7 - 13 March 2002
Issue No.576
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 7 - 13 March 2002 Issue No.576 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Room for the Saudi initiative
The true significance of the Saudi initiative lies in its source. Soha Abdelaty assesses the Egyptian response
It happened when France said it was presenting a new peace initiative, and it is happening now that Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is proposing new ideas. Interest in both proposals had an immediate snowball effect because the escalating situation in the occupied territories is forcing players to look for solutions beyond the Mitchell recommendations and the Tenet plan.
Unlike the French initiative, however, the Saudi proposal has attracted more attention and greater support. The initiative calls for Arab countries to normalise their relations with Israel in return for Israel's complete withdrawal from lands occupied in 1967. The Saudi proposal is also likely to stay on the negotiating table longer than the French one as it is expected to be on the agenda of the upcoming Arab summit in Beirut on 27 and 28 March.
Egyptian officials, however, have reacted cautiously towards the Saudi proposal, referring to it as "ideas" instead of an "initiative." While Egypt has welcomed the Saudi suggestions, it has also raised questions about them. President Hosni Mubarak told the daily Washington Times last month, just before his six-day visit to the US, that the Saudi ideas are only a reiteration of positions that Egypt and other Arab countries have taken before. "In 1996, the Arab League convened in Cairo [and] we unanimously accepted a resolution agreeing upon peace as the strategy of all Arab countries," he said. "Not a single country rejected it. All of them agreed to it," Mubarak added. Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said, "There are many other initiatives for peace, including [Libyan leader] Colonel [Mua'amar] Gaddafi's initiative presented at the Amman summit and all of them call for the complete withdrawal from Arab lands -- in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon -- in return for the normalisation of Arab relations with, and the recognition of Israel." He also said that all of the initiatives are based on the principle of "land for peace."
Mubarak also expressed scepticism as to whether the initiative would ultimately succeed, suggesting that Israel would try to extricate itself from its obligations under any real initiative for peace. "Are the Israelis ready to withdraw from the occupied territories? They have started to say 'Let's talk to Crown Prince Abdullah. We want to discuss, negotiate and meet halfway.' This will not work." He also said he doubts that Israel is prepared for a complete withdrawal, which would mean giving up East Jerusalem and its holy sites.
Ahmed Youssef, professor of political science at Cairo University and director of the Centre for Arab Studies, says, "The Egyptian position is neither negative nor is it enthusiastic. It does not see that the initiative is extraordinary. The reasons could really be that the initiative does not offer anything new except that it is coming from Saudi Arabia and Prince Abdullah this time." Youssef said that the deteriorating situation and the status of Saudi Arabia in the Arab and Islamic world are the two factors that have put the initiative in the limelight.
Director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Research and political analyst Gamil Mattar argues that Egypt is adopting a wait- and-see strategy. "There is no enthusiasm for this proposal, even in the Egyptian press. Maybe they [Egyptian officials] are waiting to discuss it more thoroughly with Washington or until the Saudis clarify it more," he told Al-Ahram Weekly.
Some analysts argue that Egypt has invested heavily in efforts to reach a peaceful resolution between the Palestinians and Israelis and stands to gain a lot from this proposal. Egyptian officials have long pointed out the intransigence of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's policies. Thus, the argument goes, this initiative could breathe life into the Israeli peace camp by portraying Sharon as an obstacle to peace. Youssef suggested that the initiative might embarrass the Sharon government. He said, "If this initiative is moderate and does not ask for anything other than withdrawal with no other conditions in return for recognition and complete normalisation, then if Israel refuses it or puts obstacles in its way, we would achieve a kind of a diplomatic victory."
Egypt's permanent representative at the United Nations, Ahmed Abul-Gheit, echoed this analysis. "If that idea goes to the Arab summit, and it is endorsed in language that is well-written and [if the resolution] is well-formulated to cover not only the Palestinian lands but the Golan, then the Israelis will have to respond, and the Americans will have to activate a [negotiating] process," said Abul-Gheit, referring also to the disputed Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria during the 1967 war.
"Now is the moment of truth," Abul-Gheit said. "The Arabs are coming forward saying 'land for peace' -- a concept the Americans embraced 10 years ago. The situation has to move forward because we have seen 11 September, we have seen the results of the Intifada, the anger the Arab and Islamic world is feeling."
On the other side, there are those who argue that by taking such a step, Saudi Arabia is thrusting itself into the heart of the peace process and creating for itself a role that is independent from Egypt's. Similarities have been drawn between Prince Abdullah and former Egyptian President Anwar El-Sadat. "This makes the Saudi proposal comparable to El-Sadat's visit to Jerusalem. The Middle East would be infinitely worse off if [former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem] Begin had doubted Sadat after he said he'd come," senior fellow and Director of the US/Middle East Project at the Council on Foreign Relations Henry Siegman said.
"I do not see anything wrong with [Saudi Arabia playing a role in the Middle East peace process like that of Egypt] if the initiative is sound," argues Youssef. "If Saudi Arabia can develop a sound Arab position, why not? The discussion should revolve around evaluating the initiative itself and not whether Saudi Arabia is playing this role or whether Egypt or a third country is," he added.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page