After 8 years, why hasn't Israel responded to the Arab peace initiative?
Few Israelis know what is written in the first pan-Arabic and pan-Islamic document that proposes recognizing Israel and exchanging hostile relations for normalization.
By Akiva Eldar Tags: Middle East peace Palestinians Arab peace initiative Israel newsWhat would we say if the Arabs were to ignore an Israeli peace initiative for more than eight years? What would we write if, during all this time, the Palestinian leadership were not to have even one discussion about our initiative? How many Israelis, including learned members of the academic world, know what is written in the first pan-Arabic and pan-Islamic document that proposes recognizing Israel and exchanging hostile relations for normalization?
 |
U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meeting in the U.S. in January 2010. |
| Photo by: (GPO) |
Prof. Yoram Meital, the head of the Chaim Herzog Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, who this week opened a comprehensive conference at the university on the initiative and its political and environmental implications, said that this was the only international conference that Israeli academia had held so far about the Arab peace plan.
 |
Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin |
| Photo by: David Mizrachi |
For the first time, representatives from the West Bank, Egypt, and Jordan sat at a round table along with their Israeli colleagues and spoke about the nature of the peace initiative. It was obvious that the guests from Bethlehem University, from the Egyptian media and the University of Amman had come to Be'er Sheva to try and figure out why the Jews, who are considered clever people, (no one bothered to deny this ) are missing a rare opportunity to put an end to their exhausting conflict and at the same time to annoy Hezbollah and isolate Iran.
The Madrid Coalition for promoting the Arab plan recently held a meeting in Antalya (before the flotilla incident ) which included representatives from Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan. Prof. Elie Podeh of Hebrew University in Jerusalem was there together with MK Meir Sheetrit (Kadima ).
Podeh said Sheetrit, who has supported the initiative almost from day one, has not been able to convince his colleagues in the party to adopt it as the basis for negotiations with our neighbors. Cabinet Minister Avishay Braverman (Labor ) last week called on the his faction in the Knesset to demand of the prime minister that Israel be prepared to begin direct negotiations with the Arabs on the basis of the initiative.
Journalist Samir Ratas, a Palestinian who now lives in Egypt, brought a message to Israel at the conference: "The peace initiative is not an Arab plot to destroy Israel nor is it an ambush. Many years ago, the Arabs recognized your existence." Ratas departed with two questions in mind: "How many more years will we have to wait until you understand that this initiative is a strategic choice?" And "How many years do you think that it will wait for you?"
The item that was quarantined
 |
|
| Photo by: Amos Biderman |
The item was broadcast once only. That was on Sunday, May 30, at one in the afternoon, a few hours before the raid on the Turkish ship "Mavi Marmara." The news broadcast on Israel Radio's Reshet Bet stated that a number of hospitals reported they had been instructed not to give any information to the media in the event that wounded were brought to them after the flotilla was blocked from entering Israel's territorial waters. It is not clear why the news item was not mentioned in subsequent broadcasts nor why it did not appear in any other media.
It is clear that among those who were involved in planning the campaign, there were people who were not surprised by the welcome the Israeli soldiers received on board the vessel. For the Turkel committee's information.
Gossip about Taglit
Last week I took a night train from Ben-Gurion International Airport and I unintentionally became party to a secret about the Taglit-Birthright Israel campaign, that large project that brings tens of thousands of Jewish students from across the globe to Israel. A group of men and women soldiers who had just bade farewell to the students from the Diaspora were discussing excitedly (and at the top of their voices ) how they had spent the last few days in their company.
One of them spoke about a weird Jewish girl who wakes up in the morning and takes an energy pill and later goes to sleep with another pill, this one against depression. Another spoke of a student who one happy night managed to down a dozen bottles of beer.
A cheerful girl soldier reported that she had managed to knock the hell out of an American student who said that if an Israeli soldier had been killed on the Turkish ship, "this would have helped Israel's PR."
Her colleague added another bit of information about a student "whose mother isn't Jewish at all and whose father is also not really attached to Judaism and who said he had come here just for the trip."
On the other hand, another student had said that she had already decided (after 10 days in Israel ) that she would immigrate here. The soldiers all agreed that the meeting with the young Americans had been interesting.
It is obvious that this is not a representative sample of the profile of the 230,000 youngsters from 52 countries (the project was the initiative of Yossi Beilin ) that Taglit-Birthright Israel has brought here over the years.
Thousands of them now live in Israel. The project's Internet site states that Taglit-Birthright Israel sets up the infrastructure for ambassadors for Israel in the world; that it brings tens of thousands of Jewish students who are cut off from Judaism and Israel for a first educational tour of the land, strengthens their Jewish identity and sends young blood to the Jewish communities in the Diaspora.
Birthright Israel has increased the number of students who come here by 2,000 percent in a short period.
A research team from Brandeis University in Massachusetts found that 64 percent of the graduates of the program feel very attached to their Judaism in the wake of the tour (as compared with 38 percent who felt that way before the tour ) and 55 percent feel very attached to Israel in the wake of the visit (as compared with 22 percent who felt that way before they came ). It would be interesting to examine the extent of their connection with Israel and Judaism in another 10 years.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
How many Israelis, including learned members of the academic world, know what is written in the first pan-Arabic and pan-Islamic document that proposes recognizing Israel and exchanging hostile relations for normalization?
If by normalization you mean allowing the full right of return, "67 armistice lines (not official borders for anyone who pays attention to international laws), and Jerusalem as a precondition for negotiations - well then you should probably rethink things friend.
The Saudi 2002 peace plan has been the best prospect for an enduring peace. It is just and offers balance. The security of Israel is guaranteed. The only obstruction are Israeli leaders that continue pandering to religious and settler zealots. It is time for Israelis to awake to the realities of the world rather than remain an island.
The Saudi plan is not very different from earlier proposals, and alternatives to official Palestinian demands regarding Jerusalem and the right of return are not present. Why should Israel accept or even respond to more of the same old stuff.
Until the end of Sharon's reign (late 2005) there was no way Israel would accept the Saudi plan. Sharon wanted disconnected Bantustans for the Palestinians, absolutely no '67 borders. Then came the Olmert-Livni regime. By the end of their term, it might have been possible to agree on the '67 borders (subject to territorial exchange) but Livni stated that she cannot accept the return of a "single" Palestinian refugee. "Why", she was asked. Because this would invalidate the basic beliefs of Zionism. Never mind that Ben-Gurion allowed the return of 100,000 Palestinians right after the 1948 war. I don't understand Livni, but I do remember that she was raised as a Likudnik. You can take a "man" out of Likud, but you can't take the crazy Likud beliefs out of him/her. And nowadays we have Netanyahu, still a Yahoo in Likud. I am afraid it will be a while before the Arab initiative is considered seriously. Obama should pressure Israel, perhaps this will work.
The plan was flatly rejected in 2002 because its a take it or leave it plan which is Isral you accept without question every single demand we have made and you got a deal if your not willing to accept all the demands then no deal and we have nothing more to talk about. Since 2002 every single senior politician has said the plan should be a starting point for negotiations. Basicly we like parts of it but we don't like it all if your willing to work with use this plan as a foundation for negotiation rather than take it or leave it then lets talk. The attitude the Israeli politicians are taking of this being a basis for negotiation is perfectly reasonable. The arabs are saying what they want so shouldn't Israel be allowed to say what it wants and we negotiate some kind of middle ground? Why should Israel simply accept it because the arabs are offering? Israel has rejected the plan as offered in 2002 but if the arabs want to use it as a foundation for negotiations then the Israeli political establishment won't reject it.
Israel has been 'negotiating' for 43 years. The world is tired of these endless 'negotiations'. It is time for action. The Arab peace plan reflects the desired result for the Americans, Europeans, Palestinians and others. Why is this unacceptable to Israel?
America has never submitted a detailed peace plan. Nonetheless, America has always had a well known position on mideast peace. That position is and always has been that there would be a separate and independent Palestinian state in the west bank and Gaza, approximately along the 1967 borders. The "Arab peace plan", or "Saudi plan" was made with the American position in mind, but fleshed out more details and was an official proposal. Israel did not reject it because this would be the same as rejecting America position. Instead, Israel took actions to moot that peace plan, and any peace plan. During the 2006 war, Israel killed over 1000 Lebanese civilians and bombed civilian targets over all of Lebanon in response to a minor border raid by Hizbollah. This sort of thing has a tendency to bury any talk of peace plans and it is only one example of Israels anti-peace action.
Then Israel needs to reject it - utterly reject it - and insist ... (1) you seem over-eager for israel to reject it. please state your agenda (2) when the arabs formally present the plan to israel, israel will formally reject it. until then there is no reason to reject something which they have read about in the papers but which has not been presented to them duncan
Israel doesn't respond because doing so means accepting that territory can not be annexed at the point of a gun. ..... there is certainly international precedent for forcing agressors to cede territory, when they lose the war they initiated. look what happened to germany. if the arabs do not like the implications of this precedent, they should have thought twice before attempting to destroy israel in '67. duncan
Meanwhile //Stephen M. Schwebel – Judge of International Court of Justice The state of the law has been correctly summarized by Elihu Lauterpacht, who points out that: territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the unlawful use of force. But to omit the word “unlawful” is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor’s charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. RESTORE THE LAWFUL SOVEREIGN. Israel is sovereign over what was declared May 14th 1947. No more, no less. Furthermore, exactly who initiates a preemptive war?
this arab 'peace plan' leaves israel with the 47 borders which were defined by the americans as indefensible. if the arabs were serious about peace rather leaving israel in a vulnerable position, ripe for a arab takeover, they would come up with a plan that leaves israel with defensible borders and a plan how they are going to disarm hamas. until then any plan which does not have those 2 components is not worth being taken seriously duncan
I don't know how the writer claims that Israel never responded to "the Arab peace initiative". This is so untrue....The Arab peace initiative was first presented in Beirut the 28th of March 2002. The Israeli response was swift and very very rapid, it came the 29th of March 2002. Doesn't this date mean anything?
And the bewilderment is misplaced.The question however remains -why.
No where does he demonstrate his basic premise, that people don't know what is in the "Arab plan." I can't speak for most, but I have read it. Likewise, Eldar's claim that Israel never responded is likewise false. In 2002, Israel offered to meet and negotiate the details of the proposal and was flatly refused. Likewise, the Arab League has refused every effort to offer specifics about what sort of compromise on the "right of return" would be acceptable. In other words, the Arab world again endorses the "two state solution" as long as both states created are Arab.
"Israel offered to meet and negotiate the details of the proposal and was flatly refused." Yeah, funny that. So the Arabs didn't want Israel to ghost-write their proposal, heh? Perhaps when Israel gets around to producing its own "Israeli peace initiative" you will contemplate the odds of the Israeli PM happily passing the pen over to the Saudi King and offering to let him rewrite the bits he doesn't like.... Would that also seem fair and reasonable to you?
Or do you think one side should impose a solution on the other?
This is the only time that the principles met on an outstanding and fair proposal. 17 Presidents, heads-of state or Kings traveled to Annapolis, Maryland (US Naval Academy) met with Olmert and Livni for a half day meeting. Shame..this proposal deserved better.
Israel doesn't respond because doing so means accepting that territory can not be annexed at the point of a gun. The regime chokes at that thought because their vision for the state is predicated upon future territorial self-aggrandisement e.g. East Jerusalem today, "Eretz Israel" tommorow, and up to the Litani River sometime down the track....
The arab peace initiative demands full right of return, i.e. the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. If that's the price for peace with the Arabs, no thanks, we can do fine without. A fairer answer would be mutual withdrawal of claims -- the 1 million Jews who fled and were driven out of Arab lands in the 40s and 50s give up their right to return or compensation, as do the 1 million arabs who fled to other lands during 1948.
"The arab peace initiative demands full right of return" Nope. It most definitely does not make that demand. Perhaps you should try and read it one day, rather than simply assume what is in it.
Palestinians are given the right of return and Jews are given right of return to the Arab countries that expelled them. That would technically be the more correct and fair exchange.
no one should give up their right of return, period. if this is the sticking point, challenge the arab states to compensate those who left. all israel has to do is make one genuine move in the direction of real, just peace.
it is vague but in theory, this could mean Israel vetoes any return of Palestinians to Israel or only a small amount and still be within the parameters of the initiative. We would need to discuss this point with them to know. And for the record, I don't know any Jews who are willing to return to ARAB COUNTRIES
Tossing facts around isn't fair. This is talkback, afterall.
The Arab initiative is meaningless because it calls for the right of return, which is de facto the dissolution of israel.
By Aug 1948, they had been transformed into a demographic threat, as if by magic, SOME of a MINORITY??? Our knowledge of procreation and simple maths, tells us this is impossible. Our knowledge of procreation and simple maths, tells us the threat is smaller than it ever was. 1948 Palestine refugees are at a minimum 62 years old.
I suggest to publish the text of this initiative, so everybody will know what it suggests or omits
Because there is no room for Israel security in this initiative.
Like Eldar I would like to believe in the good intentions of the Arab states and their peace proposal. However, there is one conspicuous stumbling block in this initiative and that is UN resolution 194 and specifically its article 11 concerning the return of the refugees which reads: "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". Notice: "refugees wishing to return to heir homes should(!) be permitted to do so": what homes? in Jafa, Haifa, Jerusalem, and hundreds of villages across the country. How many? Let's suppose that "only" half a million would return, half a million from the refugee camps in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria etc. This is not a proposal Israel can accept.
"Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194". So it definitely is not saying that all the refugees can, or should, or must, return. Rather, it is saying that a "just solution" must be found, and the **only** stipulation that is put upon the nature of that "just solution" is that it can not violate UNGA 194 (which, of course, calls for return OR compensation) e.g. a "just proposal" that the refugees simply crawl away under a rock is a non-starter.
And if by 'refugees' you include their descendents, you could get a disaster for Israel. If the wording were rather 'a just solution to the refugee problem' without mention of UN 194, then Israel would have must less case to object.
So the problem is very simple and would be recognized as such in any Western Court of Law; it is all about the return of stolen property.
This typical and simplistic point of view is another reason why peace ain't happening. It takes two to tango and the Arab world is only interested in Israel going away. A "just" solution depends on who defines "just".
In every debate I have with conservative Arabs now a days, I run out of execuses for the Arab Peace Initiative. The plan is under a lot of pressure to be dropped and a hardline approach be adopted.
Israelis want peace but we are so jaded from the past that we see monsters behind every statement and act. We have learned that we are able to survive and thrive without having formal peace in place which has made us ignore our neighbours.
Let's forget that our neighbors hate us, convienient...
Not when there's more to exploit in building settlements in the west bank. Who are we kidding. Israel plans to squeeze the PALs onto whatever marginal land is left and kept the settlement in Israel. Already Israel gobbles most of the water from West Bank aquifers.
Israel's prime ministers, from Menachem Begin to Yitzhak Rabin, have sworn never to go back to the 1949 armistice lines, which Abba Eban called "Auschwitz borders."
and it's a legitimate concern, but that doesn't make it any less a rhetorical statement that can be discussed and even, just maybe, rejected.
Nice to see that Haaretz (Akiva Eldar) is obviously wondering too....:)
Only took you 6 years before pondering the question!
The "plan" actually a call for the destruction of Israel. Why would Israel respondr?
the author has ignored key aspects about the so called arab "peace plan" aka "saudi peace plan". The result of which is the destruction of Israel through political rather than military means. The so called "right of return" would result in the election of Hamas in Israel and the destruction of Israel. The author knows this but ignores this deciding to focus only on the reasonable parts of the plan...rather than on all of it. The reason Israel doesn't respond if because the Arabs are inflexible...it's a take it or leave plan. So there no need to respond!
And by the way, did Iran, Hamas, Hezbolah joint that so-called peace initiative?
The devil is in the details. When you really read the fine print, you find that the plan essentially dismantles Israel. If that is not enough, one clause says each of the 23 states can consider adherence to the peace optional. It is a non-starter.
I have read the initiative and found nothing of this sort can you point out which clause are you talking about?
1. The clause that says return to the 1967 borders. This will put a hostile - yes a hostile authority on the narrow waist of Israel with the danger of any thrust by an armed force of cutting Israel in half. 2. U.N. Resolution 194. Calls for the return of those refugees that want to return and willing to live in peace with their neighbors.... Tell Me which refugees living in camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and those elsewhere in the middle east will not want to "return". Also remember that the interpretation of that resolution is disputed with the Arabs claiming that it relates to the return of all refuges. Does that answer your question as to which clauses ??
where would Israel not be surrounded by "hostile" forces. If Israel were the physical siz of Texas wouldn't they still be surrounded by "hostiles"? WHo is Israel planning to make peace with? The easter bunny?
Just because some Palestinian "journalist" said it is not doesn't change a thing.
You say "Few Israelis know what is written in the first pan-Arabic and pan-Islamic document that proposes recognizing Israel" Perhaps it is because newspapers have failed to report this news. I read Ha aretz all the time and have never seen the details printed. But in my opinion most Arabs would rather see Israel destroyed then become a neighbor. I have lived in Israel as well as in Tunisia and Algeria. It is only because that is not an option are these Arabs willing to consider an alternative, we would do well to remember this fact during any negotiations
because as everyone knows, it was a take it or leave it and large parts of it were unacceptable left as is. Thats why ... but since you bring up why no one responded after 8yrs, tell me; why did no one respond when israel was being barraged with missiles for 8yrs and more... not to mention after gaza was given back to....where was the international community? where was ban ki boy or kofi? where were all the human rights groups and the commissions to study hamas' use of targeting innocents...a human rights and geneva conventions crime....whre were all of them huh?
"because as everyone knows, it was a take it or leave it and large parts of it were unacceptable left as is." Then Israel needs to reject it - utterly reject it - and insist that the Arabs take it off the table. Israel will not. Israel neither accepts it, nor does Israel reject it; Israel simply pretends that it isn't there. There is a reason why Israel does that, and that is because the Israeli leadership knows - even if you do not - that it is in fact a reasonable document.
Israel believes in Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrate River
Or borders were adjusted with Jordan in return for peace? Or Israel left Gaza ? How about "all of Palestine is sacred Islamic waqf" israel to be obliterated by Islam? What would you like in return for that?
Read the peace agreement closely.