Stand tough for once

The Arabs' negotiating position is not as weak as many suppose, argues Hassan Nafaa

---

President Barack Obama obviously sees peace in the Middle East as a top priority. He appointed George Mitchell as special envoy to the region in almost no time. Hillary Clinton came to the region this week, her first official visit as US secretary of state. Still there is no point in holding your breath. There has been no shortage of US envoys to the region in the past. What, one can justifiably ask, have they achieved?

Former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice visited the region 12 times last year alone, quite possibly the highest frequency of travel by any US official to any part of the world. So here is the deal. The region doesn't need more visitors. What it needs is a substantive change in US policy. And there is no shortage of veteran US officials who know what needs to be done.

Previous US administrations kept the peace process going but failed to focus on the actual achievement of peace. In doing so they helped Israel gain time which it has used to change facts on the ground in its own favour. Israel has built more settlements, especially around Jerusalem, and created walls to envelope, isolate and ultimately incarcerate the Palestinians.

This cannot be allowed to continue. Instead of designing a new peace process the US administration should get Israel to accept the Arab peace initiative. The latter must serve as a basis for settlement, not a topic for negotiations. Israel is going to have a new prime minister soon, and that prime minister needs to show goodwill.

All Arab land seized by Israel in 1967, including East Jerusalem, is occupied territory, not a series of disputed areas. Israel must commit to withdraw in full from these territories as part of a full settlement, in keeping with UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967. Unless Israel makes such a commitment the Arabs will find themselves dragged into absurd and endless talks. Any negotiations held without such commitment on Israel's part would mean that the Arabs accept Israel's claim that 1967 land is "disputed" and therefore open to negotiations. If this happens Israel will drag out negotiations for years until it has carved off the remaining Arab land and peppered it with settlements.

All the settlements built on land occupied in 1967, and not just those built without authorisation from the Israeli government, must be dismantled before negotiations begin. In other words, not only new settlements must be stopped but earlier settlements removed immediately. Such action is in keeping with the acknowledgment that all land seized in 1967 is occupied and any measures aimed at changing its nature illegal.

Israel is fully responsible for the tragedy that befell Palestinian refugees following the 1948 war. The just solution of the refugee issue, in keeping with UN Security Council Resolution 242, is to accept the UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of 1949. In other words refugees wishing to return to their land must be allowed to do so in accordance with a timetable approved by Palestinians and concerned Arab countries. Human rights, individual and collective, are inviolable and cannot be subjected to a statute of limitations. To accept Israel's argument that the return of the refugees is a threat to its security and to the Jewish nature of the state is to implicitly agree that the Arabs and Israelis are not equal in terms of their rights and obligations. We cannot go on sacrificing the security of Arabs for the sake of consolidating the security of Israel.

The ruling passed by the International Court of Justice on the apartheid wall must be implemented. The wall must be torn down immediately and all those harmed by its construction compensated.

I know George Mitchell and Hillary Clinton may not readily agree. Some readers may think I have taken leave of my senses to propose the above. But what I am saying is all in line with the Arab initiative. Unless it is done further negotiations will be pointless.

There is a problem with the way we think. We have, as Arabs, grown accustomed to seeing ourselves through the Israeli prism. We see our rights reflected through Israel's rights. And we imagine what is possible according to Israeli arguments. Such thinking is not only flawed but dangerous.

With Obama's accession to power and Netanyahu's formation of a government things are going to change and we must change accordingly. Our negotiating position is not half as bad as we imagine it to be. The Israeli right, for one thing, doesn't have the same ability to deceive the world as the Israeli left, which has been leading us on for decades.

Egypt, as US officials know, was the country that initiated the quest for peace immediately after the 1973 war. Israel then used the peace process to manage, not resolve, the conflict. If the Obama administration is serious about doing things differently it must get the Israelis to start working for peace, not just managing the conflict.

We have a chance to widen the gap between the Israeli government, especially if led by Netanyahu and the US administration. We also have a chance to strengthen our negotiating position. People will tell us to make more concessions in order to placate the Israelis. We cannot afford to listen to them. Instead, we must bargain hard. But first we must put our own house in order. Making concessions to the Netanyahu government is not going to get us anywhere.

Palestinian reconciliation is essential. Palestinian factions must join a restructured PLO so that the Palestinian people have a unified military and political command to speak on their behalf.

It would be ill-advised to place any pressures on the restructured PLO, or on Hamas, before a final deal is reached. Hamas should only recognise Israel as part of a comprehensive solution that is acceptable to all Palestinians. A two-state solution must, if approved, give birth to two states that are equal in rights and obligations.

We also need to engineer a comprehensive Arab reconciliation. In particular, Egyptian-Syrian-Saudi relations must be smoothed out while as a region we need to maintain well-balanced relations with both Iran and Turkey.

I don't see any reason why we cannot threaten to withdraw the Arab initiative if things don't move in a satisfactory manner. We can put pressure on Israel and the US if we choose to. It would also be a good idea to formulate a new political and media discourse. For example, there is a strong argument in favour of a one-state solution; namely, for all Palestinians and Jews to live together as equal citizens in one state.

If Mitchell fails the chances for peace evaporate altogether. In other words, any calming-down period will be the prelude to another war, sooner or later.

This article expresses the ideas of the author in a personal capacity and not as secretary-general of the Arab Thought Forum.