is connected to another question: have we learned anything from our efforts to make peace with the Arabs?

Not really. Maybe this is because our longing for peace has led us to take leave of our senses, maybe because we do not understand our neighbors' reservations and understand even less their lack of desire to normalize relations with us now. We now seek, immediately, open borders for trade and tourism, diplomatic relations with embassies, flags, youth exchanges, art, culture, and what not. To our neighbors' reservations about normalizing relations at our pace, we express impatience, and express a failure to understand and translate their reluctance as the failure of the process, as disappointment at the peace.

It is difficult for most of us to come to terms with the Arabs' stubbornness regarding everything which is on the land (the strongest complaints against King Hussein today is that he "traded in land"), since we were taught over the years to think in terms of comparing the large expanses in which our neighbors live, with the narrow piece of land on which we run our national lives. We were taught to think that the Arabs have an alternative, whereas Israel does not. We were taught to think that the Arabs are one unit, and that they fight and make up like a couple of lovers.

There is a certain naivety in our approach to politics. There are no gray areas whoever is not with is automatically against us. For this reason we are driven, driven to have peace, as we try at any price to compensate for the past by running madly ahead, without understanding the processes which are occurring on the other side, and without considering their feelings.

But now, we must look at the picture differently: so long as the Palestinian problem remains unsolved, our neighbors will not come to terms with normalization. As long as there is no peace with Syria and Lebanon, and as long as the Jerusalem and refugee issues are not solved, we will not be able to complete the delicate jewelry-making work of making peace. In order for it to have vitality, the peace must be comprehensive. It is important that we know that peace requires us to make territorial and functional concessions, but at the same time requires our neighbors to come to terms with our existence and with the process of reconciliation, which would break down many psychological barriers.

We must remember that not every Arab country is like Egypt, which due to its size and strength was able to stand up to widespread opposition from the Arab world, its natural place, and to pay a price which Lebanon, for example, would not be able to permit itself. Therefore, after Arafat and King Hussein joined the circle of peace, it is the Israelis' responsibility to strengthen Arafat by stabilizing the political framework in which he finds himself, and to act with extreme caution towards King Hussein so as not to spoil things as we did with Lebanon. Our ears must be alert to even the slightest sound concerning the Palestinians' support of the agreements with Israel and the criticism and reservations heard from Jordan.