After 16 years of Israeli-Palestinian bilateral negotiations for peace there is a growing realisation that there is very little likelihood of a bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiated agreement. This realisation seems equally evident in Jerusalem, Ramallah, Brussels, Moscow and now in Washington. Everyone appears to be searching for a new formula for peace and in that search the Arab Peace Initiative has once again reappeared as a possible saviour. The positive statements regarding the Arab Peace Initiative (API) by President Obama and members of his team have again placed it centre stage.
Six years after it was first presented, the Arab peace initiative may finally be coming of age. Previous Israeli leaders have basically trashed the API in its present form for many reasons. One of the main reasons is that it mentions UN Resolution 194 which is the foundation of the Arab claims for the right of return of refugees from the 1948 war to their homes inside of Israel. Gershon Baskin is the Israeli Co-Director and founder of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI) - a joint Israeli-Palestinian public policy think he founded in 1988 following ten years of work in the field of Jewish-Arab relations within Israel, in Interns for Peace, the Ministry of Education and as Executive Director of the Institute for Education for Jewish-Arab Coexistence (established by the Israeli Ministry of Education and the Prime Minister's Office). Dr. Baskin has published several books in the Hebrew, English and Arabic press on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Beginning with the Histadrut Prize for Peace in 1996, he has received many international awards for his work.
Additional Israeli objections include the direct reference in the Initiative to the June 4, 1967 borders. Israel rightly claims that in negotiations regarding these with the Palestinians, the principle of territorial exchange has already been accepted, so why as far as Israel is concerned go back to 1967 borders which ignore any of the new realities on the ground and consequently can have only a very tenuous nature? The new Israeli right-wing Government of Binyamin Netanyahu completely rejects the idea of return to the 1967 borders. The most objectionable and perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of the API for Israelis is the sense that this is a ‘take it or leave document' and if this is the case, the majority of Israelis say ‘leave it'.
The Arab Peace Initiative is not a peace plan. It has no operative aspects to it. There is no mechanism for implementation and even no clear plan for how it should begin. The only operative part of the Initiative states: ‘Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union.' Who is conspicuously left off this list? Israel of course! There is nothing in the Initiative which addresses itself directly to the Israeli government or the Israeli people.
The Arab League needs to address Israeli concerns, not ignore them as has been the case since it was first presented in 2002. The Arab League should find its way to stating that the Arab Peace Initiative is a ‘framework, a basis, or a platform' for renewing the peace process rather than having it appear as a document that must be accepted in full or rejected in full. It has been reported that King Abdallah II of Jordan has now proposed a form of an ‘Arab peace deposit' (an analogy with the so-called ‘Rabin deposit' on the Golan Heights) that would in fact provide some clarifications or additional incentives to Israel to accept the API.
Since the initiative has been widely overlooked by Israeli politicians it is certainly worthwhile pointing out its primary advantages and reasons why Israel should accept it quickly before it is no longer relevant. The Arab Peace Initiative was accepted unanimously by all of the member states of the Arab League in March 2002. On the day that it was presented thirty people were killed and 140 injured - 20 seriously - in a suicide bombing in the Park Hotel in the coastal city of Netanya, in the midst of a Passover holiday seder with 250 guests. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack. This attack was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back that led to the ‘Defensive Shield' Israeli offensive leading in turn to the full re-occupation of the West Bank and the placing of Palestinian President Arafat under siege in the muqata' in Ramallah. The Israeli mindset, at that time when suicide bombing were a daily event and under the leadership of Prime Minister Sharon was hardly in any mood to consider an Arab peace initiative.
But the initiative was once again unanimously ratified at the meeting of the League of Arab States in Khartoum in May 2006 and again in 2007 in Riyadh.
The Arab world has tried to impress upon Israelis what is new and revolutionary in the Initiative, but Israelis have failed to understand this. The Arab world has pointed out the following: The initiative calls for ‘achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.' This is the first time that an Arab document uses the word "agreed" in this context. That would mean that this issue could be negotiated between the parties. In its operative paragraph on refugees, UN Resolution 194 states: ‘That the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the governments or authorities responsible.'
The resolution does not state that all refugees must be allowed to return and opens the door for those who do not wish to return to receive financial compensation instead. An agreement between Israel and the PLO that would award Palestinian refugees compensation instead of return would certainly fulfill the requirements of the Arab peace initiative and should not hinder Israeli agreement to the Initiative.
In order to receive the benefits of the proposal Israel must allow for the creation of an independent sovereign Palestinian state in borders that will be mutually acceptable to Israel and the PLO with east Jerusalem as its capital. This step has been (until now) clearly understood to be within Israeli national security interests. Israel would still need to resolve the issue of the Shaba Farms area with Lebanon and Syria, and must withdraw from the Golan Heights. Removing the northern front from the domain of possible war is also clearly an Israeli national security aim.
Solving these issues provides the means for achieving peace. With the Arab peace initiative, the results of such moves would not only bring peace with the Palestinians, Lebanon and Syria, but with the entire Arab world. The area of peace for Israel would extend from Marrakech all the way to Bangladesh. Only Iran would be outside the region of peace.
The most significant element of the Initiative is its call for the recognition of the State of Israel, and full peace and normalised relations between all of the member states of the Arab League and Israel. There is huge significance to the reference to normalised relations. Israelis fail to understand that since the notion of normalisation of relations with Israel has been a steadfast taboo in Arab political culture since 1948, the Arab League call for normalised relations constitutes no less than a political revolution.
This is almost too good to be true and had it been presented 20 years ago, it might have been received much more positively in Israel. But today, there is no peace camp in Israel anymore. Israeli society has lost its faith in peace. Israelis no longer dream of getting into their car and having humus for lunch in Damascus. Israelis do not want to visit Cairo or Amman and do not particularly care if Jordanians or Egyptians come to visit Israel. If President Mubarak and King Abdallah II don't want to come to Jerusalem, so be it. Israelis no longer believe that giving up territory will bring peace. The general Israeli interpretation of the ‘territory for peace' scheme is that we withdrew from areas in the West Bank and created the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat which then attacked us with weapons that we provided for them. In Gaza, which Israel left entirely - withdrawing both settlements and military, we got qassam rockets in exchange. Whether this reflects what really happened and why is not relevant. This is the way that the overwhelming majority of Israelis understand that reality. So, in this context, the Arab Peace Initiative is not particularly attractive.
What do Israelis want? They want quiet. They want security. They want to be able to be part of the neighborhood without the threat of terrorism, but they no longer believe that the way to gain security is by giving back territory. During the days when Oslo was popular and there was hope that peace could actually emerge, it was possible to talk about ‘peace and security'. Today, the philosophy of the Netanyahu government and the political culture and mood that brought it to power is that first there must be security and only then can there be peace. This is not merely a game of semantics. This is a worldview and it is essential to understand it in order to be able to understand the Israel of 2009.
The Israeli public and government will not be enticed by promises of normalisation, acceptance and free movement in the region. This is the ‘heart' of the Arab Peace Initiative and it has not produced the desired results in all the past years. The Israeli public and government insist on seeing real evidence of a willingness to make peace with Israel that goes above and beyond words.
In public opinion research of the Israeli public that we carried out in IPCRI in order to understand what would motivate Israelis to accept making significant concessions, such as those called for in the Arab Peace Initiative, we discovered that the notion of ‘partnership' was the crucial factor. When asked ‘what would convince you that the Palestinians (or Arabs) were in fact true partners?', the main responses, overwhelmingly, were ‘when they teach peace in the classroom' - meaning when their educational curricula and text books reflect that Israel exists and has a right to exist, and when Islamic religious leaders and preachers say the same thing in Mosques.
With this in mind, it appears that we are in a kind of ‘Catch 22' situation. Arabs, as reflected in the Arab Peace Initiative state that Israel will get the recognition and security it desires when it fulfills the requirements of the Initiative - in other words, gaining recognition, peace and security is the outcome of the process. Israelis, on the other hand, are saying that recognition and security is a pre-requisite of the process that aims to create peace.
There may be ways to bridge the gaps between these two positions or state of mind, but they have not yet been proposed or developed. If there remains a peace camp in Israel, Palestine and in the Arab world, the next challenge they must face is how to bridge this gap in consciousness. Without that bridge, the Arab Peace Initiative will fade away into the piles of other past Middle East peace initiatives.
Comments
In reference to paragraph 4, why the API documents leaves out Israel, well maybe it's because the negotiating parties should not be international brokers as well. This falls from the tree. Getting the basic details wrong, completely compromises your entire opinion.
The API is based on the idea of give and take. Israel gets peace and security in return for respecting some of (not all) the human rights of Palestinians. Contrast it with the Oslo proposals in which Israel expected the same thing in return for, well, nothing at all and you begin to appreciate why there is no peace.
The idea that the Arab League has to "understand" Israel, given Israeli transigence demonstrates how out of touch this article is with reality. "Textbooks"--this entire issue is a canard created by a settler who calls himself a "researcher." It says nothing about the well-documented racism of Israelis against Palestinians as evidenced in public opinion polls of Israelis regarding Palestinians citizens of Israel. It says nothing about the religious leaders in Israel who mobilized Israeli soldiers on the basis of spurious "religious" reasons to be "brutal" against the local population of Gaza in January.
Not that the Arab League can be counted on to represent Palestinian interests, not the only but one obvious requirement, if there is ever to be any genuine and fair peace process that doesn't go on for decades while Israel grabs more of the land that is supposed to be subject to negotiation. Unless the author thinks that representing Abbas's security forces and the Green Zone of the Muqata in Ramallah, the entire edifice here falls apart.
More than anything, what's tiresome about this article is the assumption that Israel can and will dictate the terms of "peace," all evidence to the contrary.
To me it seems that Israeli governments ever since 1948 have persued a policy of consolidating control of and settlement on ever larger areas of the hitherto Palestine, normally tacitly supposing that absentee palestinians is no phenomen of interest to israelis - as soon as they have been removed/excluded/killed or any other way have been made absentees.
Such policy may not be willed by a majority of israelis. But it has manifestly beed pursued by their governments - regardless of party colour. It has been pursued, also after the Oslo agreement, in which the israeli government promised to stop the settlements.
This policy of pressing borders and forcing palestinians away is a non-declared policy. It is a "say what they want to hear - and do the opposite which fits us" policy.
The rationale seems to be that the Israeli weaponry makes for sufficient security to umbrell this policy of pressing borders and forcing palestinians away.
That policy is a non-declared policy - but it functions.
So - the israelis may accept the API. But the hope that their government will act accordingly is being contradicted by any hitherto practice
Of course that policy in the long run will ensure war.
The one resource that has been sadly missed in this how sad saga is the role of the peace movement. They have been there in both Israeli and Arab communities, and are sill there - basically fighting a lone rear-guard action. They need to be energised into a coherent force for reconciliation across the political divides, with high level political support.
I suggest that the re-energised peace movement could be a major factor in promoting the peace agenda.
Gray Southon
Gray: It's very hard to imagine Hamas allowing a peace movement in Gaza. They run a totalitarian regime there, and the Hamas Charter is overtly genocidal regarding Jews.
By contrast, Israel is a politically free society, but the genocidal propaganda of the Palestinians (did you know that Jews are responsible for swine flu?), and the genocidal meta-message sent by massive and intentional suicide-bombing of civilians during the Second Intifada (with murderers of old people and children held up as national heroes), and 6,000 rockets intentionally aimed at civilians from Hamastan in Gaza, has politically devastated it.
It would be great if there were powerful peace movements on both sides. And I have encouraged the peace folks on the Israeli side, where I have some good contracts on the Left. But the facts are grim.
This link is interesting: http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/essay/ethos_of_conflict/
According to Daniel Bar-Tal an "Ethos of conflict" exists in Israel. The "beliefs" held by Zionists cause an extension of the conflict.
In my view the posts of "Prof Ethan II" and other supporters of Zionism are typical of the Zionist "beliefs". They always blame the Palestinians and the Arabs, accusing them of hostility, agressiveness, and even of wanting to ethnically cleanse Palestine, are kill all the Jews. This has little to do with reality: of course, most Arabs don't want to recognize Israel, especially not as "a Jewish state", but the Zionist view is a gross exaggeration of Arab hostility.
In my view Zionists hold these dubious beliefs for two reasons: 1) as legitimisations of past conduct, like the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948, the attacks on Egypt in 1956 and 1967, the attacks on Libanon, and the Gaza massacre. 2) as a legitimisation for not doing terrritorial concessions.
The second is related to the real problem: Zionists belief that all of Palestine is the Jews's historical homeland and they have problems doing concessions with respect to this ideal. For instance in 2000 there was almost a peace with Syria. This would mean that Syria would give up its support for Hezbollah and Hamas. However, Barak held back, because Israeli public opinion was against territorial concessions.
Another question is how serious Zionists want peace. The general attitude of Israel in the past 60 years has been to want peace for minimal concessions. Very often priority was given to territory above peace. The Zionist ideal of Palestine as a Jewish state motivated Zionists to take enormous risks (think e.g. of the Zionists in Palestine before WWI) and sacrifice human live (e.g. in 1948). However, when it comes to making peace with the Palestinians they prefer to do no concessions at all, let alone taking risks or accepting sacrifices.
The only solution, I'm afraid, is a boycot of Israel similar to the anti-Apartheid boycot against South-Africa. That worked!
Does JC Bosma deny what the Hamas Charter says about hunting down every last Jew?
Does he deny that the murderers of old people and little children are held up as Palestinian national heroes?
Does he deny that Palestinians name their children after Hitler (these are reported in Palestinian newspapers, JCB: just google "Hitler a Hero on Palestinian Authority radio")?
Nor did I totally blame the Palestinians; I said that the west bank settlements were wrong. But the Palestinians are the ones who rejected a peace deal in 2000/2001. President Clinton blamed them. And Yassir Arafat in 2002 blamed himself.
Those are serious sources of evidence.
According to the Hamas charter Palestine should become a country under Muslim dominance. However it says it's inhabitants (which includes Jews) can stay and live there. Besides that, the Hamas charter is not representative of Hamas's goals. Hamas is a national liberation movement that desires to live in peace with Jews. The quotes below are more representative of their goals.
Musa Abu Marzuq: "We will exert good-faith efforts to remove the bitterness that Israel's occupation has succeeded in creating, alienating a generation of Palestinians. We call on them not to condemn posterity to endless bloodshed and a conflict in which dominance is illusory. There must come a day when we will live together, side by side once again." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001209.html)
Khalid Mishál: "But if you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce, we are prepared to negotiate the terms. Hamas is extending a hand of peace to those who are truly interested in a peace based on justice." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/31/comment.israelandthepalestinians)
I do not deny that "the murderers of old people and little children are held up as Palestinian national heroes". But you cannot deny that Zionists have murderers (like Sharon), ethnic cleansers (like Ben-Gurion and Rabin), and terrorists (like Begin and Shamir) as their national heroes, and even democratically choose them as their leaders. When murder, terrorism and ethnic cleansing are done for the sake of a Zionist ideal, they are suddenly not murder, terrorism and ethnic cleansing anymore. Barak even calls the perpetrators of the Gaza massacre "the most moral army in the world". How hypocritical can one be?
When it comes to Barak's offer in Camp David: it was not generous (certainly not compared to what Israel is entitled to under international law). Besides that, behind the scene, Clinton and Barak worked together to put Arafat under pressure. Clinton should be ashamed that he blamed the failure on Arafat. Regarding "Taba", it was Barak who stopped the negotiations.
Two remarks:
1) The "land for peace" slogan is a bad slogan, because it blames the Arabs for the absence of peace. In reality Israel is at least as much responsible for the absence of peace. "Land for recognition" is a much better slogan, because both sides will also get peace and security.
2) I think it is a fatal mistake to work towards peace in a process. The rationale of it is to build trust. However, in practice, it works just the other way. E.g. after the Oslo accords Hamas went on with its fight, and Israel went on with its colonisation of the West Bank. A process is easy to frustrate by radicals on both sides. Especially since, during the process it is always the question what the next concession will be, and this can easily be exploited by radicals on both sides. During a process both sides will legitimise their own goals, and delegitimise the goals and desires of the other side. This only increases the hostility. It is much better to negotiate a final agreement in one go. Both sides will have to do painfull concessions, but once these are done, it is not necesarry anymore to legitimise their own side's goals and delegitimise the other side's. Only then will there be a real chance for a peace process. Only then there is a real chance that both sides will start to see the human side of the former enemy Only after a final agreement is negotiated the real peace process can start.
JCB, Please read the charter of Hamas; here is what Article 7 says:
The Prophet, Allah's prayer and peace be upon him, says: "The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews." (Recorded in the Hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim).
Wars cause civilian deaths (look at WWII). But no Israeli posters extoll the intentional murderers of children and old people. Samir Quntar murdered a 4 year old Israeli girl (Einat Haran): though a Lebanese citizen, his reward was to be given honorary Palestinian citizenship, and his posters are everywhere. The Hamas men who murdered the 30 elderly people at a seder in 2002 (ave. age of the murdered: 72) are considered national heroes. At Bir Zeit university, students celebrated the blowing up of Israeli children at the Sbarro Pizza parlor in Jerusalem, and a school-bus incident, by building models of both sites of atrocities and dancing around them.
You don't see anything like this on the Israeli side. Where is the real "ethos of conflict"? Hamas Charter, Article 8:
"Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model to be followed, the Koran its constitution, Jihad its way, and death for the sake of Allah its loftiest desire."
As for statements from Mashaal, etc., a few days ago they promised no more shooting of rockets from Gaza; two days later, they were shooting rockets from Gaza. And JCB, when Arabic-speakers use the term "truce' (as Mashaal, etc., do), this does not mean "peace". It means a momentary lull in preparation for the final conflict.
JCB, you may not have liked Camp David/Tabah, but not only Clinton blamed the Palestinians here, but Arafat himself in 2002 blamed the Palestinian side for not taking the deal. So much for the Israelis never having made a serious offer.
In the usual reconstruction of history and the current situation by opendemocr bloggers, only the Israelis have agency, and the Palestinians appear as mere victims of Israeli actions. This is profoundly ahistorical. It is time that people understood that the Palestinians have to take responsibility for their terrible errors of judgment. This includes Camp David/Tabah. This includes taking responsibility for the fact that the suicide bombings of the subsequent Second Intifada destroyed the Israeli left, because Palestinian conduct sent a genocidal meta-message, since it was aimed at killing Jewish civilians of any age or political persuasion, just as long as they were Jews, or, in the notorious case of the murder of the Palestinian George Khoury by PA terrorists, even aimed at anyone who simply LOOKED Jewish. The PA official response to Khoury's murder? They apologized to his family: they were looking to kill Jews and made a mistake! Just google "George Khoury" and read about this incident. Come on, JCB what could be more racist than that?
First; the real question is "when will the Arab/Muslim world recognize the legitimate historical claim of the Jewish people to ANY of the land between the river and the sea"?
Once we have mutual legitimation we may have mutual respect and honest dialogue.
Second; I would also appreciate hearing about a proposed Arab peace deposit.
having a dictatorial democracy's as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the other emirates is one of the difficulties of the issue. on the other hand Israel is a dominant nation with dominant inhabitants therefore what Israel desires is the rest of Palestine. just as simple as that. however time is not on his side and probably it will not archive its aim. on the other hand Washington by creating a non nuclear middle east and beginning with Israel on its confiscation of nuclear devices it can create the conditions for a hierarchical equality based on intelligence and knowledge rather than superstitious believes and economical manipulations. this scheme can open the mind of both parties and they will rearrange themselves on a civilise manner. but as long as petrol is the name of the game Israel will remain the policemen of the area.
"having a dictatorial democracy's as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the other emirates is one of the difficulties of the issue"
What does that even mean? Dictatorial Democracy, I'm pretty sure that is a contradiction in itself.
"what Israel desires is the rest of Palestine"
While I do not deny that there are a few Israelis who would want "the rest of Palestine" you'll find they are a massive minority. Please try and source your information and do some real research before jumping to such outrageous statements. Most Israelis would like to live peacefully in their homes, just like most Palestininas. I know from life experience and having spoken to people from both sides.
"as long as petrol is the name of the game Israel will remain the policemen of the area."
I don't see how this works, seeing as Israel has no petrol, or oil under it. There is a joke that Israel is the one oilless country in the entire region. Israel has invested on infastructure and has made money through creating technology that the entire world uses, rather then just holding the west hostage as has been done in previous oil agreements.
I'm a very peaceful person. I agree with you that there should be peace in the middle east. I would love to see mutual respect between Israel and her neighbors. However, peace comes through strength. Peace also comes when your enemies are terrified of you, hiding in rat holes or dead, the way they belong.
In order to obtain a lasting peace, Israel should unleash complete furry and hell on her enemies and show absolutely no mercy in exterminating every last Hamas leader in Syria, Gaza and wherever else the other rats are hiding. The same should be done for the leaders of every other enemy group, such as the Hezbollah rats. Offer treaties, peace in exchange for peace, never land for peace, to Arab countries that want no quarrel with the jewish state. Problem solved. This things don't have to be so complicated.
P.S. I'm not a jew and I'm not related to any jews. I'm simply a person who knows the true nature of evil and I see it in the heart of the Palestinian terrorists.
Post new comment