Issue No. 610
Home news
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
31 Oct. - 6 Nov. 2002 Issue No. 610 Home news |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
What peace option?
Arabs are still debating the nature and chances of a peaceful settlement with Israel. Dina Ezzat reports
A panel discussion that took place this week in Cairo reflected the diversity of Arab views on the region's most contentious issue: Arab-Israeli peace.
Held as part of the annual conference of the Arab Thought Foundation, the seminar entitled, "What if the peace option failed?" brought together Arab League Secretary-General, Amr Moussa, Former Jordanian Prime Minister Abdel-Sallam Al-Majali, and Lebanese University Professor Radwan El-Sayed. Palestinian Minister for Planning and International Coordination Nabil Shaath was absent.
The Arab role in formulating a settlement with Israel and the impact of this settlement on the overall set up of the Middle East was at the heart of a debate that engaged the three panelists, Lebanese Future TV anchor Zahi Wahbi and 100 participants from different disciplines. Typically for any official or non-official Arab forum that broaches the issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the gathering was divided into three camps.
The majority camp, judging by the audience's applause, agreed with the Arab League secretary-general, who argued that, "the peace option will definitely fail now. The only form of peace that is currently on the table is an Israeli one that aims to give Israel 90 per cent of the cake, reluctantly giving the Arabs the rest. This version of peace, if applied, would be fatal to Arab national interests. We have to be very wary of where we step next, especially now that Israel is enjoying unprecedented power and getting unprecedented support from the international order."
The second camp, which faced serious opposition from the audience and panelists alike, was led by the former Jordanian prime minister, who repeatedly argued that "Arabs should appreciate the change of mentality that the Israeli people have undergone when they say they accept a neighbouring Palestinian state despite the fact that they were raised and taught to believe that Palestine is the Promised Land for the Jewish people, and the Jewish people alone. I know that some would argue that establishing a Palestinian state under the current conditions is impossible, but I can tell you all that I see the Palestinian state just as clearly as I see all of the audience present in this hall," Al-Majali said confidently.
The third camp, more philosophical than pragmatic, was reflected by Lebanese Professor Radwan El-Sayed, who argued that "to talk of peace is to talk of something that is not there and that to talk of something that is not there is to exercise intellectual absurdity. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have already declared the Oslo agreement to be dead, so what are we really talking about is nothing".
The debate, that took over two hours, did not examine the nature and chances for peace in the wider context of the new regional set up that the US seems to have in mind for the Middle East. Those who argued that the deals currently being offered are harmful to the Arab national interest were concerned that an "Israeli" peace coupled with US military action against Iraq would create a Middle East dominated by Israel. Those arguing that the proposed roadmap is the only way to establish a Palestinian state stressed that since there is not much that can be done to drastically change US plans, it is better to be "in" than be marginalised. The third group advocated the need for Arabs to engage in an exercise of self- criticism before they embark on reaching settlements with the enemy or suggesting new scenarios for regional order.
The seminar was held just as US Under- Secretary of State William Burns was touring the region to promote the US roadmap for peace in the Middle East. The US roadmap expects Palestinians to give up their resistance to the Israeli military occupation and to re-work the Palestinian Authority in a way that is more compatible with US and Israeli concepts of good governance. This would be in return for the potential elimination of a few settlements and a non- binding promise that an independent Palestinian state will be established sometime in the year 2005.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: weekly.ahram.org.eg Updated every Thursday at 20.00 GMT, 10 pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
