|
|
Arab League’s peace initiativeThe POST, Sun, April,08, 2007.Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema
The initial Israeli reaction that was aired soon after the offered was announced was curt rejection and the Israeli authorities were rather assertive not to accept the return of refugees. The Israeli viewed the return of refugees could upset the balance in Israel itself and could radically undermine the nature of Jewish state. The quick rejection of any peace initiative is indeed unwise. One should wait and thoroughly analyze the plan and then announce whatever deemed in their perception is best in congruence with involved state’s national interest. However the later news emanating from Israeli sources appears to be relatively more encouraging. The Israeli Prime Minister Mr. Ehud Olmert stated that he was ready to attend a summit with Arab leaders to discuss the Saudi peace plan and called on the Arab nations to convene such a meeting. In a joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr. Olmert extended a general invitation to Arab leaders to hold talks with Israel. As mentioned above the latest offer is a revival of a plan already made by then Prince Abdullah who is now the King of Saudi Arabia. Indeed the plan makes a magnanimous but conditional offer to recognize Israel provided the Israelis vacate all the occupied lands. Since 1967 Israel has only withdrawn from Sinai as a part of Camp David accord in exchange for diplomatic recognition by Egypt. Both the Arab states as well as influential counties including the US had welcomed the plan. The US President, at the time, even praised Abdullah’s idea of full-Arab normalization once a comprehensive peace agreement has been reached. The President Jacques Chirac supported the peace plan. Being a positive gesture it quickly gained requisite acknowledgement and support from various quarters interested in regional peace. Among the important aspects one need to examine are timing, symbolism, usefulness and the likely impediments. It is extremely significant that the plan was unfolded after securing a total consensus of all Arab leaders as well leaders of other Muslim states. Not only the Arabs from various parts of the Middle East participated in the Arab League’s summit but important leaders of other Muslim states were also specifically invited. The second important aspect that deserves considerations is that the plan has been put forward by the Arab League with Saudi Arabia taking a lead role. Saudi Arabia enjoys a special status among the Muslims and its rulers being the custodian of the holy places command enormous respect from the Muslims all over the world. Besides, the Saudis are also on good terms with most of the influential western powers. Cognizant of the Saudi influence over most parts of the Islamic world, many western countries fully comprehend the significance of a peace plan coming out of Saudi Arabia. Perhaps that is why the European Union endorsed the initiative. Another important aspect of the plan revolves around its usefulness. The Israelis need to ask themselves that what their most important objective is. Does the plan offer some move forward towards the attainment of their objective? Does the plan offer the requisite level of guarantees? Could the plan facilitate the advent of permanent peace? Scanning through most statements of the Israeli leaders over the last 59 years of Israel’s independent existence it is not too far fetched to assume that the most important Israeli objective is peace and stability. As the plan offers that following the Israeli withdrawal from the occupied lands, almost all the Arab countries and other members of the Islamic world would extend recognition, which, in turn, would enable the Israelis to live peacefully in the region. If the Israeli objective is to extend its borders and capture more and more Arab lands over the years on flimsy excuses, then the chances for protracted struggle are much greater. One can understand the inability of the Arabs to oust the Israelis from occupied land at the moment but then the nature of international relations is dynamic and the situations keep changing and the emergence of conducive developments may prove extremely detrimental to Israeli interests. The continuous killings of many innocent Palestinian are only going to make the reconciliation rather difficult. Among the impediments that could derail the envisaged peace process rather successfully include the return of Palestinian refugees that have been living in various countries for years, the expanded Israeli settlements, and the return of Golan Heights and the fate of Jerusalem. Apart from the future status of Jerusalem, which could prove to be somewhat tricky, all others issues could be resolved provided the parties involved are determined to opt for permanent peace. Return of Palestinian Diasporas and refugees could not pose any major problem if all the occupied lands are returned. Similarly the return of Golan Heights should be treated as part of the overall deal to return all territories that were occupied by the Israelis over the years. The two issues revolving around the fate of Jewish settlements on the west bank areas as well as the future status of Jerusalem could pose some problems. Jewish settlements were the product of various Israeli governments’ continuous encouragements to incoming Jewish migrants. The existence of these settlements continuously reminds the Palestinians that the Israeli objectives include expansion of its borders. Thus it is indeed imperative to find some form of solution to appease the settlers. They can be awarded land within the Israeli borders and some form of monetary assistance could be promised by the donor agencies to enable the resettlement of the settlers. A fund to initiate a process of resettlement of the settlers could be established. A time frame could also be set for the vacation of these settlements. The vacation of settlements on the occupied lands and resettlement processes could start simultaneously. Perhaps most complex issue would be the fate of Jerusalem. If the emotional aspect of the issue is divorced from the realities, the issue can be easily settled. The Palestinian would like to secure the complete control of the Jerusalem but the Israeli would not agree to handover the total control back to the Palestinians. Thus it is going generate heated debates among both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Undoubtedly the Palestinian would not accept the control of entire Jerusalem with the Israeli authorities. A divided Jerusalem could turn out to be a panacea with the Muslims controlling all those parts deemed to be extremely dear to them and the Israelis retaining the control of those areas that contains their religious places. For future smooth working of a divided Jerusalem, neither should make Jerusalem a capital city. Instead Jerusalem should be declared as a city of peace with divided control. Alternatively both Palestinian as well as Israeli states could make their parts of Jerusalem as their respective capitals. Third option is that the entire Jerusalem be made an international city with committee consisting of representative of all three religion and two states (Palestine and Israel). All the issues involved could be resolved if Israel makes a serious effort and sincerely discuss the issue with the Arab League leaders. At this stage the Israel should formally get in touch with the Saudi King and express desire to meet the Arab leaders in order to fine a solution. Admittedly the Israeli Prime Minister has already made a similar offer but through media. Besides, statements reflecting conditions prior to envisaged dialogue should be avoided.
|
|