Analysis of the Arab League "Peace
Plan"
by Mitchell Bard
Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah presented a vision
of peace that was subsequently revised and
adopted by the Arab
League as a peace
initiative that offered Israel "normal
relations" in exchange for a withdrawal
to the 1967 borders and resolution of the
Palestinian refugee issue.
In fact, the "new" initiative is
nothing more than a restatement of the Arab
interpretation of UN
Resolution 242. The problem is that 242
does not say what the peace plan calls on
Israel to do. The resolution calls on Israel
to withdraw from territories occupied during
the war, not "all" the territories
in exchange for peace. In fact, the Arab delegates
lobbied to have the word "all" included
in the resolution and this idea was rejected.
In addition, Resolution
242 also says that every state has the right
to live within "secure and recognizable
boundaries," which all military analysts
have understood to mean the 1967 borders with
modifications to guarantee Israel' security.
Incidentally, the resolution does not say
that one comes before the other, rather, they
are equal principles. Israel is under no obligation
to withdraw before the Arabs agree to live
in peace.
The Arab plan calls for Israel to withdraw
specifically from the Golan
Heights and the Israeli government has offered to do
withdraw from most, if not all the Golan in exchange for
a peace agreement; however, Syrian President Hafez Assad
was never prepared to trade peace for the land. Assad's son,
Bashar, who succeeded his father as president, has so far
been unwilling to negotiate at all with Israel.
The demand that Israel withdraw
from "the remaining occupied Lebanese
territories in the south of Lebanon"
is not only ingenuous, but at odds with the UN
conclusion that Israel has completely
fulfilled its obligation to withdraw from
Lebanese territory.
The Arab initiative also calls for a just
solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem
base on UN
General Assembly Resolution 194. Once
again there is a difference between what that
resolution says and how the Arabs have traditionally
interpreted it. The relevant passage of that
resolution says:
that refugees wishing to return to their
homes and live at peace with their
neighbors should be permitted to do so at
the earliest practicable date, and that
compensation should be paid for 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 Governments or authorities
responsible. Instructs the Conciliation
Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social
rehabilitation of refugees and payment of
compensation... (emphasis added).
The emphasized words demonstrate that the
UN recognized that Israel could not be expected
to repatriate a hostile population that might
endanger its security. The solution to the
problem, like all previous refugee problems,
would require at least some Palestinians to
be resettled in Arab lands. At the time the
Israelis did not expect the refugees to be
a major issue; they thought the Arab states
would resettle the majority and some compromise
on the remainder could be worked out in the
context of an overall settlement. The Arabs
were no more willing to compromise in 1949,
however, than they had been in 1947. In fact,
they unanimously rejected the UN resolution.
The UN discussions on refugees had begun
in the summer of 1948, before Israel had completed
its military victory; consequently, the Arabs
still believed they could win the war and
allow the refugees to return triumphant. The
Arabs demanded that the United Nations assert
the "right" of the Palestinians
to return to their homes, and were unwilling
to accept anything less until after their
defeat had become obvious. The Arabs then
reinterpreted Resolution 194 as granting the
refugees the absolute right of repatriation
and have demanded that Israel accept this
interpretation ever since.
Today, the UNRWA says that 3.7 million Palestinians are refugees.
The current population of Israel is approximately
6 million, 5 million of whom are Jews. If
the Palestinians all returned, the population
would be nearly 10 million and the proportion
of Jews and Palestinian Arabs would be nearly
50-50. Given the higher Arab birth rate, Israel
would soon cease to be a Jewish state and
would de facto become a second Palestinian
state (along with the one created on the West
Bank and Gaza Strip). This suicidal formula
has been rejected by Israel since the end
of the 1948 war and is totally unacceptable
to all Israelis today.
Israel has agreed to allow some Palestinian
refugees to return on a humanitarian basis
and as part of family reunification. Thousands
have returned already this way. In the past,
Israel has repeatedly expressed a willingness
to accept as many as 100,000 refugees as part
of a resolution of the issue. In fact, it
was recently disclosed that Israel has already
accepted 140,000 refugees just since the Oslo
agreement of 1993.
The refugee issue was not part of Abdullah's
original proposal and was added at the summit
under pressure from other delegations. Also,
it is important to note that Resolution 242
says nothing about the Palestinians and the
reference to refugees can also be applied
to the Jews who fled and were driven from
their homes in Arab countries. Another change
from Abdullah's previously stated vision was
a retreat from a promise of full normalization
of relations with Israel to an even vaguer
pledge of "normal relations."
The Arab demand that Israel accept the establishment
of a Palestinian State in the West Bank and
Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital has
been part of the negotiations since Oslo.
Israel's leaders, including Sharon, have accepted
the idea of creating a Palestinian state in
part of those territories. In fact, Prime
Minister Ehud
Barak offered to return more than 90%
of the territories and give the Palestinians
control over much of East Jerusalem at the Camp
David negotiations in 2000, but these
concessions were rejected out of hand by the
Palestinians who offered no counterproposal.
It is also worth noting that most of the
Arab League nations have no reason not to
be at peace with Israel now. Israel holds
none of their territory and is more than willing
to make peace with the members of the League.
Several members of the League had already
begun to normalize relations with Israel before
the latest outbreak of violence, and their
principle critic was Saudi
Arabia.
For the plan to have any
chance of serving as a starting point for
negotiations, the Saudis and other Arab League
members would have to be prepared to negotiate
directly with Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon even said he would go the Arab
League summit to discuss the plan, but he
was not invited. The Saudis have also been
invited to Jerusalem to discuss their proposal, but they have rejected
this idea as well.
|