I had read the op-ed piece when it came out, and was reminded of it again when Shlomo Avineri wrote a critical op-ed piece about it in yesterday's Ha'aretz (here in English or Hebrew). Here is his final paragraph, which I agree with:
"The initiative should not be ignored, because it includes an Arab declaration of willingness for peace, but its meaning should not be mistaken. At this stage it is not calling for negotiations, but rather unconditional acceptance of the Arab position, and that is also its main stumbling block."
This reminded me of the discussion I've been having over at Gert's blog surrounding a recent interview Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London, conducted with Khaled Meshal in The New Statesman. Hamas's stance towards peace negotiations with Israel is strikingly similar, if not absolutely identical, to the one Al-Faisal presents in his op-ed as Saudi Arabia's position, and indeed the whole Arab League's. First, leave all territories captured in 1967, including East Jerusalem, and only then will we talk about peace. So, Hamas and Saudi Arabia have the same basic ideas about peace with Israel, yet the former is considered radical and the latter is considered moderate?
Hamas and the rest of the Arab world have to understand that withdrawal and the creation of a Palestinian state is the final step of the peace process. There can be no further claims after this.
Emm:
ReplyDelete"The Arab demands are not negotiable. They are preconditions.
but:
"Hamas and the rest of the Arab world have to understand that withdrawal and the creation of a Palestinian state is the final step of the peace process."
... is not a precondition??? It is and a deeply illogical one at that: essentially the Arabs are demanding that a situation [the occupation], deemed illegal by almost the entire world, be reversed. I can't see this as anything other than a legitimate demand for much, much delayed justice.
I also find it bizarre that someone like you, who I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) is against the occupation, would make a case for reversing the injustice [of occupation] in the last instance and not the first instance.
Please explain...
The difference here is huge. Israel is willing to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority and other Arabs. It has not unilaterally decided what the final peace treaty will look like, but does know what are a few principles it can never agree to. The Saudi Initiative, on the other hand, dictates pretty much all of the demands that Israel will have to comply with before the Arab League would even be willing to open negotiations.
ReplyDeletePreconditions are when you tell the other side to first do this and that and only then will we talk. On the other hand, negotiating while knowing what your red lines are is very different. It's something that exists in just about any negotiation. You could say it's a precondition to signing peace agreements, but it isn't a precondition to just talking. I'm not saying a "first do this, then we'll talk" approach is never appropriate. Sometimes it is, but not here.
"I also find it bizarre that someone like you, who I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) is against the occupation, would make a case for reversing the injustice [of occupation] in the last instance and not the first instance."
It's simple. First of all, giving away the territories (or at least most of them) and creating a Palestinian state are more or less the most Israelis are willing to do. They aren't willing to accept refugees, for example. It just doesn't make sense to leave an opening for further demands you know you would not be willing the accept.
Secondly, the West Bank is a bargaining chip. We can give parts of it away before a final agreement, even most of it, but we can't give it all to the Palestinians without an agreement in writing saying that's the end of all claims (along with other issues that will be settled in the same agreement, like refugees). If we'll no longer be in possession of any of the West Bank, and without an end of claims clause, we won't have any leverage left against the Palestinians. When we won't agree to their further demands - refugees, one state, who knows - who is to stop them from launching more violence against us? With an independent state, they'll be a greater threat to us, maybe not to our existence, but to our civilians' normal daily life.