The Arab Peace Initiative
By Ted Belman
On Sunday, TIME published The Last Mideast Peace Conference?
While accusing “Israeli settlements in the West Bank have proceeded apace, while, until recently, Israeli leaders seemed inclined to unilaterally decide the borders and other unresolved issues.” not one word is uttered about Arab terror or rejectionism.
After painting a dire picture it declares,
- “there are reasons to hope that Annapolis instead could be the peace conference to end all peace conferences, if success is defined as the launching of a serious new round of comprehensive negotiations based on a solid consensus for realistic solutions.”
“There is an Arab acceptance of Israel and a commitment to a comprehensive peace settlement that is unprecedented in the six decades of the conflict. The Arab peace initiative of 2002, which was re-launched at an Arab summit this year, promises full peace with Israel in return for Israel’s withdrawal from Arab territories.”
Obviously, this includes returning the Golan and a peace agreement with Syria. Until now, I had thought that the Arab initiative only offered “normalization”. So I researched it out and can confirm that it does in fact offer full peace. But it still requires observance of Res 194 dealing with what they consider a just settlement of the refugee problem and it ignores Res 242 promising recognition and secure borders. Erekat has specifically denied recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
So what does Res 194 provide?
-
“Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;”
This a General Assembly resolution and as such is only a recommendation. Furthermore it refers to “refugees” as opposed to “Arab refugees”. Thus Jewish refugees from Arab lands should be factored in.
Not only that, it ignores Security Council Res 242 which is far more binding.
Let us assume for a moment that the Arabs forgo the “right of return”, mutual exchanges of territory can be worked out leaving most Israeli settlements in place and a rational basis for the division of Jerusalem can be agreed upon, we are far from a done deal.
Syria has to agree as set out in my article Annapolis is about Syria or should be, and Hamas have to be brought on board. But we are still not there. Unless and until the Arabs are truly willing to live in peace with Israel, a two-state solution is not viable especially if Israel forgoes secure borders, shares Jerusalem and exposes its airport.
The Benny Elon Plan argues that Israel should annex Judea and Samaria and that the Arabs residents remain but be citizens of Jordan. Looking at this in reverse, suppose Palestine is created, why can’t part of the deal be that the Israelis can remain but be citizens of Israel. Thus no one has to be transferred.
If the Arabs truly have peace in their hearts this should be possible. If the Arabs had peace in their hearts they would recognize that there has been an exchange of populations already. If the Arabs had peace in their hearts they would recognize that the Jews have the best claim by far to Jerusalem and would desist from demanding it.
But what does it say about the peace initiative when the Arab ministers won’t even shake your hand.
November 26th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
This is the story of the jackal and the jackass. The jackal is baying with laughter at having suckered the jackass into its den in Annapolis. The jackass is hee-hawing that he is there because he was invited to dinner and never rejects an invitation and besides, he is the first equine to persuade the jackal to become a vegetarian.
I just saw the jackal and the jackass on CNN congratulating each other on their meal together.
November 26th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Another point is that the Arab states are the ones who created the Arab refugees. So they are the ones who should pay them compensation as well as to the Jewish refugees.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:11 am
The descendents of Hedley Donovan at TIME wrote false material re “There is an Arab acceptance of Israel…”
There is no Arab acceptance of Israel. the collective noun “Arab” masks the environment. The Arabs contain a large element of barbarians loaded with wealth.
“a peace agrement with Syria” is oxymoronic. This can be tested. Attempt arranging the discussions in nearby Beirut.
Kol tuv,
November 27th, 2007 at 7:37 am
I remain at a loss to see why Israel should _not_ do this. If nothing else it would gut a lot of the excuses given for opposition to it’s existence.
HTG
November 27th, 2007 at 8:07 am
HTGriffin
Thanks for joining us.
The reasons are many,
1. Israel didn’t cause the problem. The Arabs did by attacking Israel. They should take responsibility.
2. The Arab countries expelled a greater number of Jews from their land (about 800,000) and confiscated their property without compensation.
3. To take them back would undermine the Jewish nature of the state.
Why aren’t you demanding that the Arabs absorb them in their own societies rather than keep them in refugee cams for seventy years. An objective person would first blame the Arabs. Are you more interested in beating up on the Jews rather than solving the plight of these political pawns.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:22 am
It is called embarassment to The Enemy. If opposition to Israel is invoked in the name of innocent people stripped of thier farms/orchards/etc. while said people are free to return then they are, the drooling anti-Semitism becomes rather more pronounced… and more readily questioned.
There are those who say that the Arab nations should envite thier Arab bretheren home as well.
Perhaps it is an American thing, but ethnic and confessional purity strike me as a poor reason for anything. Israelis of the Mohammedian Faith need not be any more of a problem than Germans of the Mosaic Faith before some Austrian headcase insisted on making it one.
If Arab states are criticised for harassment or oppression of thier religious minorities, why would Israel get away with same?
Any and all means of emptying these blasted camps are a good thing, and if Israel did so the net political benefits would be huge.
HTG
November 27th, 2007 at 8:40 am
By the same token, it would really embarrass the enemies of Israel if it were to slit its throat too.
Affirmative action is also an American thing. The Supreme Court endorse it on the basis that the group had suffered discrimination for hundreds of years. The creation of the State of Israel is also an act of affirmative action.
You show your bias or hatred of Israel by this statement
Wrong on both counts. The Arab states are barely criticised and Israel doesn’t harass or oppress its religious minorities.
Please don’t waste our time with unsupported statements. If you want to argue something, make your case with facts not propaganda.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Oddly enough, I simply seek to point out that efforts to protect the Jewish Character of Israel requires far more harassment or oppression of non-Jews than exists. And make no mistake while not as severe as claimed, such is hardly nonexistent.
The words of Israeli cabinet members are insufficient?
HTG (who is well aware that the U.S. has not quite overcome this problem either)
November 27th, 2007 at 10:55 am
HT Griffin, it would help to understand what you are saying if you would be more explicit.
There is virtue in being economical with words, but that virtue is lost when meaning is lost by being too economically minded.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Make your case. Saying it doesn’t make it so.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Ht Griffin is an Irish Name are you Irish? or is it just a web name? If you are Irish? Catholic or Protestant ?
Why is it relevant to me; because I don’t like antisemites and don’t love the Irish at all. Why doesn’t the Irish republic open its door to all Protestants, living in the North? Why is Britain not compensating the Welsh, Scots, and Irish for all they have done to them over the centuries. Why is not America, not ceding remuneration to Every American who can prove Native American Blood? Shall I go on? Are you a good Christian? did you ever read the Jewish Bible? If you did why are you concerned with trespassers on Jewish Land? Did God promise the Land of Israel to the Arabs and Pagan Muslims?
My definition of an antisemite is one who singles out Jews for wrongs that almost everyone commits but omits to mention all but the Jews. ITS CALLED DOUBLE STANDARD IN THE VERNACULAR!
November 29th, 2007 at 3:39 am
Just so you will know, I am what can best be described as Plantation Mongrel, AKA Black American.
Trust me, I understand what it is to get the short end of the stick. I just want for the arabs of land under Israeli control to get what one MLK asked of those who differed overmuch from the founders of the U.S.A.
Harvey Torrance Griffin
November 29th, 2007 at 3:40 am
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41723.htm
I have seen vastly worse, but things could be rather better.
HTG