We can assume that Obama is aware of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, and that he believes that these points constitute a reasonable first step towards honest negotiations. However, it appears that Netanyahu does not agree with the American president’s ideas. Will the Israeli prime minister be astute enough to realize that it is his brief to change what may evolve into an imposed settlement by proposing understanding, in order to lead to a settlement preferred by all?

(Tel Aviv) IN HINDSIGHT, ONE OFTEN BELIEVES that events which have developed in a certain way could have unfolded in a different manner. For example, in the future, people might believe that it was not inevitable that the president of the United States, Barack Obama, would lead Israel and its leadership towards an imposed settlement. Yet this is apparently the path that he has decided to take.

“Obama’s decision that the time has come to make a stronger move – something that his predecessors failed to do – appears timely and understandable to many.”

In order to fully understand this development, it should be remembered that it was the Israeli government’s negativism that for many years rejected any initiative to resolve the conflict. During these times, their leaders showed a total disregard to feelers originating from Arab governments concerning the possibility of negotiating some form of settlement. After weighing these and other facts, President Obama’s decision that the time has come to make a stronger move – something that his predecessors failed to do – appears timely and understandable to many.

At no time was Israel’s denial more pronounced than in their absolute disregard for the decision made by the 22 members of the Arab League, who unanimously signed the Arab Peace Initiative following their summit meeting in Beirut in March, 2002. Israel’s rebuttal came a few days later, with then prime minister Ariel Sharon stating that he did not consider the Arab publication to be a serious document worthy of consideration. It is also indicative that, at the time, most Israelis paid scant attention to the Arab declaration or showed any curiosity as to why their government reacted to it as it did.

THE KEY POINTS

A brief summary of the Beirut resolution begins with words of appreciation for Prince Abdullah, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, who stated that it was the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will neither achieve peace nor provide security. Therefore, his initiative began by calling for these points:

* A full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-June 4 armistice lines (including the Golan Heights) in accordance with resolutions 242 and 338 of the UN Security Council.
* A just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly resolution 194.
* The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Consequently, the Arab countries affirm that they would do the following the following:
* Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict to be over, enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states in the region.
Establish normal relations with Israel within the context of this comprehensive peace.

“The proposals have never been discussed in any Israeli cabinet meeting, and no Israeli leader has ever called for any kind of conference -national or international- at which the Saudi/Arab proposal could be studied, negotiated and hopefully agreed to”

ISRAEL’S LACK OF INTEREST

Since then, Arab leaders have repeatedly confirmed the content of this resolution and emphasized that it has not changed. Understandably, there are some observers who assert that the guidelines are too general. Still, it is disconcerting that so far, no Israeli with authority has showed any interest in them or suggested that they might be worthy for further study and possibly discussion. Israel’s President, Shimon Peres, has in his oracular Delphy-like style mumbled that these are matters of merit to be pursued, but in fact nothing of substance has occurred so far.

The proposals have never been discussed in any Israeli cabinet meeting, and no Israeli leader has ever called for any kind of conference -national or international- at which the Saudi/Arab proposal could be studied, negotiated and hopefully agreed to. Interestingly, in a complete disregard to the Arab document, no Jewish political party has addressed the proposals in its election platform since its initial publishing.

THE AMERICAN PUSH

It may be assumed that the newly elected American president is aware of the Arab states’ decision, and that he believes that these points constitute a reasonable first step towards honest negotiations between the parties involved. However, it appears that the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and some of his Cabinet members, do not agree with the ideas proposed by President Obama.

So what does the future hold in store? Will the Americans attempt to bring the parties to the negotiating table? And if they encounter resistance, will they strive to lead all concerned towards an imposed settlement based on these principles?

“Hopefully, the Israeli prime minister will be astute enough to realize that it is his brief to change what may evolve into an imposed settlement by proposing understanding, in order to lead to a settlement preferred by all.”

The concept of an imposed settlement was first raised by the Americans in 1969, when then under secretary of state George Ball spoke of the “need to help save Israel from itself”, and the need to reach a peace agreement with the Arab countries based on Security Council Resolution 242. At the time there was opposition to this approach, and it indeed caused some discomfort. By the time of the Yom Kippur War, the idea had been shelved.

It is possible that now, after four decades in hibernation, the concept of an imposed settlement has reemerged, and we are observing how it might be applied in the coming two years. Hopefully, the Israeli prime minister will be astute enough to realize that it is his brief to change what may evolve into an imposed settlement by proposing understanding, in order to lead to a settlement preferred by all.