Arab Peace Initiative: Only solution for peace
Al-Arabiya, Saudi Arabia, December 14
Nearly two decades after the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia presented the Arab League with its peace initiative, one must ask: Has a better solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict been proposed since? This question is especially relevant today, as the Gaza Strip experiences an escalating military campaign, tensions rise in the West Bank, and support for the peace camp dwindles in the Arab world. It is clear that dramatic changes are needed in this region, where death is becoming routine.
Imagine if Israel had embraced the late King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz’s initiative and agreed to establish a Palestinian state based on the borders of June 1967. A just solution to the refugee problem could have been reached and the Arab-Israeli conflict would have been resolved. Normal relations could have flourished between the Arab and Israeli peoples, transforming the region into a bastion of peace and prosperity.
Unfortunately, Israeli governments have become experts in procrastinating and manipulating peace talks to advance their own agendas. They hope to annex more Palestinian lands, rendering the establishment of a Palestinian state meaningless. Today, [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s government appears determined to eradicate the Palestinian issue altogether. They openly express their desire to displace Palestinians in Gaza to the Sinai Peninsula and consider forcibly transferring West Bank residents to Jordan. Extremist voices within Israel have gained prominence, especially following recent events such as the October 7 attacks. This trend is likely to persist, with Israel even acknowledging the possibility of a yearlong war in Gaza.
Israel’s leaders have failed to realize that their arsenal of weapons can cause death and devastation, but it cannot extinguish the will of the Palestinian people to live and survive on their land. Israel’s greatest obstacle to peace is its belief that it has the right to seize Palestinian lands and justify the persecution of Palestinians. Former US president Jimmy Carter, in his book Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid, effectively highlights this issue.
In a recent article, Israeli writer Meir Sheetrit, a former government minister, emphasized that the 2002 peace initiative remains the only sustainable solution for Israelis and the entire region. He laments the missed opportunities since then, with successive Israeli prime ministers failing to respond adequately to the initiative. Sheetrit proposed that Ariel Sharon should have visited Saudi Arabia to discuss the initiative, utilizing the kingdom’s moral influence and financial support for the Palestinians. Sheetrit further suggested convening a meeting in Jerusalem or Riyadh to gather all Arab countries involved in the initiative and work toward resolving the conflict comprehensively.
Unfortunately, the past 20 years have seen countless wasted opportunities by Israeli governments. Prime ministers like Sharon and [Ehud] Olmert recognized the viability of the Saudi initiative but failed to take necessary action. It is uncertain whether Netanyahu is willing to listen now, especially given the perceived threat of Hamas and the deterioration of relations with the Palestinian Authority. Relying solely on American support and maintaining inflexible positions are an unrealistic dream for Israel. Therefore, the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 remains the only viable solution to the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The crisis will likely persist for decades unless sane and rational individuals in Washington and Tel Aviv embrace this initiative and work toward lasting peace. – Emil Amin
Haniyeh & Abu Marzouk: Real shift in position?
An-Nahar, Lebanon, December 15
The recent clash between the US and Israel following President Joe Biden’s remarks highlights a significant divide between the two parties. Biden accused the Israeli government of extremism, citing the diminishing international support for Israel due to its indiscriminate bombing in Gaza. This has led to calls for a change in the Israeli government. However, both parties remain united in their goal of undermining Hamas’s rule in the Gaza Strip.
The disagreement lies in two key points. First, Israel has been accused of deliberately targeting Gaza civilians in an attempt to bring about demographic change. Second, Netanyahu’s government has explicitly rejected the two-state solution, the Oslo Accords, and the revival of the Palestinian Authority, which are crucial components of any future Arab and international solution. Achieving a political solution seems unlikely given the vast differences between the US administration and the Netanyahu government. The Israeli government is aiming to alter the realities on the ground in the West Bank and the devastated Gaza Strip.
Following the all-out war in Gaza, several scenarios could unfold. Netanyahu may be removed from power, or he could resist with the support of the far-right group he leads and announce early elections in late spring or summer. Meanwhile, the US will be consumed by the frenzy of election campaigns, and there is a possibility that Donald Trump could return to the White House in November, significantly altering the American administration’s stance for the next four years. Many developments are anticipated in the coming months.
Considering the internal Palestinian disagreement and the lack of a unified Arab vision to block Iran’s major influence, it is probable that we will find ourselves back to square one after the war, a year from now. This means there will be no innovative political paths and no glimmer of hope for the suffering Palestinian citizens in Gaza and the West Bank.
In relation to the internal Palestinian dispute, Hamas political bureau head Ismail Haniyeh stated that Hamas is open to any initiatives that seek to unite the Palestinian territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Senior Hamas member Musa Abu Marzouk added that Hamas aims to be a part of the PLO, with a commitment to fulfilling its obligations. Although these positions may appear promising, they should be viewed with caution amid the ongoing war.
It is possible that Hamas’s political wing is attempting to signal a change in behavior in the postwar period, sending messages to the US and moderate Arab countries. These signals could be used to expedite a cessation of the conflict and to reconsider the goal of removing Hamas from Gaza.
However, it is too soon to include Haniyeh’s and Abu Marzouk’s statements as evidence of a fundamental shift in Hamas’s positions on the PLO and the two-state solution. Consequently, we must await the official statements from Yahya Sinwar, the true leader of Hamas in Gaza, and his faction.
Nonetheless, the emerging positions from Hamas leaders signify an internal debate within the organization, taking place amid the grave dangers faced by the Gaza Strip and the Hamas movement. – Ali Hamada
Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb.
