The linguistic, conceptual, and cultural aspects that distance the negotiating parties are greater than the complex negotiations that have been taking place for years in the Middle East. For years, political leadership and public opinion in the West have shown their ignorance when talking about the Islamic Arab world.
Regardless of the fact that the language of the negotiations is English, each party in the process thinks in its mother tongue and, consciously or unconsciously, negotiates through its own idiosyncrasy and cultural bias. The various U.S. administrations have shown little understanding of what goes on in the minds of Palestinians, Persian-Iranians, or the rest of the Islamic Arab world. The concepts, language, and worldview in that world are diametrically different and opposed to what the West imagines or perceives.
A very current example is the use of the term ceasefire, a central concept of vital importance in the search for peace that seems so distant according to the facts and the current crisis between Washington, Tehran, and Jerusalem, where each involved party uses this word, but for each one, it takes on a different meaning and cultural connotations.
In English, as understood by Americans, the term ceasefire means the complete end by one party of any activity that a second party may interpret as aggressive. In Hebrew, the term is translated as Hafsakat esh. For Israelis, ceasefire means: “Palestinians must stop all attacks against them, but if Israel has knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack, it can and must act to prevent it”. In Arabic, the term used to define the ceasefire and the truce is Hudna, and for Muslims, whether Palestinian Sunnis or Iranian Shiites, it means: “temporary cessation of hostilities and/or escalation of hostilities against a real enemy until it can be defeated in the future”. These differences are enough to undermine any agreement that could be reached.
It is very important for Western public opinion to know that in the Arabic language, there are three types of peace agreements (Hudna, Atwah, and Sulha). All these words have their origin in the tribal law of the Islamic Arab world.
The Hudna is a fundamental principle recognized by every believer. It is a legal concept applied to tribes. It is something temporary, the hudna is used as a vehicle to achieve the next step defined as Atwah, a commitment timeless or of a longer duration. A definitive peace agreement is not reached until the next step is achieved.
The most famous hudna took place in 628 AD when the prophet Mohammad signed peace with the elders of Medina in the city of Huday Biyyah. The agreement reached lasted 9 years, 9 months, and 9 days. Two years later, Mohammad broke the pact and attacked, destroying and defeating tribal leaders. This story from the Quran teaches Islamic followers two important lessons: I) That a Muslim can sign an agreement with non-Muslims when at a disadvantage and that agreement benefits them, and II) That after having revitalized and strengthened, they can break the agreement.
This is the Quranic or Islamic version of the Trojan Horse, where the gift can become a catalyst for defeat. In Arab-Islamic history (including Arabs living in Israel), the 1949 Armistice Agreements signed in Rhodes between Israel and its warring Muslim Arab neighbors are considered a time of Hudna. In English, the same treaty is called armistice and in Hebrew hafsakat esh.
In September 1993, leaders Bill Clinton, Yasser Arafat, and Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo Accords at the White House. This was presented as an important step toward peace. A month later, in Cape Town, Yasser Arafat referred to the Oslo Accords as the Huday Biyyah pact. All who heard and understood these words spoken in Arabic knew that the significance of Arafat's expressions was a hudna, an agreement made to be broken at the right moment.
In peace negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, history has taught the West that the parties involved in a ceasefire is much more than a word meant to sincerely achieve peace, as well as the misleading and fraudulent nature of the tribal linguistic approaches in the honorable pursuit they claim to seek.
*Professor George Chaya is a Senior Advisor on Middle Eastern affairs in National Security and an expert in OSINT based in Washington DC, USA.
Comments