Edition 39 Volume 4 - October 19, 2006
The Arab League initiative
• The Arabs can do better -
Yossi Alpher
The Israeli public cannot help but wonder how sincere Abdullah and Musa are about their plan.
• Stripping Israel of excuses -
Daoud Kuttab
This is exactly the kind of plan that everyone can agree to. It is what negotiators call a win-win situation.
• The US is the key -
an interview withNawaf Obaid
The initiative is the only viable basis the Arab world is willing to negotiate on.
• An American view -
Tom Pickering
Buried in the initiative, but not too deeply, is the notion that the US needs to take a more active role in Middle East peace.
The Arabs can do better
Yossi Alpher The Arab League peace plan of March 28, 2002, recently revived by the League and other Arab leaders, is a missed opportunity. Moderate Arab leaders, beginning with Saudi King Abdullah who initiated the plan, seem to have done almost everything possible to ensure that it finds an unfavorable reception in Israel. With a little effort and creativity they could achieve better results.
To be sure, the plan as ratified in Beirut more than four years ago is problematic from Israel's standpoint. It insists on the 1967 borders without even alluding to the possibility of border alterations as reflected in UN Security Council Resolution 242, territorial swaps as agreed in principle by Yasser Arafat, or Israel's demand that the peace border with Syria reflect mainly the 1949 lines, not those of 1967.
In calling for a "just solution" of the refugee problem, the plan displays understanding for Arab problems such as the nebulously worded "forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries" [read: Lebanon must be enabled to get rid of its Palestinian refugees], yet shows no regard for Israel's position. Indeed, while the resolution carefully avoids demanding the "right of return", the assembled Arab states in Beirut in March 2002 made sure that the next four resolutions they passed reaffirmed precisely that right, which is anathema to Israel.
Yet the plan also constitutes a dramatic and important step forward for the Arab approach. It offers Israel "normal relations", a peace agreement and even "security for all the states of the region". Certainly this is the first time the entire Arab world has even obliquely offered Israel security within a regional framework.
Israel's problems with the initiative began the day after it was proclaimed, with the Passover feast suicide bombing in Netanya that killed 30 celebrants. That act of Palestinian terror, which had tremendous and tragic symbolic importance for Israelis and Jews everywhere, quite understandably distracted Israelis' attention from the initiative. Yet the same Arab League that had just offered Israel peace said and did nothing about it.
Finally, the concluding paragraph in the League's initiative calls for its leadership to "pursue the necessary contacts to gain support . . . at all levels". Indeed, over the years the initiative has been presented by its sponsors to nearly every major power and international institution--except to the country it addresses: Israel. When the initiative was first published back in the spring of 2002, PM Sharon was asked for his reaction. "Let [then Crown Prince] Abdullah come to Jerusalem to present it," Sharon said dismissively.
And cynically: Sharon was highly skeptical about the prospects of real peace with Israel's Arab neighbors. Yet what could be more natural? Were Abdullah to follow in the footsteps of Anwar Sadat and King Hussein and come to Jerusalem to present his initiative, the effect on Israeli public opinion would be electrifying. Even Arab League Secretary-General Amr Musa, who as Egyptian foreign minister has visited Jerusalem many times, has not taken the trouble to present the plan to the Israeli leadership and public and solicit a response. The impression created over the years is that King Abdullah and the Arab League, rather than suggesting an agenda for discussion with Israel, are either going through the motions without really caring or seek to impose their plan on Israel without debate.
Small wonder, then, that Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and FM Tzipi Livni have avoided commenting publicly on the latest Arab attempt to "revive" the initiative, even as they have heaped praise on Saudi Arabia's leadership in recent months. Washington, too, has been largely silent, though several years ago it did compel Israel to accept mention of the initiative in the preamble to the roadmap as one of the "foundations" of an Israeli-Palestinian settlement.
Recently, the Arab League initiated a discussion of the initiative at the UN Security Council. The American and Israeli boycott of that session was understandable given the League's seeming insistence that Washington impose the plan on Jerusalem without discussion, coupled with the actions and attitudes of the current Syrian and Palestinian leaders with whom the plan wants Israel to make peace. But Jerusalem does have to find opportunities to explain to the sponsors of the initiative how poorly they have marketed it to the public it is ostensibly directed toward.
That public--Israelis--cannot help but wonder just how serious Abdullah and Musa are about their plan.- Published 19/10/2006 © bitterlemons-international.org
Yossi Alpher is coeditor of the bitterlemons.net family of internet publications. He is former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University.
Stripping Israel of excuses
Daoud KuttabThe Arab League's peace initiative came some time after the eruption of the Aqsa intifada and followed a plan conceived of by then Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. The plan was actually leaked to the NY Times' Tom Friedman in advance over a private dinner with the crown prince and was then adopted as an Arab peace plan at the Arab League Summit in Beirut in March 2002.
In one simple stroke the plan offers all parties what they need while falling entirely in line with international law and legitimacy. It asks for the return of all lands occupied by Israel in 1967, i.e., the Gaza Strip, the West Bank including East Jerusalem, to serve as a future independent Palestinian state, and the Golan Heights to Syria. It also alludes to a "just and fair" resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem, though it is not clear whether the right of return refers to the state to be created or historic Palestine.
In return the plans offers Israel two things it has always sought: recognition by and normalization with all the countries of the Arab world. Recognition includes all Arab states except Egypt and Jordan who have already signed peace treaties with Israel. Normalization includes these two countries, whose people and institutions have so far done little to genuinely accept Israel as a neighbor in the Middle East.
Ask any expert on the Middle East. Survey the majorities of the peoples in the region or ask leaders for their private opinions. They will all say that this is exactly the kind of plan that everyone can agree to. It is what negotiators call a win-win situation.
Only one problem. Israel won't accept it. Thus it was left on the shelf with a host of other plans, and would have been forgotten had Marwan Barghouti and his fellow Palestinian prisoners not resurrected it from the dustbin of history. The plan is now back at the center of attention because, like Israel, the Hamas-led government refused to accept it despite the fact that all Arab countries, including Syria where some of the Hamas leadership resides, have endorsed it.
Unfortunately, while an extremely practical plan, it has no teeth, no enforcement mechanism and no possibility of realization without the backing of Israel's powerful allies. Not only has Israel rejected the plan, but the US and major European countries have done nothing to translate it into a binding Security Council resolution or use its political muscle to try and push it through.
The fact that for now Hamas rejects the plan may be a blessing in disguise. The Israeli side has been historically adept at accepting plans and initiatives it could predict would be rejected by the Arab side. This time, Israel seems not to have predicted that Hamas would win the Palestinian elections. Internal pressure on Hamas is now predicated on the movement accepting this plan.
While it is shameful that the international community is unwilling to properly support something that is in line with international law and clearly in the interests of everybody, Palestinian and Arab leaders must also shoulder some blame for having regularly failed to sell whatever merchandise they possess. This plan provides Arab countries with an easy sell if ever there was one, but only if they unite and for once work genuinely for the Palestinian cause.
Ironically, by rejecting the plan, Israel has turned down a clearly articulated idea that has the seal of the approval of every Arab country with which Israel has always coveted normal relations. The message that a continued Israeli rejection of the initiative sends is that Israel is really not interested in any plan that might lead to the return of land to their rightful owners. Israeli officials have explained away their position by pointing to the actions of Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants. But if Hamas is under extreme pressure to accept this plan, should Israel not be under extreme pressure to do the same?
The Arab Peace Initiative has in effect stripped Israel of all the excuses it has given for not returning Arab lands. Israel stands to obtain peace and normalcy in return for doing so. When will Arab countries have the power and the guile to show the world who is the real obstacle to peace in the region?- Published 19/10/2006 © bitterlemons.org
Daoud Kuttab is a Palestinian journalist and a former Ferris Professor of Journalism at Princeton University.
The US is the key
an interview with Nawaf ObaidBI: The Arab League has recently pushed hard to promote its 2002 peace initiative with Israel. Why now?
Obaid: Because there was a feeling among the Saudi leadership that, after what happened in Lebanon and what's going on in Iraq, the regional situation is spinning completely out of control. And as Palestine has always been one of the major rallying points for all the Arab peoples, the idea was that the only way to move forward was to try again with this initiative to obtain some kind of permanent ceasefire so the details of what a Palestinian state will look like can be worked on.
The timing can be debated. But what is happening is this. Saudi Arabia has everything ready. It has the finances ready, the economic packages ready, it has everything ready to disburse to the Palestinian government to start building a cohesive entity.
The problem is, this cannot be done as long as there is no political will on the ground, especially from Israel, to say that 'this is Palestine, this is the territory, this is what the Palestinian state will look like'.
The Saudis believe that if this continues, the situation will spiral more and more out of control, Hamas and others will become more extreme and violence and potential war will be inevitable.
BI: Have the Saudis made it clear, either directly or indirectly, to Israel that there is a package ready to start working with?
Obaid: On the issue of talks, there appears to be some domestic confusion in Israel. There is no factual evidence of any such meeting taking place.
On the issue of making it clear to Israel, we know the Americans have been very clear about what the Saudis are doing, as have the Egyptians. The Egyptians and Jordanians have been major interlocutors with the Israelis. They know, and they have been very clear on this, that all the finances and economic programs are ready to sustain the first several years of what would be a Palestinian state.
The problem is, this cannot move forward without having a clear and precise understanding that enough is enough.
Parallel to King Abdullah launching the initiative in Beirut in 2002, he made huge financial commitments to the Palestinians. He announced a $1 billion fund of which Saudi Arabia would donate a quarter. Then there was another fund to which Saudi Arabia donated over $300 million. In the latest royal decree for Lebanon aid, another $250 million was allocated to a Palestinian reconstruction program.
The first two sums are sitting in an account administered by the Islamic Development Bank. The last chunk is still in the central bank waiting for a bilateral agreement. All that money is sitting there waiting for the appropriate political climate.
BI: In 2002, the initiative caused a stir in the Arab world because it promised full normalization of Arab relations with Israel. Yet, the Israeli response was dismissive. Was that a surprise to the Saudi leadership?
Obaid: The Israelis said "if they are serious, let's sit down and talk face to face." The Saudi leadership's position is that "we don't mind recognizing you, but first of all Palestine has to be defined as a country. First there has to be a viable Palestinian state and then we don't have a problem in leading the Arab world to fully recognizing Israel."
That's where the sticking point lies.
BI: In New York, the Israelis put a lot of pressure on the US and the UN not to debate the initiative in a binding UN forum. Is that frustrating for Saudi Arabia?
Obaid: Absolutely. The Saudis have been very frustrated by a lot of issues recently, the Lebanese issue, the Iraqi issue and, first and foremost, the Palestinian issue.
But there is a policy in the US toward Israel that in the long term is not viable, politically, on the ground, even economically. It's just not viable.
What the Saudis are doing is, in a very nice way, saying, "listen, this needs to stop. Let's work out a way in which we can start seriously going toward a Palestinian state," with the promise that the Arab world will then come around to recognize Israel as a country in the Middle East.
BI: So Saudi efforts are focused on the US?
Obaid: Absolutely. The US is the key. That's why the efficacy of talking directly to the Israelis is wishful thinking. The key here is the US. What's adding even more to the frustration is that the money is there. We see Palestinians suffering and dying, but the money is there, waiting to be disbursed.
BI: What is the future of the initiative?
Obaid: The initiative is the only viable basis the Arab world is willing to negotiate on. It will be there for the time when--if and when--the Americans are ready to do enough to pressure the Israelis to start working within this framework.- Published 19/10/2006 © bitterlemons-international.org
Nawaf Obaid is senior fellow at King Faisal Center for Research & Islamic Studies in Riyadh.
An American view
Tom PickeringFor years the words "Saudi initiative" have come close to being an oxymoron. Saudi foreign and security policy initiatives are as rare as snowstorms in Riyadh in July. Only three real ones have emerged in the last few decades: the acquisition in the 1980s of Chinese ballistic missiles; the awakening and energizing of Saudi security forces in theface of the current al-Qaeda/Saudi Hizballah attacks; and Crown Prince Abdullah's 2002 peace initiative.
Official American attitudes toward the latter have been interesting. Welcomed "carefully" by President Bush and Secretary Powell, in part undoubtedly because then Prime Minister Sharon found it more than wanting, the proposal is generally seen in a positive light--a useful expression of a forward Arab view on, in effect, a deal over land for peace. This is best expressed in terms of the offer for Arab recognition of the state of Israel and a willingness to establish diplomatic relations with it--in the words of Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, just like any Arab state has with any other foreign state--in return for Israel's yielding up the occupied land.
For many Americans, the proposal has not been and is not now, post-Lebanon, the magic silver bullet that will effect an instant breakthrough to peace. However for those Americans, official and unofficial, who follow these issues it is now an important part of the armamentarium that can buttress and support a successful process.
Columnist, pundit and commentator Tom Friedman, who played a special role in coaxing the proposal to life in his meeting with Abdullah in 2002, certainly saw its value and understood its significance--a clear Arab statement from the highest authority (although he was still only crown prince then, Abdullah spoke with authority for Saudi Arabia) that Israel and Israelis could expect the Arabs to be faithful to what has always been for them an elusive bargain over land for peace.
Elusive in two ways. Territory has to be given up as a finite act in time; peace must endure forever. Giving away something tangible must happen in return for the grant of something that is intangible--almost a state of mind. How could an Arab leader provide a corrective to these deficiencies in the Arab position as seen from Israel and by Israelis--and indeed by many in the United States? Whether or not you quibble over some elements of the final statement by the Arab League at Beirut, this important step by Crown Prince Abdullah addressed that issue in the only way he could--in a clear statement by a key Arab leader from a significant, and indeed theologically the most conservative, Arab country.
In the United States, the concerns expressed by some over ambiguities and deficiencies in the wording of the Arab League version of the initiative have caused few problems. Whether the initiative means peace, or some other unstated future status as some have argued, doesn't seem to have caught much attention here. Indeed, a careful reading of Abdullah's statements at least makes it hard to argue that peace is not the objective. Similarly, concerns over ambiguities regarding the right of return of refugees--whether to Israel, a new state of Palestine, or elsewhere--again do not seem to have caught American attention. Here those points are too deep in the weeds for many, and for others, are still to be resolved through further negotiation. As a whole, the initiative is seen as a contribution to building a structure underpinning the peace process, a cornerstone that perhaps can be built upon.
The recent UN Security Council debate, shunned by the US and Israel, over an Arab League initiative to give new legs to the plan indicates the Bush administration is not ready to push it hard with Tel Aviv. Similarly, Arab League requests for the US to provide its own precisions on a two-state solution are unlikely to provoke a positive US response in keeping with Washington's current more watch-and-wait attitude.
Buried in the initiative, but not too deeply, is the notion that the US needs to take a more active role in Middle East peace. Whether Secretary Rice's recent visits to the region, post-Lebanon, represent a reawakening of American diplomacy in the region is being debated. What is not being argued on this side of the Atlantic is that the Abdullah initiative is a good one to build upon.- Published 19/10/2006 © bitterlemons-international.org
Tom Pickering is a former US ambassador to Jordan, Israel, and the United Nations and former under secretary of state for political affairs.
|
All Rights Reserved