| |
| |
You are here: Frontpage > Issues > 2486 >
|
|
Arab peace offers
Noam Chomsky
The Arab League Peace Plan of
2002 is what was called the
"Saudi Plan" in the US. It has just
been renewed.
In 2002, the US and Israel sim
ply dismissed it, and I don't recall
media commentary.
It is pretty much a version of
the international consensus that
was articulated clearly for the first
time in January 1976 at the Security Council, in a resolution
brought by the major Arab states,
vetoed by the US (again in 1980).
International isolation
With the Security Council eliminated by the US veto, the same
principles came up almost annu
ally in the General Assembly,
under pressure from the Third
World and the Non-Aligned Move
ment, but with Europe also going
along.
The votes were usually something like 15-03 (US, Israel, some
times a client state like El Sal
vador). Standard for General
Assembly votes on a wide range
of issues.
Palestinian acceptance
The basic principle is a two-state
settlement on the international
(preJune 1967) borders, with
minor and mutual border adjustments, incorporating the wording
of UN Security Council Resolution
242 (all states in the region have
the right to exist in peace and
security within recognised borders, etc.).
In 1988 the Palestinian National
Council formally accepted this
proposal, having tacitly backed it
since the mid-1970s.
Israeli-US rejection
The reaction of the Israeli coalition
government (Shimon Peres,
Yitzhak Shamir) was to declare
that there can be no "additional"
Palestinian state between Jordan
and Israel (Jordan, by implication,
being a Palestinian state), and
that the fate of the territories
would be settled in accord with
the guidelines of the Israeli government.
That proposal was adopted
without qualification by the Bush I
administration (the Baker plan of
December 1989). That is the most
extreme rejectionist stand taken
by any US administration.
All of this is doctrinally unacceptable in the US, in fact the
West generally, so suppressed.
But the facts are uncontroversial.
Hard to ignore
The Arab League Peace Plan
goes
beyond earlier versions of the interna
tional consensus by
calling for full
normalisation of
relations
with Israel.
By now,
the US and
Israel can't
simply ignore it,
because US relations
with Saudi Arabia are
too tenuous, and
because of the catastrophic effects of the
Iraq invasion (and the
great regional concern
that the US will go on to
attack Iran, very strongly
opposed in the region, apart
from Israel).
So therefore the US and Israel
are departing slightly from their
extreme unilateral rejectionism, at
least in rhetoric, though not in
substance.
Even Hamas, Hezbollah
The Arab plan has overwhelming
international support, of course
from the Third World (the
"South"), which, as mentioned,
has been in the lead in pressing
the basic proposal for 30 years,
but also again Europe.
It's supported by the Arab
states and by Iran. Hezbollah has
been quite clear that though it
does not like it, it will not disrupt
any agreement that the Palestinians reach. Hamas has indicated
that it will support it. That includes
its most militant faction, headed
by Khaled Maashal in Damascus,
who said that Hamas would
accept an Arab consensus--
namely, the Arab League plan,
now renewed.
A large majority of Americans
supported the Saudi plan when it
was announced, and presumably
still do, though I don't know of
current polls.
That leaves the US-Israel in
their usual stance of splendid isolation, opposing a diplomatic set
tlement--not just in words, but in
deeds: the massive settlement/
infrastructure projects in the West
Bank, and all the rest.
Taba -- nearly peace
In fairness, it should be pointed
out that there was one week in
which the US-Israel departed
from their unilateral rejectionism:
in January 2001, in Taba, Egypt.
Israeli and Palestinian negotia
tors came close to a settlement
on all outstanding
issues, and in their last press conference, stated jointly that with a
little more time, they could finalise
an agreement.
Israeli Prime Minister Barak called off
the negotiations
early, presumably
to pre
vent
that
out
come.
The Clinton
administration
didn't object.
We don't know more
about the internal discussions.
Shortly after came Bush,
Sharon, and formal negotiations
stopped, but informal (Track II)
negotiations continued, leading
to the Geneva Accord between
high-level Israeli and Palestinian
figures, but unofficial.
It received strong world sup
port as usual. Israel rejected it.
The US ignored it. It was dismissed with little-disguised
ridicule in the mainstream US
press, where it was noticed at all.
It was quite detailed, more or
less in line with the Taba negotiations and the international consensus.
Dishonest broker
There certainly is a basis for settlement, and it's been well-known
for a long time what the basic
contours are, but it cannot
progress as long as it is blocked
by the US.
The pretence here is that the
US has been an honest broker,
but didn't pay enough attention to
diplomacy under Bush, matters
now being remedied by Rice. The
posture cannot survive inspection
of the extensive public record,
which is therefore suppressed, in
the familiar fashion.
This article first appeared on ZNet.
Noam
Chomsy's latest book is (with
Gilbert Achcar) Perilous Power--the
Middle East and US foreign policy
(Hamish Hamilton, 2007)
|
|
|
|
