The Arab Peace Initiative
Among the things remaining unclear in the aftermath of the visit to Washington last week of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the next negotiating move of the Palestinians. President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority has warned that if his objectives in the "proximity talks" mediated by the U.S. are not achieved by mid-September, he will ask the Arab League to press harder with its 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. This document has become part of the verbiage of international declarations on the Arab-Israel conflict. According to the American envoy George Mitchell, it has also been incorporated into the Obama administration's peacemaking strategy. What is it?
The initiative was born after the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States, carried out by Muslim terrorists fifteen of whom were citizens of Saudi Arabia. Recognizing that his kingdom's image as a viper's nest of Islamic fanaticism undermined its vital relationship with Washington, and in the midst of the Palestinians' murderous second intifada against Israel's civilian population, Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah invited New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman to Riyadh to present a peace plan. The plan was touted as offering Israel "full normalization" of relations with the Arab and Muslim world in exchange for an Israeli "full withdrawal" to the armistice boundaries in place from 1949 until the outset of the 1967 Six-Day War.
The following month, an already watered-down version of Abdullah's plan was officially adopted by an Arab League summit in Beirut. Its inauspicious unveiling took place on the day after the ghastly terrorist suicide-bombing of a Passover Seder in Israel's coastal town of Netanya. In a muted reaction to the plan, Jerusalem acknowledged that it did reverse the League's long-standing policy of "No peace, no negotiation, no recognition" set forth at its infamous August 1967 Khartoum summit.
Yet the plan did little else. Instead of offering the promised "full normalization," it vaguely held out a "full peace," presumably along the cold Egyptian model. It also referred to UN General Assembly Resolution 194, commonly understood to grant the 700,000 Arab refugees from the 1948 war, along with millions of their descendants, the right to "return" to a now-truncated Israel in what would amount to a demographic death-knell to the Jewish state. The initiative absolved the Arab countries of any responsibility for absorbing their Palestinian brethren. And by calling for a withdrawal from all territory captured by Israel in the Six-Day war, the initiative patently rejected Security Council Resolution 242, which since 1967 has been the sine qua non of all peacemaking efforts. Nor did the initiative make even a fleeting mention of the inalienable rights of the Jewish people to a national homeland. Finally, it was put forward as a non-negotiable, take-it-or-leave-it diktat.
In the eight years since the initiative was announced, the Palestinian polity has been torn asunder, with the comparatively less extreme Fatah running West Bank affairs and the rejectionist Hamas ruling the Gaza Strip. With the Palestinians thus fragmented and the Arab League frozen in intransigence by radical forces, can anything transform this dead-letter initiative into a linchpin for peace?
Egypt and Jordan broke with the Arab consensus to make their separate peace with Israel. No one expects that kind of courage out of Riyadh. But what if the Saudis were to announce that, from their point of view, the plan is an overture, i.e., not a diktat but a starting point for direct negotiations with Israel?
2. Perhaps what has "led [most Jews] to believe" what they do about Resolution 194 is . . . its text with which apparently you are unfamiliar. It reads: "The General Assembly . . . Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date." And what source of information affords you unique foreknowledge of what the Arabs will agree to and when even in contradiction what they have said?
These are the Arabs who reject any constractive negotiations , based on bilateral concessions and comprimises and try to promote " a peace process" with final results of it declared in advance.In other words , all they are prepared to discuss with Israel is the terms and conditions of its capitulation.
Israel has to stand firm in face of these provocations and should suggest its own constructive and convincing alternatives , to take initiative in leading the process instead of being led into treacherous traps prepared by our enemoes and their supportes.
Israel could say to the entire Non Jewish World
a] We are now the Custodians to Hashem's Land
b] As such we will observe G-d willing all of Hashem's Commandments here.
c] you are welcome to come into our land as a Ger Toshav as long as you observe the Seven Noahide Laws
This provides the correct position that the world Today should be looking at ...
It means that the Arabs could choose to establish a harmopnious relationship both b'eretz Yisrael and Chutzah La'Aretz.
As a Ben Noach any Arab could live in Eretz Yisrael as a Ger Toshav
Is this an impossibility?
Imagine a world where the Voice of Hashem is verbrating and pulsating from Tzion ...
It is now erev Shabbos of the days before Tisha B'Av where the 2nd temple is in ruins for 1940 years because of Sinas Chinom ... it's time to consider an alternative approach that may end this Bimheira B'yameinu
Comments are closed for this article.
1. In no part of the initiative is it said - or even implied - that it is a diktat. True, it does not call explicitly for negotiations, but that is very obvious. And that is the reason that Israel has been so akward in its attitude to it - kbowing that this could open serious negotiations vis-a-vis the Arabs, namely Syria and the Palestinians, of which Israel is so scared, realizing the territorial price to be paid. Yes, Israel is interested in peace with Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait and Tunisia etc., because that does not oblige her to pay in conquered territory.
2. In contrary to what most Israelis (and Jews worldwide) are led to believe, resolution 194 calls for the solution of the refugee problem by negotiation. There's no way the Arabs are going to give up the demand for "the right of return" before there is a comprehensive agreement, in which Israel will have to give up the occupied territories and parts of Jerusalem. Then, and only then, will the Arabs agree to a solution for the refugees which does not ivolve their return to pre-67 Israel.