Is the Arab Peace Initiative Still Viable?
In 1973, Israels Foreign Minister Abba Eban famously stated that Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Today, however, this phrase is more aptly attributable to Israelis than to the Palestinians.
Successive Israeli governments, and especially the current one, seem to believe that by deliberately scuttling opportunities to achieve peace, Israel somehow can further improve its position by maintaining the status quo and compelling the Palestinians to eventually settle for considerably less.
It is debatable who is to blame for the numerous failures of prior peace negotiation efforts between the Israelis and Palestinians. But it is clear that Israel is missing a historic opportunity now to capitalize, at least in principle, on the contents of Arab Peace Initiative (API), which offers full normalized relations with the entire Arab world in exchange for the return of the territories captured in 1967 and a negotiated two-state solution.
Especially today, amidst great uncertainty and turmoil in the region, the API should be advanced as a valuable asset to transform Israels relations with its Palestinian neighbors and the broader Middle East.
The Palestine Papers published by Al Jazeera showed the distance the Palestinians were willing to walk to strike a deal. Confirming this account, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said of the negotiations with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that they were closer than ever in the past to complete an agreement on principles that would ! have led to the end of the conflict between us and the Palestinians.
But the Israeli government has refused to reveal the extent of progress made, shielding the international community from knowing how far Israel was willing to go, leaving no locus to begin based on where those talks left off.
For Netanyahu to place the blame squarely on the Palestinians shoulder is neither accurate nor fair. Every element of the negotiations between Israel and its counterparts, the Palestinians and the Syrians, was based on the provisions of the API. Every peace negotiation in the future will also have to be based on the API, because it offers the only viable framework for a comprehensive peace, which no other peace plan has ever advanced in the past.
For the Arab states to unanimously propose such an initiative was unprecedented both in scope and implications. However objectionable some of the language is to the Israelis, especially in connection with the non-binding UN General Assembly resolution 194 that affirmed the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their original homes, the API provided several common and central denominatorssecurity, normalization, and peacethat every party to the conflict, especially Israel, should seek and could translate to tangible moves toward a permanent agreement.
Contrary to many Israelis who are critical of it, the API was not presented to the Israelis on a take it or leave it basis. But even if it were, Israel should have focused on the positive elements of the Initiative. It could express its reservations but also its desire to enter ! into neg otiations as long as the talks could lead to a two- state solution living side-by-side in peace and security.
Here, Israel should haveand still couldfocus on the basic principles that the API puts forward that are not only acceptable to Israel, but represent historic assets for advancing peace. These principles include Arab acceptance of the notion of a comprehensive peace that recognizes the existence of the State of Israel and its legitimate security concerns.
However, by essentially ignoring the API entirely, Israel has in essence posited that it is not interested in either peace or normalization of relations with the Arab world, which has and continues to portray Israel as an obstruction to peace. As such, Israel has provided its detractors both the opportunity and the rationale to delegitimize it, while substantially increasing international sympathy toward the Palestinians.
A growing number of countries are pointing an accusatory finger at Israel, blaming it for the growing regional tension and as a cause of instability that undermines the strategic national interest of Israels closest allies, including the United States.
Successive Israeli governments, and especially the current one, seem to believe that by deliberately scuttling opportunities to achieve peace, Israel somehow can further improve its position by maintaining the status quo and compelling the Palestinians to eventually settle for considerably less.
It is debatable who is to blame for the numerous failures of prior peace negotiation efforts between the Israelis and Palestinians. But it is clear that Israel is missing a historic opportunity now to capitalize, at least in principle, on the contents of Arab Peace Initiative (API), which offers full normalized relations with the entire Arab world in exchange for the return of the territories captured in 1967 and a negotiated two-state solution.
Especially today, amidst great uncertainty and turmoil in the region, the API should be advanced as a valuable asset to transform Israels relations with its Palestinian neighbors and the broader Middle East.
Israel entered into serious negotiations with the Palestinians and the Syrians in 2000 and in 2008. By all accounts, significant progress was made in these negotiations, strongly suggesting that both sides were on the verge of signing a peace agreement. Both Israel and the Palestinians blame each other for the eventual failure of these negotiations.Israel has provided its detractors both the opportunity and the rationale to delegitimize it..
The Palestine Papers published by Al Jazeera showed the distance the Palestinians were willing to walk to strike a deal. Confirming this account, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said of the negotiations with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that they were closer than ever in the past to complete an agreement on principles that would ! have led to the end of the conflict between us and the Palestinians.
But the Israeli government has refused to reveal the extent of progress made, shielding the international community from knowing how far Israel was willing to go, leaving no locus to begin based on where those talks left off.
For Netanyahu to place the blame squarely on the Palestinians shoulder is neither accurate nor fair. Every element of the negotiations between Israel and its counterparts, the Palestinians and the Syrians, was based on the provisions of the API. Every peace negotiation in the future will also have to be based on the API, because it offers the only viable framework for a comprehensive peace, which no other peace plan has ever advanced in the past.
Repudiating Three Nos
For the first time, the Arab states put forth a peace initiative that has the potential to introduce a revolutionary change in Arab-Israeli relations. The API, first introduced in 2002 and reaffirmed in 2007, represents a historic repudiation of the infamous three nos of the Arab Leagues Khartoum Conference in 1967, in which the League declared no to recognition, no to negotiations, no to peace.For the Arab states to unanimously propose such an initiative was unprecedented both in scope and implications. However objectionable some of the language is to the Israelis, especially in connection with the non-binding UN General Assembly resolution 194 that affirmed the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their original homes, the API provided several common and central denominatorssecurity, normalization, and peacethat every party to the conflict, especially Israel, should seek and could translate to tangible moves toward a permanent agreement.
Contrary to many Israelis who are critical of it, the API was not presented to the Israelis on a take it or leave it basis. But even if it were, Israel should have focused on the positive elements of the Initiative. It could express its reservations but also its desire to enter ! into neg otiations as long as the talks could lead to a two- state solution living side-by-side in peace and security.
Here, Israel should haveand still couldfocus on the basic principles that the API puts forward that are not only acceptable to Israel, but represent historic assets for advancing peace. These principles include Arab acceptance of the notion of a comprehensive peace that recognizes the existence of the State of Israel and its legitimate security concerns.
However, by essentially ignoring the API entirely, Israel has in essence posited that it is not interested in either peace or normalization of relations with the Arab world, which has and continues to portray Israel as an obstruction to peace. As such, Israel has provided its detractors both the opportunity and the rationale to delegitimize it, while substantially increasing international sympathy toward the Palestinians.
Accusing Israel
Israels rejection of the API as a basis for negotiations has further put Jerusalem on the defensive. In addition, Israels failure to articulate a plausible alternative of its own to achieve peace would have garnered international support instead of increasing isolation from the community of nations.A growing number of countries are pointing an accusatory finger at Israel, blaming it for the growing regional tension and as a cause of instability that undermines the strategic national interest of Israels closest allies, including the United States.
Prev - 1 | 2 | - Next >>
Comments