While the US-sponsored international conference on Middle East peace in Washington is approaching, Israeli-Palestinian talks for a lasting peace and the creation of a Palestinian state are gaining momentum. But will Israel free itself from doubts, hesitations and vacillations and seize the rare opportunity of having an Arab peace initiative, good Palestinian leadership and a true friend at the White House?
Last July, Jordan’s Foreign Minister Abdul Ilah Khatib and his Egyptian counterpart, Ahmed Abul Gheit, representing the Arab League, presented to the Israeli leadership the details of the Arab peace initiative ratified in the Arab summit held in Riyadh in March this year. The initiative, which was rejected by then Israeli premier Ariel Sharon, who was busy with the disengagement from Gaza Strip and northern parts of West Bank in 2005, is back on the international stage, and constitutes a rare window of opportunity.
For the first time since the 1948 war, all Arab countries are willing to recognize the existence of the Jewish state and even maintain normal relations with it.
The conditions for it are: Israel is obligated to withdraw from the occupied territories and grant the Palestinians an independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital. In addition, the initiative calls for a fair solution to the Palestinian refugee problem.
What makes this initiative unique is the agreement of all Arab states to accept any solution worked out by the parties, as long as it constitutes an end to the conflict.
According to sources involved in the matter, the initiative is not an outline of red lines for ending the conflict, but rather, constitutes a sort of general umbrella for any agreement between any Arab state and Israel, or between the Palestinians and Israel.
The Saudis, who have played a significant role in marketing the initiative, convinced other Arab countries to accept any agreement signed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Hence, the initiative’s significance stems from the fact all Arab states, including Syria, agreed to it, and its implementation is not far removed from reality. Israel is facing a one-time opportunity and a basis for a long-term agreement that will guarantee quiet for many years to come. With regard to the Palestinian leadership, Abbas’ position, which rejects “terror and violence” as a means of achieving a solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, is well known. Abbas has expressed his position at times and in places where much courage was required to do so. However, his weaknesses are also well known:
He is not a charismatic leader and his ability to lead the Palestinian people through controversial issues is doubtful. However, there is no doubt that the incumbent Palestinian leadership is the most convenient for Israel as a negotiating partner.
For his part, Palestinian Prime Minister Dr. Salam Fayyad is an intelligent and honest man who is well aware of the need to reorganize the Palestinian administration. His efforts in rectifying and “cleansing” the Palestinian economy have already been highly praised, and his efforts to improve Palestinian life are impressive.
It appears that a change has come about in the Palestinian territories too. Attacks against Israeli targets by Palestinian armed groups from the West Bank have diminished significantly, and after all, security and prevention of such attacks were set out in the International Quartet’s road map peace plan as one of the conditions for any diplomatic process.
Another weighty consideration for supporting the acceleration of the process is the American stance.
The US administration is striving, and even pushing, for progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track. Israel must be attentive to the will of the current American administration not only because of its “great friendship”, but also because of its “understanding of the existential threats Israel faces, which have increased as of late.”
The Israeli tendency to belittle the power of the Bush administration, which is nearing the end of its term in office, is a mistake. A president in his last year in office does not resemble one in his first year; however, his ability to act is still vast.
These developments should encourage Olmert and Israeli political leadership to vigorously advance on the Palestinian track. Olmert must advance on the Palestinian track not as a mere matter of political survival and in an attempt to distract attention from the Winograd Commission which investigated Israeli failures during the July attacks on Lebanon or other affairs threatening him.
