MIDEAST: Pan-Arab Peace Overture Faces Uphill Battle

By Adam Morrow Reprint | | Print |

Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani

CAIRO, Aug 16 2007 (IPS) - Despite the fractured state of the Palestinian national cause between resistance faction Hamas and the U.S.-backed Fatah movement, Washington’s Arab allies continue to promote the so-called “Arab Initiative” in hopes of restarting the long-moribund peace process.

Given current political realities, however, many local observers say the plan – which offers full Arab recognition of Israel in exchange for core Palestinian demands – has little chance for success.

“All this talk about the peace process and the Arab initiative is intended to make the public think that a real settlement is imminent,” Ibrahim Eissa, political analyst and editor-in-chief of independent daily al-Dustour, told IPS. “In reality, though, it won’t amount to anything.”

On Jul. 25, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit and his Jordanian counterpart Abdelilah al-Khatib visited Jerusalem, where they discussed the plan with Israeli leaders.

In a statement issued during the one-day visit, Aboul-Gheit said that the talks were aimed at “rallying the necessary support for the Arab peace initiative and attesting to the Arab desire for peace with Israel.” He went on to express the hope that the proposal would eventually lead to direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian leadership.

The Jordanian foreign minister was no less optimistic, predicting that the visit would generate “the appropriate atmosphere for the resumption of serious negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian sides on the one hand, and between Israel and the Arab world on the other.” Khatib added that the peace offer would provide the Jewish state “with security, recognition and acceptance in the region.”

The initiative was first proposed by Saudi Arabia at the 2002 Arab summit in Beirut. The plan offers across-the-board Arab recognition of Israel in exchange for total Israeli withdrawal from Arab territories occupied in 1967; a “just solution” to the issue of Palestinian refugees based on previous UN resolutions, and the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Although the proposal was initially rejected by then Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, it was re-tabled in March at the Arab summit in Riyadh. A final declaration issued at the summit confirmed “the adherence of all Arab countries to the Arab peace initiative as it was offered at the 2002 Beirut summit.”

In April, an Arab League committee mandated Cairo and Amman with pitching the plan to the Israeli leadership. Along with Qatar, Egypt and Jordan represent the only members of the 22-nation Arab League to officially recognise the Jewish state.

“The Arab League chose Egypt and Jordan for the mission chiefly because these two countries have full diplomatic relationships with Israel,” Mohamed Basyouni, former Egyptian ambassador to Israel and head of the Shura Council (upper house of parliament) committee for Arab affairs told IPS.

While in Jerusalem, the two Arab ministers met with a range of top Israeli officials, including Prime Minster Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defence Minister Ehud Barak and right-wing opposition Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu.

Notably, the visit represented the first time for delegates of the Arab League to visit Israel. “This offer constitutes a major opportunity of historical levels,” Khatib said at a joint press conference with his Egyptian and Israeli counterparts.

Israeli officials, meanwhile, sounded no less sanguine. “We notice now that the Arab countries are ready and willing to support the bilateral process between Israel and the Palestinians,” Livni was quoted as saying.

But while both parties hailed the “historic” nature of the visit, talks yielded little by way of concrete results. Although Israeli officialdom has acknowledged the initiative as a possible “basis for negotiations”, it continues to reject the notion of full withdrawal from the West Bank and east Jerusalem, as well as the plan’s call for the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel.

During the visit, Olmert played down the possibility of a speedy settlement, saying that there were “no exact timetables” at present for the initiative’s implementation. Netanyahu, for his part, reportedly rejected the plan outright, telling the Israeli press that a withdrawal from occupied territories would only serve to “establish a terror base for radical Islam.”

Nevertheless, after returning to Cairo, Aboul-Gheit told the state press that talks with his Israeli interlocutors had been “positive.” In the Jul. 28 edition of government daily al-Ahram, he noted that “there is a feeling in Israel that the peace process must be pushed forward, and that this opportunity must be seized.”

In the meantime, Aboul-Gheit added, “the Arab side is waiting for a practical answer from Israel about the resumption of negotiations.”

But despite the foreign minister’s rosy assessment, many local commentators expressed skepticism that the initiative would ultimately lead to a mutually satisfactory outcome.

“The Arab regimes’ insistence that the trip was successful is an indication of their overactive imaginations,” said Eissa. “The wary public, meanwhile, has a hard time believing these stories.”

According to Basyouni, however, the visit – despite the tepid Israeli responses to the overture – achieved its stated objectives.

“The foreign ministers didn’t go to Israel expecting to reach a final agreement,” he said. “The goal of their visit was to simply explain the Arab initiative to the Israelis – and in this, they succeeded.”

Basyouni went on to say that the fruits of the visit would become clearer in November, when a U.S.-sponsored Middle East peace conference announced last month by U.S. President George Bush, is scheduled to be held. “Then we will know whether or not the Israelis are serious about the establishment of a Palestinian state,” he said.

Last week, however, Barak dashed hopes for an imminent breakthrough when he told the Israeli press that any major withdrawal from the West Bank must be preceded by the deployment of high-tech anti-missile defence systems capable of neutralising the threat of potential artillery attacks on Israel. Barak was quoted as saying that such a deployment would likely take “between three and five years.”

According to Eissa, the Israeli defence minister’s statements confirmed Tel Aviv’s unwillingness to come to terms in the short to mid-term future.

“Barak’s comments only served to verify Israel’s preference for status quo,” he said, “and that Israel is more concerned with Hezbollah and Iran than with the Palestinian peace process.”