There are some moments in history that are more important than others. Such moments normally follow major events that change the status quo. The significance of the present moment, following the adoption of the Arab peace initiative in Beirut, is that it could open the way to ending the historical feud in the Middle East, if two conditions are met: Resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict and closing all related files. The parties to this conflict, however, apparently do not realize this fact, and what seems to be taking place at the surface is a “dialogue of the deaf.” What is needed now is to discard the long-standing step-by-step approach, and to conclude interim agreements culminating in a final package deal.

Approval of such a package would be followed by defining the process and the mode of implementation, finding the appropriate implementation tool, and surmounting all obstacles facing this process.

The primary issues are well known. They include establishment of a Palestinian state; recognition of the State of Israel; the status of Jerusalem; right of return and the status of refugees; the final status of the settlements; land and borders; strategic security; water; negotiations between Israel and Syria and Lebanon; and economic cooperation. There are also some supporting issues, which, if solved, could facilitate dealing with issues in the first list. They include terrorism, current economic suffering, land occupied since September 2000, and rebuilding Palestinian infrastructure.

The outcome depends, at the end of the day, on the ability of people to implement agreements. There are three types of people in the field. The first are the extremists. They are a minority, but they fundamentally influence the potential for a solution, and are, therefore, impossible to deal with. The second are the dialectical group. They are the ones who argue and debate, without a true desire to arrive at a solution. They do not represent a large percentage, but their potential danger lies in the ability to influence public opinion. The third type, the ones who are most likely to seize the present historic moment, are the ones sincerely interested in effecting fundamental changes that eventually lead to the realization of peace objectives.

This article is aimed at the third group, to whom we present key principles that must be understood if peace initiatives are to take hold.

Focus on the problem, not the people: Sharon, Arafat, and others are, after all, individuals; countries are everlasting. This calls for commitment to the subject matter and not the individuals. What takes place now is the complete opposite. Attachment to individuals is a very short-term process, and what we seek are long-term achievements related to benefits and not individuals. Manage complexity: We should discern that the issues at hand are highly complex and require a great deal of time and effort. The important thing is to start now, and to arrive at a mechanism that leads to the “package deal” that is articulated with the approval of the parties, and is not dictated to them. Obstacles should be surmounted through dialogue and not with firearms.

Build confidence: The key to all this is confidence-building measures. Obviously, confidence is lacking at present among the parties, yet guarantees by the United States and members of the Quartet countries in general of these measures are the key to advancement on the road to a solution.

Look at the whole picture: It is necessary to deal with the issue comprehensively, and to deal with other issues in a parallel manner, not consecutively. In addition to politics, other areas like economics, cultural, military, security and strategic matters should be dealt with. Main countries in the region, including Egypt, could participate in this track, provided all parties express understanding of the main reasons for the conflict, and provided the international community supports their efforts.

Reject spoilers: All parties point out that the objective of terrorism is to halt the negotiation process. This calls for temporary tolerance on behalf of all parties of some of these operations, with the understanding that the eventual objective is larger than such operations.

Concentrate on the main issues: Excessive talk about reform results in diverting attention from the main issue — resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Reform may be effected during the solution process, and reform relates to methodology and not to change of individuals.

Build a security framework: The overall security framework through which the permanent solution is sought comprises a number of issues, paramount of which is arms control. This indicates the presence of an acceptable general military and strategic balance. No party should be permitted to acquire a major surplus of power that could threaten other parties in the region. It also comprises the necessity to clear the Middle East region of all weapons of mass destruction, and specifically of nuclear weapons. The presence of a country in the region that owns nuclear weapons permits this country — at least in theory — to use them, or threaten to use them for the purpose of achieving political objectives. This represents a permanent threat to peace in the region. If all states in the region believed in all of the above, then they could seize this unique, historic moment to arrive at a final, just and comprehensive solution to the conflict in the Middle East. If this moment is lost, everyone should prepare for a long and extended feud that will bring devastation to the region.

Arab News Features 4 December 2002