The Arab 2002 Peace Initiative

36 Responses to “The Arab 2002 Peace Initiative”

1. tsedek on March 26th, 2007 4:46 pm

   I paranoid?
   OK: let’s go outside to settle this for once and for all

   Anyway, I find that refugees should be granted both compensation and the right to return ………… to a Palestinian State. Let it thrive first and let us have friendly neighborly experiences and let then the borders become like borders of the EU.

   If anyone else thinks this is a good proposition I’m gonna form a JOINT political party acting and representing both the Palestinians and the Israeli’s.

   (OK, OK….. still: it would sort of backlash on both country’s political clique no? )

2. Drima on March 26th, 2007 4:52 pm

   Actually that sounds decent. I have no idea how the hell the refugees who suffered greatly will simply return to modern day Israel and decide to get along with everybody there. The anomisty will be too great and indeed it will take sometime for people to be friendly neighbours.

   By the way, Israel will be the one to provide compensation right?

3. Andrew Brehm on March 26th, 2007 6:53 pm

   “normalization of relations in return for a complete withdrawal to the pre-1967 border?”

   Germany offered Poland a normalisation of relations without such a demand. I am from Germany, I have no problems with that. But I respect any Muslim who would be willing to give up Muslim control over Mecca just as much as I respect any Jew would would be willing to give up Jewish control over Jerusalem.

   My own peace plan:

   1. Israel gets to keep Jerusalem. Arabs living within the borders will have a right to reside and work in Israel.

   2. Israel gets to keep Golan.

   3. Gaza is made into an independent state in association with Egypt.

   4. The West Bank (sans Jerusalem) is made into an independent state in association with Israel or Jordan.

   5. The West Bank state (”Cisjordan”) can keep the Jewish holy city of Hebron.

   6. The border between Cisjordan and Israel can be adjusted as required.

   7. Syria apologised for attacking Israel and pays reparations.

   8. Iraq apologises for attacking Israel and pays reparations.

   9. Lebanon does not need to apologise and pay reparations because they were also a victim of the Syrians.

   10. Jordan and Egypt already signed a peace treaty and thus no further demands are made.

   11. Jordan and Egypt apologise for invading Gaza and the West Bank and pay reparations to the two states.

   12. Gaza and Cisjordan compensate Israel for any and all terror attacks that happen after the treaty has come into effect.

   13. Israel, per international law, keeps the right to react militarily to terror attacks from foreign lands.

   14. See below about refugees.

   The principles I base this on are these:

   1. It is wrong to attack another country, even if it is Jewish.

   2. If you attack another country and lose, the attacked country gets to keep some of your land, even if it is Jewish.

   3. If your country is attacked and you join the attackers and try to kill your fellow citizens, you are officially and legally regarded as a traitor and an enemy, even if you were attacking Jews.

   Any arguments against the principles or the plan?

   “I have no idea how the hell the refugees who suffered greatly will simply return to modern day Israel and decide to get along with everybody there.”

   Their grandparents didn’t want to get along during the war of independence. Do many people believe that the current generation hate the Jews less?

   “By the way, Israel will be the one to provide compensation right?”

   Even though I do not believe that Israel is to blame for the original refugee situation, I think I can agree that Israel can pay for them.

   Obviously Israel would be the recipient of similar compensation paid by Arab countries to Jewish refugees. Perhaps the money could be paid directly to the Palestinian state and Israel would not even have to be involved?

4. Yaeli on March 26th, 2007 8:58 pm

   Yo, just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t all after you.

5. Roman Kalik on March 26th, 2007 9:20 pm

   I would like the Arab Peace Initiative to allow for actual negotiations, rather than a demand for acceptance. That would be a nice step.

6. Drima on March 27th, 2007 1:31 am

   Andrew, I think you’re peace plan goes too far dude. It’s not realistic. Most Muslims simply won’t accept Israel controlling all of Jerusalem. Oh no, forget it. Most Muslims will be up in flames. Even, I myself am uncomfortable with that. We should get to keep east Jerusalem. I’d love to see Gaza become part of Egypt and the West Bank part of Jordan though. That would be great but then again, the Palestinians themselves need to decide and I have a very strong feeling the answer will be a loud “NO”! I do absolutely agree with you that Arab countries should pay compensation to the Arab Jews they kicked out, while Israel pays compensation to Palestinian ones. However again, what’s the definition of “refugee” in both cases? Yaeli, made a really good rant about it in the comments section of the Good Neighbours Blog post I linked to.

   RK, I perfectly agree with you. I think both sides should be flexible and reach some sort of compromise instead of making rigid demands. In my opinion normalization of relations in return for going back to the ‘67 borders is a really good deal. Israelis should be drooling over it. I mean think about it, you guys and I could probably meet face to face in the middle of Tel Aviv, in the not too distant future.

   The only problematic issue, is the one concerning refugees.

7. howie on March 27th, 2007 3:47 am

   Drima-

   I really don’t see the refugee problem as the biggest issue. If there is a Palestinian state…they have the right to return there…the right to return to Israel is all a negotiating tool…it won’t happen and I think any sensible Pal. knows that.

   In terms of the return to the 67 borders…ain’t gonna happen. For example…you have to realize the the 67 border runs right through the center of Jerusalem. Jerusalem has grown ENORMOUSLY since those days…by the hundreds of thousands….those neighborhoods are not going to be evacuated.

   Barak has already worked out an idea that I long supported. If this really were to happen (I have signficant doubts)…parts of the Negev along Gaza can be given up in return for some land lost.

   Jerusalem going back as the capital…just ain’t gonna happen…Muslims should have complete free access to their holy sites once we are all kissing cousins again…but well Drima…you would have to visit and look just at the strategic/geographical make-up of the area to even begin to grasp the complexity of this problem.

   But, if the Pals can stop killing us and each other, i.e. get themselves somewhat organized and under some centralized control, many wonderful things could happen. It is going to take sacrifice from both ends. Kind of funny though…the Saudi plans says “in return, Israel gets peace with ALL ARABS). Excuse me…but who made Faisal the f…ing king of the Arab nation?

   Not so simple…but I am for starting any time.

   And I would not give back the Golan for sure when Assads are in power. That is just rewarding a real trash ass group of thugs.

8. howie on March 27th, 2007 3:49 am

   Drima-

   Oh by the way…I believe the Palestinians are the only “refugee” group in history that are still referred to as refugees into like the 3rd and 4th generations. That definition makes rich Palestinians living in California refugees also….huh?

9. Andrew Brehm on March 27th, 2007 7:04 am

   “Andrew, I think you’re peace plan goes too far dude. It’s not realistic.”

   My plan gives up Gaza and the West Bank. It’s hard to accept, but I don’t see how it’s not realistic.

   “Most Muslims simply won’t accept Israel controlling all of Jerusalem.”

   I find it unrealistic that Israel would give up the holy city of Judaism. Would Muslims give up Mecca?

   East-Jerusalem sans the old city would have been an option a few years ago. However, now the border fence has pretty much annexed Jerusalem in practice. Unless the Arab side agrees to pay for moving the fence into the middle of the city, I don’t see how East-Jerusalem can become a part of an Arfab state any more.

   Incidentally, the border fence would then be located exactly between the hotel I stayd in and Damascus Gate.

   I have some experience with living in a divided city with a wall in the middle. You get used to it.

   I think what Muslims don’t get is that Jerusalem is to Jews what Mecca is to Muslims. You can make any demand of the Jews regarding Jerusalem that you would feel comfortable with if the Jews made it regarding Mecca.

   I am absolutely against giving up more land than Gaza and the West Bank. In my book there is no such thing as attacking another country, losing the war, and then getting back what one risked to lose.

   There are only two reasons why I would want Israel to give up anything at all:

   1. Israel captured land from countries that captured the land from somebody else.

   2. Arab Palestinians will happily demand that the Jews live in strange lands under other Arabs’ rule but will for some reason never accept the same fate for themselves.

   I already accommodate demands that I don’t understand or think are justified. How realistic can it get?

   The “realism” of it being legal to attack the Jewish state is simply not something I can accept. And there should be no reward for doing so.

10. Andrew Brehm on March 27th, 2007 7:06 am

    “I believe the Palestinians are the only “refugee” group in history that are still referred to as refugees into like the 3rd and 4th generations.”

    Parts of my family have been fleeing from places all over Europe. Following common logic I would have the right to return to Russia, Romania, Hungary, and many other places.

    And following another widely-accepted logic I would also have the right to “resist” these countries by throwing the odd rocket into their kindergardens.

11. Suzanne on March 27th, 2007 8:55 am

    I have never understood how you can call completely built up cities still “refugee camps” to be honest. Camps remind me of places where people live temporarily in tents, cabins, or other inexpensive or portable dwellings. Not in completely built up cities with everything in it and everything on it. If these are refugee camps, then part of Amsterdam is a Jewish refugee camp, part of Paris is a Jewish refugee camp, part of Antwerp is a Jewish refugee camp and part of New York is a Jewish refugee camp.
    If these are refugee camps, then wherever blacks are living in the US are all refugee camps for blacks whose ancestors were brought over there (for you know what). If these are refugee camps then Kurds everywhere are living in refugee camps.

12. Andrew Brehm on March 27th, 2007 11:27 am

    Perhaps a few things should be made clear.

    For a peace treaty to be acceptable for Israel, a few basic principles would have to be adhered to:

    1. It would be very nice if the peace treaty did not demand or lead to the immediate death of all middle-eastern Jews.

    2. Jerusalem is as holy to Jews as Mecca is to Muslims.

    3. There are no Palestinian Arabs in Golan and there is no need to give Golan to anybody to make up for perceived or real injustices to Palestinian Arabs.

    4. Who will pay reparations to Israel for all the times she was attacked?

13. Roman Kalik on March 27th, 2007 1:10 pm

    The problem here is that this initiative demands both the exact 1967 borders and the Palestinian Right of Return to Israel. Demands. There is no mention of negotiations, Israel either accepts the initiative or the Arab state leaders go off and sulk. Now, I can understand that biting the bullet and actually talking of Israel as an existing state was very hard, and a step forward, but trying to sweeten the bitter pill by making unreasonable demands to satisfy pride yet again…

    No deal. The exact borders of 1967 are unrealistic. Some shifting will have to be done, in both directions. A wall could pass through Jerusalem if required, but the Old City is not something we’ll give up, as I would not place the single most holy site to Judaism in the hands of another.

    The demand to give Syria back the Golan is currently unrealistic, as I wouldn’t trust Bashar Assad to overlook our largest water resource from his strategic high ground again, and there’s the rather uncomfortable fact that most Golan Druze aren’t all that inclined to live in a dictatorship like their parents and grandparents did. The only way to go forward here is to create a great big demilitarized zone, and that won’t happen with the Ba’ath in charge of Syria.

    In fact, the real problem with the initiative is that it’s a list of demands. There is no room for dialog, no room for compromise. It would have been a fantastic starting point for diplomatic negotiations but as it is currently structured it’s basically built to fail.

    Also, I noticed another issue. The Initiative also demands that all Palestinian refugees are resettled. With no exception. That means that any Palestinian born in another Arab country gets kicked out, even if he wants to stay. This just reinforces my belief that the Arab states call all Palestinians refugees (to the third and fourth generation, as it were) mainly so they can avoid taking any responsibility for their well-being.

14. Mark on March 27th, 2007 6:18 pm

    Israelestine (or maybe Palesrael) becomes the 51st state of the United States. All holy sites whether muslim or jewish become per se unconstitutional. Wave after wave of tort litigation make the entire populace too scared to do anything but smile at eachother. Every February the people will inexplicably learn again and again about the studies of George Washington Carver. As a result of all this both sides will put aside their animosity for eachother to figure out a way to leave the union. Their efforts succeed because despite the disparity in military power most Americans can’t find Israelestine on the map, (most look for it around Nebraska). Realizing much more can be accomplished by working together both sides work out an acceptable compromise. The End, problem solved.

15. Suzanne on March 27th, 2007 7:05 pm

    I’d rather see the name of Israel being changed to Home of David or so instead of anything related to Israel. It’s weird that the country is called “struggle with God” when your struggle is mainly with the Arabs

16. Don Cox on March 28th, 2007 11:27 am

    How about this for a definition of a refugee? “A person who was born in one country, but has had to escape to another, and has not taken up citizenship in the new home.”

17. Suzanne on March 28th, 2007 7:51 pm

    According to that definition Don Cox I am a refugee.

18. Andrew Brehm on March 29th, 2007 6:54 am

    The official definition that the UN uses:

    “refugee”
    noun
    Any non-Jewish person who actually fled some-whence or is remotely related to one who might have.

    http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=81628

    Also of relevance:

    “Palestine”
    noun
    The only country in the world which has never had a significant Jewish population in its history (see “Jerusalem”).

    “Palestinian”
    noun
    A non-Jewish inhabitant of Palestine (see “German” in Hitler’s dictionary) and any descendant living anywhere else. Some Palestinians are Egyptians. Most Palestinians are Muslims. There are Christian Palestinians, but they are often Palestinians for a shorter time.

19. Andrew Brehm on March 29th, 2007 6:58 am

    “I’d rather see the name of Israel being changed to Home of David or so instead of anything related to Israel.”

    The Quran speaks of the people of Israel as the ones the land was given to by G-d. The name makes sense. Calling it “Home of David” is a bit nationalist, don’t you think?

    “It’s weird that the country is called “struggle with God” when your struggle is mainly with the Arabs.”

    Considering the position of the Quran and all the miracles that have so far saved Israel, I think the irony lies in the fact that the Arabs fight against the word of the Quran and don’t even notice how they seem to have fantastically bad luck doing so.

20. nobody on March 29th, 2007 2:43 pm

    each side in this conflict knows where the red line of the other is … it’s as clear as day …we did not waste a decade under oslo for nothing …everybody got the idea..

    the jewish control over sacred places is the red line for the arabs … though they may agree for some kind of shared or institutionalised control

    neither jewish control over all of jerusalem will be acceptable for the palestinians

    for us any demand for allowing refugees into israel proper is unacceptable

    if somebody finds these red lines too hard to swallow , it’s ok … i dont mind having another war … and people can talk about peace and historical justice until they are blue in the face … it’s ok as far as i am concerned … but lets not bullshit ourselves with what is practical and what is not …

21. nobody on March 29th, 2007 2:51 pm

    institutionalised=internationalized

22. Andrew Brehm on March 29th, 2007 2:53 pm

    It’s funny how the red lines show which side is open to peace and which one is not.

    Israel has been the WINNER in many wars where Israel was ATTACKED. Yet Israel is expected to act as if she was, at most, an equal partner in discussions.

    The PLO have signed and broken peace treaties, yet Israel is expected to treat their offers and their word as genuine.

    Muslims have control over their holy city yet cannot accept Jewish control over the Jewish holy city. (Any religion can declare any city as holy, so don’t tell me Jerusalem is also a Muslim holy city. There are many sects that think Mecca is a holy city, yet the Muslims do not share control over the city with them.)

    The Arab side demands compensation for Arab refugees, which I think is a fair demand. But does the Arab side even acknowledge the Jewish refugees and the possibility that they are also ought compensation?

    What Israel cannot accept, the red line as one might say, is anything that would get all the Jews killed.

    And what the Arab side cannot accept is a) Jewish control over the Jewish holy city and b) anything that will allow the Jews to survive.

    The Arab side could have had the borders of 1967. But they wanted more. They have lost. What will Israel get in return for being attacked and surviving? Peace? Israel was due peace since it was founded. The fact that peace wasn’t granted to it doesn’t make peace an “offer”. Peace is not something Israel should get in return for giving up something else. Peace is something Israel has been owed but not given for 60 years.

    If I was Israel and could speak freely, my demands would be these:

    1. Give us peace because you owe us peace.

    2. Apologise for not giving us what you owed us for so long.

    3. Pay reparations for the wars you started and institute a public holiday to remind your people of the holocaust you tried and failed to perpetrate.

    4. Pay compensation to Jewish refugees.

    5. Offer something in exchange for getting back the land you lost when you attacked Israel.

    The first two are basic and owed to Israel anyway, the other three points can be discussed.

23. Andrew Brehm on March 29th, 2007 2:59 pm

    Here’s a few more demands:

    6. Syria must give up all occupied Kurdish territories.

    7. Syria must extradite all terrorists currently hiding in Syria.

    8. Arab states must start paying compensation to Israel for all attacks launched from Arab territories.

24. Andrew Brehm on March 29th, 2007 3:01 pm

    “the jewish control over sacred places is the red line for the arabs … though they may agree for some kind of shared or internationalized control”

    That was already tried in 1948. The Jews agreed. The Arabs did not.

    The control is currently shared. Arabs have control over the temple mount. I think they use it to stop Jews from praying there and throwing stones at Jews praying at the temple wall.

25. nobody on March 29th, 2007 3:12 pm

    andrew

    you may have the point .. or you may not …

    you may even convince drima that the arabs dont want real peace …

    we are better than arabs … you dont even need to prove it if it comes to me

    and just as i said i dont mind having another war … i am absolutely serious …

    and i agree about syria .. though we should probably better come there and see to it ourselves that the alawites and the kurds get their respective parts

26. Andrew Brehm on March 29th, 2007 3:23 pm

    Incidentally, the “Palestinians” themselves answer our question regarding the refugees:

    http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/PNA2.html

    “Article 7: Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.”

    Doesn’t that mean that, conversely, Israelis of Arab origin are considered Israelis if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Israel?

    And since the Arabs who left Israel due to the war of independence were not thus willing, have they not forfeited their right of citizenship, like a Jewish Palestinian would in the Arab part of Palestine?

    Perhaps we need to make new demands. Perhaps it is time for Israel to change her system and adapt to the region:

    1. Israel should treat non-Jews like Saudi Arabia treats non-Muslims.

    2. Israel should treat Arab Palestinians like the PLO treats Jewish Palestinians.

    About the only thing Israel does that is “normal” for the area is invading Lebanon every now and then.

    I am serious. The next time Israel is accused of apartheid by an Arab state, Israel should definitely propose changing her laws and adapt to the (apparently) non-apartheid equivalent law in Arab countries.

27. The Raccoon on March 29th, 2007 6:46 pm

    Andrew -

    Heh. You’re missing the point, methinks. We’re hated. No matter what we do, we’ll be hated. If our dear cousins manage to do what they have been trying to do since 1948, no tears will be shed. There will be no demonstrations against the Second Holocaust. There will be no condemnations from the UN.

    There will be applause.

    Fuck them all, says I.

28. Andrew Brehm on March 29th, 2007 7:48 pm

    “There will be no demonstrations against the Second Holocaust.”

    The world needs somebody to blame for what goes wrong.

    “There will be no condemnations from the UN.”

    Of course there would be. Have you not read Kishon?

    But this has been going on for too long. I somehow doubt that the Arabs would feel as guilty as the Germans, who were only at it for little more than a decade. The world has grown up and would no longer be shocked by a genocide.

    And in defence of the Germans: they did not know what anti-Semitism can lead to. Today’s militant anti-Semites know!

29. Finnpundit on March 29th, 2007 9:42 pm

    The more interesting aspect of this Saudi “peace initiative”, which was dead on arrival (whoever heard of a peace parley that begins with a list of demands?), - is why now? Why haven’t the Saudis moved on this earlier?

    The answer, of course, is that the Israeli-Palestinian problem is an intractable problem, one that will never be solved. The Saudis know this, and not only would they like to keep it that way, but they need to keep it that way. Israel has always been the convenient whipping boy to distract Muslims from their domestic problems.

    The Saudi’s bigger, present concern, however, is Iraq, and the possibility that Iraq might succeed as a democracy.

    The Saudis are actively undermining the fledgling Iraqi democracy through unofficial, - yet fully open - funding of Sunni jihadists. The jihadists are seen as a means for the subversion of the democratic process, which would obviously mean a democratic Muslim nation with majority-Shia rule on Saudi borders - something Saudis can only fear.

    Yet the resultant strife caused by the jihadists has also exacerbated the Sunni-Shia fault line to a great degree, so much so that there is a grave danger that events might spin out of control more than the Saudi’s would like.

    The peace initiative serves as a means to refocus Arab Muslim concentration on Israel, instead of Iraq, in order to dampen the potential appeal of a democratic Iraq, in addition to toning down conflicts inherent in the Sunni-Shia split.

30. Roman Kalik on March 29th, 2007 10:17 pm

    Andrew, Kishon rocks!
    Say, Drima, how would you like to read a book or two by Israel’s best satire author? I should be able to, ah, *acquire* a few in emailable format.

31. Andrew Brehm on March 30th, 2007 8:15 am

    “I should be able to, ah, *acquire* a few in emailable format.”

    I have never seen English translations of his books (he writes in German and Hebrew). I think most of his books were never translated.

    Drima: Kishon is the best! But I don’t see his word games working in English.

    Roman: AOL! (Me too!)

32. lirun on March 30th, 2007 9:41 am

    whoa

    too long a read for today..

    compensation? only from israel? not so sure you can ask someone who has lost family to this war to pay taxes to the other side.. but i think thats the least of our issues..

    refugees? well we’re going to have a good few hundred thousand of our own once peace arrives.. we already have refugees..

    these people cant be ignored either..

    i think both sides need to stop looking for a total solution.. it wont arrive.. the resources are too limited..

    hoping progress is made in any event..

    

    ps - still owe you some videos matey

33. Roman Kalik on March 30th, 2007 12:24 pm

    I have never seen English translations of his books (he writes in German and Hebrew). I think most of his books were never translated.

    Andrew, his books were widely translated into English back in the sixties and seventies. I only ever found The Fox in The Chicken Coop in English at my local library, for example.

34. Andrew Brehm on March 30th, 2007 12:45 pm

    “Andrew, his books were widely translated into English back in the sixties and seventies.”

    I didn’t know. His are about the only books I read in German.

    (My Hebrew is not good enough to read Kishon. But it will be after this summer, I hope.)

35. Roman Kalik on April 4th, 2007 1:30 pm

    Heh, goodo. As for reading books in German, look up Remarque. Thoroughly depressing yet, at the same time, a very good read. Try “All Quiet on the Western Front” for a first taste.

    Still trying to find the time to look up those books, I’m afraid.

36. Andrew Brehm on April 4th, 2007 4:59 pm

    “Try “All Quiet on the Western Front” for a first taste.”

    Did read it.

Leave a Reply