Saudi Proposal Revives Hopes for Middle East Peace Agreement
Published March 27, 2007
There is a positive buzz in the media about a revival of the 2002 Saudi initiative for Middle East peace. At first, Israel seemed dismissive of the revival, based on an initiative it has previously rejected, and suggested the initiative be amended slightly. This brought calls from prominent Arabs for Israel not to miss "a historic opportunity." As the revival of the initiative becomes more official and the U.S. gets on board, bringing Israel along, it seems that the Arabs may be the obstacle to their own prospects of bringing peace to this long conflict torn region.
Israel's main problem with the initiative is its incorporation of U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194, stipulating that all Palestinian refugees who want to return to their homes be allowed to do so, and those who don't are compensated accordingly. Not only is this impossible for Israel because it would end their status as a Jewish state once and for all, but it is also impractical because most, maybe all of the homes and/or plots owned or inhabited by the expelled Palestinians no longer exist. This makes the Palestinians clinging to their lost hopes an obstacle to their endeavours for peace. Not to mention the fact that many of the refugees have left the camps and carved out lives for themselves, making it an obstacle worth toppling.
This problem with the initiative is the reason Israel has outright ignored its validity for five years. This is a shame, because the initiative offers Israel a lot, in return for a full withdrawal from Palestinian territories occupied after the 1967 war and the creation of a Palestinian state. It offers the recognition of the state of Israel, and peace and normalized relations between all the Arab League member states and Israel. Normalization of relations with Israel was a taboo in the Arab world. The fact that all Arab League states ratified the initiative in 2002 was "a political revolution," as it was called in the Jerusalem Post earlier this year. The initiative was ratified again last year, and all states have confirmed their continued commitment to it. Therefore the offer still stands: a political revolution in the Arab world at a time when Iran is gaining power in the region is an offer Israel really can't afford to sniff at.
That is why there has been a shift in Israeli attitudes recently, as the political momentum builds behind the revitalization of the initiative, which has reawakened support in the Arab world and picked up the support of the U.S. Israeli politicians have recently been making statements to the effect that the initiative would warrant serious consideration were it slightly modified. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said: "If moderate Arab countries try to advance the process along the lines of the Saudi initiative I will look at it as a very positive development." The Israelis expected the initiative to be changed so that the right of return allows refugees only to return to the new Palestinian state, not Israel. Apparently there have been a lot of manoeuvrings behind the scenes between Israel, the Saudi monarchy and the Arab League as the monarchy attempts to have such modifications made.
- Saudi Proposal Revives Hopes for Middle East Peace Agreement
- Published: March 27, 2007
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: Government, Politics: International, Politics: Policy, Politics: U.S., Politics: War and Terrorism
- Writer: Liam Bailey
- Liam Bailey's BC Writer page
- Liam Bailey's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
1. "All Palestinian refugees who want to return to their homes be allowed to do so, and those who don't are compensated accordingly."
The article overlooks some compensation possibilities. Without the Palestinian conflict, Saddam would not have paid families of suicide bombers whose houses were demolished by Israel, the prime reason why Israel provoked the US to invade Iraq.
Assuming that the Iraq war was avoidable, the US should have used the trillion dollars we pissed away in Iraq to compensate Palestinian refugees. A trillion dollars would go a long way. One trillion dollars divided up by one million refugees would give each Palestinian $1,000,000. That would entice them to resettle only within their pre-1967 borders.
2. UN Resolutions 242 and 338 call for Israel to return to pre-1967 borders. For several decades, the US vetoed all attempts to enforce these resolutions.
Since 1967, Israel maintained that it wants to trade "land for peace." However, over the years, this was re-interpreted by Israel as "peace for pieces of land." During this time the Palestinians called on the UN to send in a force to ensure a real peace.
If the US can go into Iraq and install a peaceful democracy in a country with a population of 24 million, the US could install a peaceful democracy in the West Bank and Gaza where the population is one-tenth the size. The Palestinians asked for such a UN force many times, but it has been vetoed by the US the same number of times.
3. "U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, currently on a Middle East tour promoting a restart of the peace process, said it was "premature" to talk about a major conference involving the Quartet, moderate Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians. Other U.S. officials confirmed the idea was under consideration."
If there is a major conference, leave Condolezza at home. Take AIPAC and the Christian Zionists instead. They make our Middle East policy.
4. One more thing. If US policy in the Middle East is determined by Daniel [11:40-41], the US has revoked its Constitution.
"One more thing. If US policy in the Middle East is determined by Daniel [11:40-41], the US has revoked its Constitution."
US policy in the Middle East is not determined by Daniel [11:40-41]. It will be OVERRIDDEN by Daniel [11:40-41]. That is the point I was making.
They are talking in the papers here about April 6 for nuking Iran.
That's Good Friday in the Christian liturgical calendar....
The Empire strikes again...
In my first comment to thisw article, I asked you
You write, "That is why there has been a shift in Israeli attitudes recently," and quote Ehud Olmert.
From your research, aside from Olmert and those immediately around him, when you say "Israeli attitudes" whose attitudes do you mean? Which Israelis do you mean?
Still waiting for an answer...
Ruvy:
The only two I can recollect are Olmert and Tzipi Livni,
As you will know many comments on news articles about any agreements or potential negotiations from israelis come on the condition of anonimity.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/61647)
Liam,
This article appears more balanced than previous efforts on this topic. Good!
Before we go slogging at it again, let me ask you a question. You write, "That is why there has been a shift in Israeli attitudes recently," and quote Ehud Olmert.
From your research, aside from Olmert and those immediately around him, when you say "Israeli attitudes" whose attitudes do you mean? Which Israelis do you mean?
On an entirely separate issue, you write, "Representatives from all those countries gathered in the same room, and united in the face of a common enemy - Iran - should have more reason than ever to achieve agreement."
I suggest to you that while this is indeed the intent of the recent "Mecca Agreement" as well as resuscitating this dead idea the Saudis presented five years ago, it will not succeed.
The "united front" against Iran will appear to at first succeed. Indeed, it may appear to succeed so far as to result in the declaration of a "Palestinian" state in the Gaza Strip and as yet unspecified areas of Judea and Samaria sometimes this year (2007, not 5767).
But it will ultimately fail and fall apart as the prophecy in Daniel [11:40-41] of a league of Arab states headed by Persia takes shape. In fact, Liam, instead of arguing and disputing over this - we obviously have divergent views - why don't we sit quietly and wait for a year and a half till the end of 2008? With G-d's help, we will both be around for that long, and we can see where events have taken us. Then, there will be plenty of time to argue...