What Arabs Can Do to Support Peace

In 1991, as part of its overall approach to post-Gulf War peace-making, the Administration of George H. W. Bush secured an Arab agreement to suspend their secondary boycott against companies doing business with Israel, in return for an Israeli commitment to freeze settlements.

Three years later, in 1994, as Co-Chair of Builders for Peace, a US private sector initiative launched by then Vice-President Al Gore, I made the first of many visits to Israel/Palestine accompanying Mr. Gore, Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown or delegations of Arab American and American Jewish businessman.

We had just arrived in Ben Gurion Airport and were heading to a meeting in Tel Aviv. I was riding with an American Jewish colleague, who, it turns out, had in the past, been a frequent visitor to Israel, but who had not been there in three years. As we approached Tel Aviv, looking at the city's night lights -- neon signs aglow, advertizing a broad array of products, my companion noted with delight "these signs are the first fruits of peace. Because of the boycott, many of these businesses weren't here three years ago. Now they are."

The next day, we left our hotel in Jerusalem travelling north to Ramallah. On our way, we passed massive construction sites of new housing up and down the hills surrounding the Holy City, encapsulating tiny Palestinian villages now trapped in their shadows. "Are these new settlements?" I asked. "No," was the reply, "this is just an extension of Ramot"--pointing to another large aggregation of homes, on an entirely different hill.

These were impressions. Here is the hard data.

In 1991, Israel's per capita GDP was $14,000. Three years later, after the ending of the secondary boycott and Madrid and Oslo, Israel's per capita GDP had risen to almost $16,000. Palestinians did not fare as well. In 1991, their per capita GDP was $900. Three years later, new Israeli restrictions on Palestinian labor and continued control over all access to and egress from the territories, resulted in the Palestinian per capita GDP only increasing to $1,100.

Meanwhile, at the beginning of 1991 there were 243,000 settlers in the West Bank and Jerusalem. By the end of 1994, they were nearing 300,000. (Note: most recent figures show Israel's per capita GDP at around $25,000, in contrast to a stagnant $1,300 for the Palestinians. And there are now almost 500,000 settlers in the occupied lands!)

This history bears repeating if only to understand why some Arab states may be reluctant to offer new concessions to Israel in return for the same settlement freeze that was to have been implemented 18 years and 250,000 settlers ago.

This being said, I believe that there are good reasons for the Arab side to find a careful but creative approach to elaborating on their 2002 and 2007 Arab Peace Initiatives.

It is clear that the Obama Administration is making a real effort to press Israel to suspend all settlement construction -- using, at times, language not heard since the time of President Carter. In this context, positive Arab gestures should not be seen as a reward for Israel (which they have not earned and do not deserve), but rather as a sign of support for the US effort and as a further Arab commitment to peace-making.

Secondly, it is clear from the frequent statements coming from the US, and now being echoed in Israel, urging Arabs to take new steps, that the pressure (both public and private) will not let up. Given this, a new Arab initiative can be useful and important, if only so as not to be boxed in and portrayed as presenting an obstacle to peace.

Thirdly, up until now, with only the US and Israel doing the talking, the nature of the expected Arab response is being defined by them. Given all that has transpired in recent years and given, as well, current regional tensions, many of the ideas proposed may be viewed as problematic in much of the Arab world.

Nevertheless, should the Obama Administration succeed in securing a complete and verifiable halt in all construction, a positive response, by those Arab states able to do so, would be in order, both to support the US effort, as well as to ensure that no further so-called "facts on the ground" are put in place. Stopping E1, before it starts, and aborting other expansion and "thickening" projects, are goals worth supporting. But the Arab gestures offered must be carefully considered, so as to be calibrated (not turning the Arab Peace Initiative on its head by providing recognition and normalization before peace) and conditioned on Israeli performance (unlike with the end of the secondary boycott, which produced benefits for only one side).

While these limited steps may be taken by some Arab states, there are other avenues open to the Arab consensus that would both make clear their intentions to seek peace, while not inflaming their publics or compromising the only remaining leverage available to them.

Here's what the Arab states could propose. First, there should be the insistence Israel meet the following initial conditions (all of which are either called for in the Roadmap and/or supported by the Obama Administration): a total freeze on all settlement construction; removal of outposts, internal check points and roadblocks; an end of the blockade on construction goods and other needed supplies to Gaza; and the beginning of serious negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. With these conditions met, the Arab League could authorize a representative delegation to participate with the Israeli and Palestinian teams in a series of Track II negotiations on critical issues of regional importance: water, energy, Jerusalem, refugee resettlement, and the establishment of an economic development fund/plan for a future Palestinian state.

These talks and the plans they develop should run in tandem with the Track I Israeli-Palestinian, Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese talks, and be implemented, as agreed by the parties, at times deemed appropriate to support the implementation of the Track I talks.

Such an Arab consensus effort, complimentary to the more immediate and limited gestures made by some, will support US peace efforts, allowing the Arab States to define, for themselves, their elaboration of the Arab Peace Initiative, while making clear their intention to participate as full partners in a comprehensive Middle East peace.

Comments

[cadbury]

There is much to be frustrated about in the Israeli-Palestinian mess. The thing that I find most exasperating, however, is the apparent "political death wish" of each group. Out of frustration and anger the Palestinians elected a cadre committed to the destruction of Israel, thereby making a 2-state solution more difficult. You can't have a 2-state solution if one party denies the other party's right to exist! Likewise, out of frustration and anger the Israelis elected Bibi and his crazy quilt assortment of right-wingers, thereby making a 2-state solution more difficult. Heck, these folks aren't even committed to a 2-state solution and they may never be. So much angst and waste of precious resources over such a measly little spit of land!

[sixyfivepercentwater]

If any of the parties involved truly wanted peace, there would be peace.

[jomellon]

Zogby's suggestions are considered and reasonable... and for that reason an inappropriate way to deal with Israel.

The only way that will work is the one adopted by James Baker in 1993: stop guarentees for Isreali state loans, stop aid, stop military cooperation; tell Israel they can come for talks when they have complied with their obligations.

Israel agreed to stop settlements in 1991 in return for the end of the secondary boycott - as the number of settlers has trebled since then, shouldn't that boycott be reimposed until the settler numbers return to the 1991 levels?

Netanyahu - like every other Israeli administration since 1967 - is building even more settlements, in defiance of Israel's commitments, Palestinians rights, and President Obama....

So why is Obama still writing checks for him? Only when the checks stop will Netanyahu know he is serious.

[Solo500]

Please. After Oslo the PA was responsible for building the Palestinian economy and took millions from the US, EU _and_ Israel. Most of that money ended up in Swiss bank accounts or otherwise lining the pockets of that completely corrupt gang.

Hamas won their Gaza election because they were not the PA. But their record once in office was worse than pathetic. There was plenty of money to help the citizens of Gaza -- and economic opportunities as well. They had little interest in the welfare of their own people.

[Fein]

A nice idea, except for two things ;

No.1, there is no desire in the Israeli Gov. to concede to any equitable solution for the Palestinians. And that is obvious to all but the most ardent Israel supporters. The main conundrum of the Israeli Gov is how to weather Obama's term, and how to use AIPAC to twist American politics back to their 'cause'.

No 2, 'Stopping settlement' activity is a paltry, and inconsequential issue and so, will not be acceptable in itself as a compromise to any Arab state.

The only hope is, that Obama's (anemic) efforts to pressure the Israelis, coupled with international isolation, and the intensifying boycott against Israel FORCE real concessions from the Israelis.

[newyorkid]

Exactly

[Ginger5]

I would prefer to see the arabs return to boycotts versus talking poor uneducated folk into blowing themselves up for a sham cause.

[Fein]

I would prefer to see Israelis return to their 1967 borders versus blowing up poor uneducated folk for
a sham cause.

[misaacm]

But there wasn't peace with the 67 borders, what makes you think there will be with them?

[EngineerBill]

Frankly, I was disappointed by this article. It should have been titled "what Arabs can do to appear to support peace".

Until Hamas both recognizes Israel's right to exist, rejects violence, unilaterally cedes all control of negotiations with Israel to the Palestinian Authority and releases Gilad Shalit, peace will not happen. Fareed Zakaria got it right when he said that when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the problem isn't "no light at the end of the tunnel" it is that there is a light but that there is no "tunnel" to get to it.

[nk007]

EngineerBill:

What you actually calling for is for Hamas (which, by the way, was previously supported by Israel when Israel was against Arafat) is to completely surrender before any negotiations can take place. First, that is purely based on Israel superiority arrogance; second, you know that Hamas, which was elected by the majority of Palestinians is not willing to betray the people. Ultimately, then, you really are not interested in meaningful peace negotiations. Rather, what you are interested in is for Israel to dictate the terms of negotiations.

[genofear]

The Arabs don't have much to give up to support peace. Israel holds all the cards. They occupy the Palestinian land, have thousands of Palestinian prisoners, control their access to water, fuel, food, and medicine (not to mention all non-essentials) and have overwhelming firepower.

As far as renouncing violence, Israel is frequently the aggressor although this is severely under-reported.

[MemoryAlpha]

Corroborating evidence for last statement:

Huffington Post article titled, "Reigniting Violence: How Do Ceasefires End?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.html

[newyorkid]

The bottom line is that PaIestine belongs to the PaIestinians, and all PaIestinian refugees have the inalienable right to return to their homes and lands. Nobody can sign anything that compromises these rights.

[ArchAngel]

Just what part of "War" is it exactly that you don't get?

Wars are fought in all spheres and in all possible ways. Overt violence is only the "tip of the iceberg".

Stop being so being so hopelessly naive. The sooner all parties face up to this stark reality, the sooner they can constructively deal with it.

[gemcando06]

" Settlements " is another name for the wish to exclude Israeli Jews from their own country. Without a peace treaty to draw the lines on the map, how are the Palestinians ever going to have their own country? Is a two-State peace treaty possible when most Arabs challenge the right of Israel to exist?

[Galen]

I see the Megaphone program has been kept busy.

[Hedonist]

As opposed to the Hacking for Lebanon tool used by so many of your ilk.

[misaacm]

Israel's increase in per-capita income is due to their highly trained workforce and work ethic. The Arab world has neither. Giving the Arabs credit for Israel's economic strength is a distortion.

I continue to believe that the best steps the Arabs can take to improve relations with the Israelis is to start giving citizenship to the Arabs who fled Israel when it was attacked in 1948 and 1967. Everyone else give citizenship to the refugees of their failed wars (as the US did with Cubans and Vietnamese), only the Arab world locks people up for 6 decades. This would show the Israelis that the Arab nation has given up their dream of destroying Israel.

[MemoryAlpha]

Article 49, Fourth Geneva Convention:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

[Hedonist]

Which Israel has NOT violated whatsoever. Whether you oppose or favor the settler movement, it is delusional to suggest any of them were forcibly transfered to the West Bank (or Gaza before the disengagement from there) - all of them moved there voluntarily.

[SFA]

A pollster's recommendations on how to sell Americans on the idea of Israeli settlements.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/206105

[altohone]

Mr. Zogby,

With the new Israeli government saying they need to hold on to Golan "for reasons of water, wine and landscape", it's hard to imagine they will meet even the small steps you suggest.

Israel's Bushian quest for disapproval (the poll numbers just released were ugly) goes on.


Any chance one of the monarchs or dictators of these Arab states will ever try leading by example?
Y'know... allowing democracy so basic concepts and rights can become culturally engrained?

I'm just saying by the very nature of their regimes it makes them folks I wouldn't want to partner with, let alone allow to create the framework for my state's water, energy and economic future.
Partners for peace shouldn't have different definitions for freedom, which for me is a crucial component of peace.
Just sayin.

[Yasmine]

YOu are so superficia­l.........­.....in order ..to judge you need knowledge of how moslems think about their social restrictions which are accepted by most and only rejected by a minority.
Sure the Arab society are different.­..........­...they might not like the freedom you propose as the best way to go.
perhaps we shpuld redefine what freedom is and since it is everywhere LIMITED the claim of some societies that they are FREE is only RELATIVE.

[altohone]

So, you're defending monarchs and dictators as what is best for Arabs?
Or, are you proposing this for the Palestinians as well?
Personally, the lack of choice for leaders doesn't fall into the category of "social restriction"... and America was created due to our rejection of the concept.
Your claim that only a minority reject it suggests you are the superficial one... huge numbers in jail in Egypt for wanting their vote would likely agree.

"They might not like the freedom", but then again they might.


The decision is theirs... not yours or the kings.
No decision, no freedom.

Permanently being denied the ability to make the decision means your hypothesis can never be tested either.