Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said today in Cairo that he will attend the Annapolis meeting. I think this is a good decision. It will allow him to give the extremely helpful, Saudi-initiated “Arab Peace Plan of 2002” a good and serious presentation there.
That AP story by Salah Nasrawi also notes that Prince Saud said that at Annapolis he “would not take part in a ‘theatrical show,’ such as handshakes with Israeli officials, saying the gathering must make serious progress.” That is fine, too. Under his plan, the Arab states would all engage in full normalization of relations with Israel simultaneously with Israel undertaking its withdrawal from all (or nearly all) the lands its army occupied in 1967. (Many Israelis and their friends want to have this recognition/normalization performed upfront. Of course they might want that. But I can’t see why they would reasonably believe that anyone else would support that request.)
Regarding the core issues of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, I see that Amira Hass has another piece in Haaretz today in which she explains why many Palestinians consider the PA’s negotiating stance to be a weak, overly appeasing one. I think this is a further commentary on the Nov. 17th negotiating Draft (note that’s a PDF there) that she had received recently– the one in which the Israeli and Palestinian sides could not even agree whether it should be a “Joint document” or a “Joint statement.” There were also, at that point, many other remaining disagreements between the two sides.
Also in today’s Ha’aretz is an intriguing account by Akiva Eldar of the conclusions reached by members of something called the Aix Group, a group of Israeli, Palestinian, and “international” experts that has been trying to unravel the many economic strands that would be involved in a satisfactory resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue.
The group recommends that Palestinian refugees from 1948 should be allowed to choose their place of permanent residence, but implementation of that should be subject to the sovereign wishes of the state involved; and an alternative package of full compensation would be offered to those not returning to their original homes and properties in what is now Israel. The total amounts of compensation involved would, the group estimated, come to “between $55 and $85 billion.”
Exploratory work like that– based on updated surveys of the extent of Palestinian property claims against Israel, like those recently produced by Prof. Michael Fischbach here in the US– is really helpful. If a Palestinian-Israeli final peace agreement is to be sustainable, it must of course be sold to a sizeable majority of the people in both national communities, and must provide a basis for the new Palestinian state that is viable in both economic and political terms.
Maybe a formula like that proposed by the Aix Group, which involves overwhelmingly compensation to the refugees rather than actual physical return, could work out. But I believe it only really has a chance of working provided the territorial base of the Palestinian state is broad enough and coherent enough to accommodate Palestinian aspirations for a viable state. That is, it cannot be eaten into in the West Bank by the massive blocs of illegal Israeli settlements, as solidifying the line of the current Israeli “security” barrier into the final state boundary would do. Most of the areas currently occupied by those settlements would therefore have to come under the authority of the Palestinian state.
In addition, a permanent passage between the West Bank and Gaza needs to be assured. Completely free interaction between Palestine and the world economy– notably, NOT an interaction mediated always through Israel, as in the Oslo formula– needs to be guaranteed. And of course, a workable formula needs to be found for Jerusalem.
Much of the work of brainstorming possible formulas on all these issues has already been done. You can see a survey of proposals on Jerusalem, for example, in the 2004 book on the Israeli-Palestinian question that I worked on, along with a group of fellow Quakers from around the world.
Mainly at this point, what is needed is for the leaderships on both sides to show that they really are committed to finding a robust and sustainable solution that meets the needs of all the people iinvolved– around 8 million-plus Palestinians and 7 million-plus Israelis– sufficiently fairly.
Given that gross population data, an outcome that ends up giving the Palestinian state a land base that is in any significant way inferior to the 23% of Mandate Palestine that makes up the West Bank and Gaza, would seem very far from able to meet this requirement.
So there’s a lot of work to do at the bilateral level. And a lot of hard decisions that the US government will need to take, especially regarding the degree to which it plans to continue underwriting Israeli intransigence in this peacemaking.
There are also numerous other regional issues that need to be addressed. To see my comments on some of them, read my previous post here.
30 thoughts on “Annapolis: Saudi and Palestinian dimensions”
Comments are closed.
“Many Israelis and their friends want to have this recognition/normalization performed upfront. Of course they might want that. But I can’t see why they would reasonably believe that anyone else would support that request.”
Because countries should not withhold recognition from other countries simply because of disagreements over political disputes. Except for Syria and the PNA, no Arab state has any territorial claim whatsoever against Israel, and should.
It may very well be that Arab countries are unable to do the right thing due to the hatred and bigotry throughout those societies. But anyone who credibly advocates peace should be for encouraging such normalization.
And in any event, prior experience demonstrates that normalization is possible and desirable. Egypt did not normalize until it got back the territory it wanted (and stuck Israel with the territory it did NOT want). Jordan, however, was able to normalize relations once it conceded that it would not make a claim on the land that it had lost in the six day war. Mauritania was able to normalize relations in 1999. It’s a win win for all involved, and there’s no reason for other Arab nations not to follow suit.
Peace now!
THE GIFT IN ITS WAY!
U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan
By Amiram Cohen
The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa. The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=332835&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
Did this Oil pipeline having measuring meters?
Unfortunately, I think you are right that the only way to reach any sort of solution involves ignoring all international law. Instead of starting with the facts of the total illegality of all of the settlemnts and the annexation of Jeruselum and and the other Israeli actions and recognizing the right of refugee return, we must deal with the facts on the ground as ugly as they are. Once the US abandoned all pretense of supporting international law, the possibility of a just solution was gone. As one who has always supported the concepts of law and justice,I believe that the Palestinians should stand firm for their rights, but, although I saw it briefly during my visit, I am not there living daily under the heel of the occupier, trying to survive and gain a somewhat better life for my children. So perhaps it is time for the Palestinians to accept the fact that there never will be any real negotiations and that what we are really talking about is a conquered people trying to eke out the best possible terms of a surrender document dictated by a greedy and ruthless conquerer supported completely by the world’s only superpower. History shows that Israel’s goal has always been, and still is, all of the land and none of the people or as close to that as possible without losing American support. Anyway, Abbas seems to be just the sort of figure who could accept the surrender terms. And a crushed people might go along with it if it was dressed up a little. Such a deal might indeed secure a generation of peace while the younger generation of Palestinians, who will eventually come to realize the nature of the sellout by their parents, grows up. In today’s world of communications they will realize what they have lost at some point. No matter how you dress a pig, it is still a pig. The same is true of an apartheid regime. But, in the long term we are all dead, and maybe it is time for this generation to get some small relief from the misery of the occupation for some part of their remaining lives, even if it means trading hope and justice for it. God help the future generations of Israelis and Palestinians who will have to deal with the long range consequences of whatever agreement is imposed.
It seems to me that it is a complete waste of time to focus on the details of a dreamed-of settlement as long as it remains clear that Israel is more interested in acquiring territory and maintaining its position as neighborhood bully than it is in living in peace with its neighbors.
It seems to me that it is a complete waste of time to focus on the details of a dreamed-of settlement as long as it remains clear that Israel is more interested in acquiring territory and maintaining its position as neighborhood bully than it is in living in peace with its neighbors.
Yes, we must all acknowledge [again] Israel’s irredeemable evil, bad intentions, bad faith, and intrinsic awfulness. Shirin you’re one step ahead of us. Israel clearly has no interest in living in peace with its neighbors! [/yawn!]
History shows that Israel’s goal has always been, and still is, all of the land and none of the people or as close to that as possible without losing American support.
How the hell does something like this slip by the editors? Is this (or Shirin’s Israelophobic boilerplate) anything other than hate speech? Are you really trying to convince anyone of anything or does it just make you feel good to rant about Israelis genocidal tendencies??
Helena,
I would like to know your opinion on the Palestinians advocating the legal argument for the institution of the 1947 Partition Plan. I am pretty sure that this is the only legal basis for the state of Israel. Why shouldn’t the Palestinians argue for their claim to all the land given them under the Partition Plan? Also, I do not buy into arguments on the basis of practicality (ie. it’s not practical because Israel will not allow it…), because on that basis the Palestinians have absolutely no defense against any Israeli aggression. The truth is, Israel will never dismantle it’s settlements or give the Palestinians a “viable” state anyway… so why shouldn’t the Palestinians advocate their legal rights?
I will just add, I personally believe that a one-state solution is the only possibility to actually solve the conflict, but short of that, the Palestinians should ask for no less than the land given them under the Partition Plan.
Joe, the partition plan was a proposal. It was rejected by the Arabs. They can’t now call “do over” and get it back.
To the extent that Israel needs to be justified by UN resolutions, the key resolution is UN General Assembly Resolution 273, of May 11, 1949. That acknowledged that Israel was a peace-loving state and admitted to membership in the United Nations.
Occasionally, people will claim that Israel was admitted only on the condition that it fulfilled various demands set fort in other resolutions. UNGA 273 does not contain any such conditions.
Vadim you have a very peculiar notion of “hate speech”. Obviously you cannot tolerate the views of those who disagree with you.
As to the question of abiding by International Law: Israel’s contempt for its quaint dictates is a double edged sword. When the US decides to withdraw its unconditional support the appeal of law is likely to become clearer.
The idea that Egypt and Jordan have both reached satisfactory accomodations with Israel is premissed on the assumption that the regimes signing those deals had not been “nobbled” beforehand. The likelihood is that any democratically elected government in either of these countries would be pressed to reverse the course of co-operation in Israel’s colonial schemes.
Wow, bevin even manages to outdo the anti-peace camp. Not only does he not believe the Arab states should recognize, but believes that current states with peace treaties should abrogate them!
It really is a pity when a writer/blogger who claims to be a “peace activist” attracts so many supporters who have such vile hatred and war mongering in them.
so if a democratically elected Egyptian government rescinds the peace treaty, does this mean that Israel gets the Sinai back?
Vadim – please, a little sanity and less frothing at the mouth. Where did you get “genocide” from the phrase “all of the land and none of the people”? I am referring to Plan D and its current incarnation in the “transfer” proposals fronted by Lieberman and the other fascists (as so named by Labor and other Israeli politicians) in his party. You must be taking Dershowitz injections.
Obviously you cannot tolerate the views of those who disagree with you.
Sure I can bevin, or I would find most of what I read here intolerable. Do YOU believe that the Israeli people as a whole don’t want peace? Do you find bigoted broadsides like this worthwhile or hate speech?
Jack, where on earth do you get that I’m a dershowitz fan? All Israel-lovers look the same eh? Whatever you were referring to, you said “Israel’s goals” not merely Lieberman’s, leading this english speaker to assume you meant “Israelis” and not some narrower category. Subsititute “Arab” for Israeli and your remarks wouldn’t seem out of place on any number of Arab-hating websites.
Israel is more interested in acquiring territory and maintaining its position as neighborhood bully than it is in living in peace with its neighbors.
Israel’s goal has always been, and still is, all of the land and none of the people
People who genuinely believe the foregoing have no business calling themselves peace activists. The correct term is “bigot.” You should really be ashamed of yourselves.
vadim,
May I borrow your rosey sunglasses please? Or better, maybe I should have just gouged my eyes out and not seen what has been going on for the past few decades?
Actions that “face inward” to within each national society itself should certainly include efforts to end the expression within it of any sentiments that demonize whole groups of other people-whether citizens or non-citizens-based solely on their religious affiliation or national origin…
David, do you feel it’s appropriate to demonize the entire nation of Israel by alleging it has no interest in peace, but only in warfare and ethnic cleansing? If not, you should be sharing my outrage. OTOH maybe you really believe that Israelis as a whole are a warmongering race of land grubbing colonizers, in which case I wonder why you’d think any political remedy durable or worth pursuing.
In any case, I hope you overcome the obvious hatred you feel for Israel and its citizens. Group hatred is very destructive. I’m sure it feels good to indulge these tendencies among like minded people like bevin and Shirin, but it’s well outside any dialogue aimed at good faith mutual understanding.
Vadim –
What color is the sky in your world? Any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitic and hate mongering. Hence the Dershowitz analogy. I met many wonderful people in Israel as well as in Palestine. Unfortunately, most of the Israelis had been brainwashed with the mantra that “security” justifies any action no matter how personally repugnanat it may be. Just as the Bush administration tries to justify its outrages against basic human decency and civil rights. Certainly having suicide bombs going off in your restaurants, shops and streets is a horrible thing to endure and I sympathize with every victim and family member and every Israeli who has endured such trauma. There is no cause that justifies such things. But no one I spoke to could answer the question of what would bring a young person to do such a thing. Like you (and me), they have no concept of what occupation is really like – hour by hour, day by day , year by year with no end in sight. Yes, it was a terrible thing to not be able to go to the mall with your friends without fear, but it is is a world apart from not being able to even let your child leave the house for fear of getting shot, or waiting every night for the IDF raid in your neighborhood which may or may not target the right house. There is no moral equivalency between occupier and occupied. At this point, nothing will end all of the killing and violence, but ending the illegal occupation will go a long way.
its position as neighborhood bully than it is in living in peace with its neighbors.
Shirin, if Arabs agreed in 1948 on the UN of partitioning Palestine land the Arab nation would be had saved and lost far less from this drama of continuous wars with enemy surprisingly many Arab states have failed to stop them in 1948 and afterward till now.
But its looks and its believed to be that Israel was the only beneficiary from this long saga, presumably if Arab Nation was agreed in 1948 then Israelis will be on a small strip of land which not allowed them to expanding illegally or legally.
Israel have no attention in any final peace deal with Arabs Nation as long as it take they gaining more and more and Arab Nation loosing more and more.
With continues Arms deals and Oil dollars thrown outside of Arab land for building military, defenses for wars with enemy that Arab Nation can not stand in front of it to the point that we get that A Cat facing Lion.
Any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitic and hate mongering.
Actually Jack, plenty of criticism of Israel is warranted and not at all anti-semitic. What you wrote above (claiming without a shred of evidence that Israelis in general approve of ethnic cleansing and have no interest in peace) isn’t criticism but a coarse slander.
“Israel’s goal has always been, and still is, all of the land and none of the people”
People who genuinely believe the foregoing have no business calling themselves peace activists. The correct term is “bigot.” You should really be ashamed of yourselves.
In light of a recent poll showing that 60% majority of Israeli Jews would like Israeli Arabs to leave the country, and a strong minority (46%) advocates transferring Palestinians out of the occupied territories, your expressions of shock are ludicrous.
And the fascist Lieberman has been brought into the government and given an increasingly higher profile to the dismay of even many Israelis.
ECAUSE FAILURE RISKS DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES,
, IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE CONFERENCE SUCCEED.
“The correct term is ‘bigot.’ ”
In addition to the very good comments by No Preference and Jack, I need to point out that your application of the word bigot here demonstrates clearly that you understand neither the statement to which you were reacting nor the meaning of the word bigot.
“Every nation, like every individual, walks in a vain show – else it could not live with itself – but I never got over the wonder of a people who, having extirpated the aboriginals of their continent more completely than any modern race had ever done, honestly believed that they were a godly little New England community, setting examples to brutal mankind. This wonder I used to explain to Theodore Roosevelt, who made the glass cases of Indian relics shake with his rebuttals.”
Rudyard Kipling
In addition to the very good comments by No Preference and Jack, I need to point out….
Wake me when you’re done riding your hobby horse.
Israel sucks!! Rah rah rah!!!
[yawn, please grow up!!!!!!!]
No Preference,
A few words about your poll.
First, it is from 2002*, not 2005, making it far from “recent.” In fact the poll was taken in March 2002, which you may recall was the same month that HAMAS detonated its bomb in Netanya, ie a rather pitched political environment.
Second, it indicates that only small minorities of Israeli Jews then believed anything resembling the comment Jack proposed (a goal of all the land with none of the people).
Third, it tells us that the replies were far more radical than in earlier years (giving lie to his absurd claim that Israeli Jews have “always” wanted the above.)
Fourth, more recent polls show far more moderate attititudes than those represented by this poll. This one has 67% of Israelis supporting negotiations with a government including HAMAS:
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:gsIcPBrn4BUJ:www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Joint%2520press%2520release_September%25202006.doc+Israeli+public+opinion+polls&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
In other words, it proves nothing close to what he said, which is no surprise because what he said is very silly. Why are you attempting to defend such a silly remark? Do you like Shirin (the Israel-obsessed American who has never set foot in that country yet hates it with a vengeance) personally believe that Israelis want land and military control more than peace? Do you, like bevin, believe that Egypt and Jordan should undo their peace agreements with that country? How do any of these overbroad claims, accusing an entire nation of bad faith, equating Israeli public attitudes with the most extreme maximalism, advance the cause of peace?
I could produce many polls of Palestinians showing that large majorities have at various times rejected Israel’s existential right and favored terror attacks. Yet I’d never use them to defend a claim as stupid and bigoted as “Palestinians have always preferred terror to peace.”
*friends lobby has cached the date for us, 11-3-2002, but youll find it in ha’aretz archive as well: http://www.fcnl.org/issues/persp5_isr-pal_ftnts.htm
coincidentally, the next poll down taken two months later recommends evacuating the West Bank and Gaza!
Vadim: It is misrepresentation to suggest that I urge the abrogation of any peace treaties. The point, which ought to be uncontroversial, is that neither the Hashemite Kingdom nor the Sadat-Mubarak regime has any democratic credibility. Because this is so, the agreements these governments have made, in defiance of their own people’s desires, are not very likely to last much longer than the tyrants sponsoring them.
This is an aspect of realism that fans of Israel forget. Since Israel refuses to abide by International Law it is likely to find that neighbouring states will be influenced by its behaviour. In the particular case of the Treaties with Egypt and Jordan it is disingenuous to pretend that US subsidies and accomodations to the ruling elites are not connected with their defiance of public opinion and their refusal to oppose US/Israeli policies.
As to the attitude of the people of Israel, my guess is that they greatly desire peace. And are ready to make compromises in order, not only to secure a lasting peace, but to make restitution for the great wrongs that everyone knows that the Palestinians have suffered and are suffering.
Unfortunately crackbrained theorists, most living far away from the battlefields, insist upon fighting until there is nothing left of Palestine. The likelihood is that there won’t be much left of Israel either, the way things are lining up. In Toronto and New York that will be a pity, to be lamented -in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem it will be something much worse. Already the deaths in this web of war in the region are approaching the tens of millions.
It is time we reasoned together and put force and lies aside.
Bevin, surely it has become obvious by now that misrepresentation is the stock in trade of Vadim, Joshua, and their sort. That is the case because sadly they have little else to work with.
And when they realize they have lost the argument on the substance they try to obfuscate that by making lame and childish personal attacks on their interlocutors.
Because this is so, the agreements these governments have made, in defiance of their own people’s desires, are not very likely to last much longer than the tyrants sponsoring them.
The force of international agreements doesn’t hinge on the “democratic credibility” of the governments signing them.
, in defiance of their own people’s desires
Amazing that a white european like yourself sees fit to speak for millions of Jordanians & Egyptians telling us they really prefer war to peace. Anyway, this weird view seems to contradict a wealth of statistical evidence.
http://www.css-jordan.org/polls/peace/joris94/index.html
The results showed that 80.2% of the respondents supported Jordan’s signing of the Washington Declaration, and that 14.1% opposed it