Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tekboy who wrote (25844)	4/18/2002 2:33:49 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Fear, hatred, negotiation in Mideast By Trudy Rubin The Philadelphia Inquirer / Editorial Wed, Apr. 17, 2002 AMMAN, Jordan - Israel is on the verge of losing the best chance in its history for a comprehensive peace with Arab states - the Arab Peace Initiative adopted May 23 in Beirut. It is easy to scoff at initiatives produced by Arab League summits. But a trip to Saudi Arabia and Jordan has convinced me that moderate Arab leaders were serious about their proposal. They offered "normal relations" between Arab states and Israel and a formal end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, in exchange for Israeli withdrawal to 1967 lines and the establishment of a Palestinian state. They understood, moreover, that those 1967 boundaries would have to be modified slightly, as envisioned during earlier Israeli-Palestinian talks. However, the initiative was eclipsed when Israel invaded the West Bank in retaliation for a series of hideous suicide bomb attacks. Arab publics are enraged by Israel's operations on the West Bank. Israel has destroyed Yasir Arafat's government and seems headed for full reoccupation of the West Bank, which guarantees a queue of new suicide bombers. There is only one way out of this trap. It would involve adopting a new framework for negotiations that endorsed the general principles of the Arab initiative, a framework that spelled out the endgame of negotiations - two states roughly along 1967 lines. The framework would also have to include a specific time frame for getting to a Palestinian state. "The only credible process that would convince the [Palestinian] street that there is an alternative to suicide bombs," says Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher, "is a peace process that goes all the way . . . to a state and has a time frame associated with it. Visions alone are no longer enough." Of course, negotiations have been tried for a decade and failed, in large part because Yasir Arafat didn't grasp or respond to serious Israeli offers, turning instead to a strategy of talking while fighting. But the Oslo peace process was based on incremental steps that bogged down and undermined trust. Both sides violated substance and spirit of the agreement - Israel with its settlements, Palestinians with violence. Any new process would have to adopt a different approach: Spell out the endgame, then require the Palestinians to show good faith by ceasing violence while details were worked out. Until recently, the Bush administration's Mideast mediator Anthony Zinni insisted that the Palestinians cease all violence before he would even discuss political issues. But Secretary of State Colin Powell seems to have recognized this approach won't work. However, Powell has yet to grasp that he can't get a cease-fire unless the United States endorses a new political framework and a timeline to reach a political solution that builds on the Arab initiative. Powell's proposal that Arab states and Israel hold yet another Mideast peace conference to talk about interim steps toward a state is pointless. And his failure to convince Sharon to pull back from the West Bank undermines U.S. credibility. "We say don't talk about interim arrangements and open-ended negotiations again," Muasher told me. "Both sides need to know where they are going. This is where the Arab initiative comes in." The Arab initiative's virtue is that it offers Israel reassurance that any deal with the Palestinians would end the conflict forever, a key Israeli demand Arafat never seemed willing to meet. Arab officials tell me their states would then have a vested interest in seeing that the new Palestinian state behaved responsibly. The Arab states also support an agreed solution to the Palestinian refugee problem, not the Palestinian demand that all refugees have the "right" to return to Israel. This position offers reassurance that the Arab goal is indeed two states along 1967 lines, not a return to the 1948 goal of eliminating Israel. (If further reassurance is needed, an international force including American troops should patrol the Israel-Palestine border.) Five days ago I asked Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal whether the Arab Initiative (based on a plan first put forward by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah) was still on the table. "It is still being offered," he said, even though Abdullah is now being criticized for making the offer since Saudis are so furious at events on the West Bank. I then asked whether Prince Saud could really envision an Israeli Embassy in Riyadh, especially after the events of the last two weeks. He snapped, "Of course, how can you have normal relations without it?" That is an offer it would be a historic mistake for Israel to refuse. ___________________________________________ Contact Trudy Rubin at 215-854-5823 or trubin@phillynews.com. philly.com