The Arab Initiative and Hamas

It has long been my view that Israel should have responded favorably to the Saudi Initiative, not by agreeing to all its details but by starting negotiations with the Arab League, with the Initiative recognized as the Arabs' starting point. As it turns out, that wasn't Saudi Arabia's intent. In an op-ed in the New York Times on September 12, Prince Turki Al-Faisal summarized the Saudi stance in the title, "Land First, Then Peace". The Arab demands are not negotiable. They are preconditions.

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.

Why Israelis Feel Threatened

Historian Benny Morris (of "Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem" fame) has an excellent op-ed piece in today's New York Times about why Israel feels threatened. He outlines two general sources and four specific causes of Jewish Israelis' anxieties.

The first general source is the fact that the Arab and Muslim world have never accepted Israel and still oppose its existence. Generally, he's right about this, but the Saudi Initiative is a glimmer of hope in this regard. On the other hand, the Arabs don't seem to be willing to give up the right of return, so I'm not very optimistic.

The second general source is the deminishing Western public support for Israel. I think this can be countered at least in part by taking steps toward a peace deal that would end the occupation, but there are many bleeding hearts in Europe, and to a lesser extent in the United States, that will always blame Israel for everything, and as long as the right of return isn't implemented, they'll still see Israel as owing the Palestinians something.

The four specific causes of Israel's sense of threat are Iran's nuclear program coupled with their leaders' desire to see a world without a Zionist state, Hezbullah's large arsenal of long-range weaponry and control of South Lebanon, Hamas's control of Gaza and the radicalisation of the Arab citizens of Israel.

As Morris points out, these are all unconventional threats. The first one is a potentially nuclear armed country, two are radical Islamist terrorist groups who reject the existence of Israel, and the fourth is one fifth of our own citizens.

60th Anniversary of Partition

Today is a happy anniversary for us Israelis. The United Nations General Assembly voted on November 29, 1947, to establish two states in mandatory Palestine, one Jewish and one Arab state. This was the vote that brought about the creation of Israel, and the day after the vote a civil war broke out which would become the first part of Israel's War of Independence. Palestinians see it as a tragic anniversary. Even the U.N. sees it as a sad day, marking the plight of Palestinian refugees on this day each year. Israelis and Palestinians can't agree on whether this is a day to celebrate or to mourn, but they don't have to agree. Israelis should recognize that it is a painful day for Palestinians without being sad about it themselves, while Palestinians should recognize it is a happy day for Israelis without being happy themselves or demanding that the other side mourn.

Now, after Annapolis, I am cautiously optimistic that the idea of partition is on its way to fruition (good thing that along the 1967 borders and not the partition plan of 1947, though). I doubt there will be a Palestinian state by the time George W. Bush leaves office, but I do believe there can be significant progress in that direction.

The main flaw in Annapolis was that despite the presence of Arab leaders from countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia and others, no real dialogue started between Israel and these countries. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni complained that the Arabs treated her as if she was a leper. Too bad.