Daily Alert Archives

Why the Arab Peace Initiative Is Not a Suitable Platform for Meaningful Negotiations

(Jerusalem Post) Zalman Shoval - The so-called "Arab Peace Initiative" has undergone numerous changes since it first appeared in Thomas Friedman's 2002 New York Times column. Then Saudi crown prince Abdullah's original wording - expressing, at least in spirit, a willingness to declare an end to the conflict and aiming at establishing normal relations with Israel - was changed at the 2002 Beirut Arab League meeting. The final document became a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum to Israel. While calling on Israel to withdraw unconditionally to the pre-'67 armistice lines, including in Jerusalem, it deliberately omitted UN Security Council Resolution 242, the universally-agreed basis for Arab-Israeli peace - which had specifically related the location of future borders to the question of security. The Beirut summit also called for the return of the Palestinian refugees on the basis of UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which the Arabs interpret as meaning a "right of return" to Israel. Significantly, former American national security advisers Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, in a joint article in the Washington Post some years ago, proposed several alterations in the Arab Peace Initiative, including a specific denial of the "right of return," as well as "strengthening steps to address Israel's security concerns." If the Arab Peace Initiative had been presented, as Jordan's esteemed foreign minister, Marwan Muasher, suggested at the time, as a "simple and powerful explanation of the Arab position" and not as an "either or" dictate, it could perhaps have served as a suitable platform for meaningful negotiations. In its present form it is not. The writer is a former Israeli ambassador to the U.S.
2014-11-07 00:00:00
Full Article