The Osterley Times: Arab nations approve peace plan

The Arab League has come up with a land for peace proposal for Israel which promises full recognition of Israel and guarantees her security if she will only return to the 1967 borders and provide a "just solution" for Palestinians displaced in 1948. They have presented their plan as a "take it or leave it" last chance for the Israelis.

"Israel must choose between two options: to live in a cycle of constant war and increasing hatred or to accept the option of peace and co-existence," King Abdullah of Jordan told the summit in Riyadh.

The Israeli's have obviously got some problems with this, including the right to return for Palestinian refugees and the extent of territorial withdrawal being demanded.

Arab states should be willing to compromise over some issues and should not try to force the deal on Israel without any room for flexibility, the Israeli deputy prime minister, Shimon Peres, said today.
"I would say this: let's conduct negotiations. You come with your positions, and we will come with ours," Mr Peres told Israel Radio.
"I don't think we need to predetermine what we accept or don't accept. Each side should come with their own positions and negotiate from there."

Now, Peres is obviously speaking perfect sense when he talks of how future negotiations should be conducted. But there is an obvious discrepancy here. Why do the Israelis spend so much time determining what the Palestinians are allowed to discuss during their negotiations with Condaleezza Rice? Why, indeed, did Israel spend so much time attempting to influence what the Saudis could put into their peace plan, stating that they wanted to make clear what "was acceptable to Israel". And why do the US demand that Uranium enrichment should be halted before negotiations can be conducted with Iran?

It is funny how the US and Israelis are quick to note how unfair it is to limit the scope of future negotiations where such limitations apply to themselves, but seem to have no problem applying such limitations to others when they are in charge of the negotiations.

The final communiqué, officially known as the Riyadh declaration, offers Israel normal ties with all Arab countries in return for its withdrawal from land occupied in the 1967 Middle East war, the creation of a Palestinian state and a "just solution" for Palestinians displaced in 1948.
The declaration describes this as the basis for a "just and comprehensive peace", but also warns of the potential for "a dangerous and destructive arms race in the region" if the initiative fails.
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, appealed to the Israeli people to embrace the plan, saying his own citizens were "sincere in extending the hand of peace".
In practice, the 22 Arab states that have signed up - only two of which, Jordan and Egypt, currently recognise Israel - could well end up compromising in certain areas.

So we have 22 Arab states offering Israel peace in exchange for Israel agreeing to obey an international law that she has flouted for the past forty years. Now, I don't believe Olmert has any intention of signing up to this plan but, as I have said before, his problems are that Saudi Arabia are the proposers and he can't dismiss the Saudis because of their relationship with the US as easily as he has been able to dismiss other Arab nations in the past.

He has taken to the Israeli newspapers to give his spin on this:

In an interview appearing in the Haaretz supplement Week's End, Olmert said he would be happy to take part in a regional conference that would support direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

"A bloc of states is emerging that understands that they may have been wrong to think that Israel is the world's greatest problem. That is a revolutionary change in outlook," Olmert said.

"There are interesting ideas there, and we are ready to hold discussions and hear from the Saudis about their approach and to tell them about ours," he added.

"We aren't going overboard in this matter, but we are also not discounting it. We will act cautiously and wisely out of a willingness to create a dynamic that will improve and strengthen the process."

"The Riyadh summit is certainly a serious matter. We do not delude ourselves - they want us to go back to the 1967 borders and they also want the right of return. We were not surprised; we understood it would be this way. The content is important, but it is also important to relate to the atmosphere, positioning and direction.

"Saudi Arabia is the country that in the end will determine the ability of the Arabs to reach a compromise with Israel," Olmert said.

The official Israeli government response has been lukewarm. Although, Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz has stated that Israel would be making a mistake if she did not accept this offer as a serious one.

The Saudi plan is not only a serious one, as Olmert has conceded, it is the only plan that is ever going to succeed in ending the tensions in the region. The irony here is that, despite forty years of Israel continuing to steal Arab land and build settlements on it, despite forty years of bloodshed and loss of life, the only solution to this problem is going to be the very place where we started forty years ago. Resolution 242.

Bush may have attempted to rewrite international law when he told Sharon that the settlements were "facts on the ground", but the simple fact is that Bush declaring something don't make it the law. Especially if it only results in further bloodshed.

I have no great hope that Olmert is about to embrace the plan, but that's the irony of the Israeli position. One day, Israel will accept a plan very similar to this one. They'll come to an arrangement to compensate the refugees and they will hand back most of the land seized in 1967. The only real question is how many more must die before Israel are willing to accept the only solution that the international community - with the notable exception of the US - finds to be fair and just.

America loves to state that she is the "honest broker" in all of this, attempting to find peace between the two sides, when nothing could be further from the truth. America is the problem here, not the solution, for she continues to encourage Israel to believe that there is an answer to this other than 242. A good friend would tell the truth. Peace cannot be established down the barrel of a gun. The last forty years should have taught both the US and the Israeli's that universal truth.

Click title for full article.