Credit: Ali Yenidunya/enduringamerica.com
Although the Arab-Israeli peace process has been and continues to lie in a coma, a few weeks ago a notable attempt was made to jolt it back to life. On April 29th, Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani of Qatar, representing the Arab League, publicly announced an amendment to the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002. While the original peace initiative called for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank to the armistice lines that existed before the 1967 War (which was seen by many as an unrealistic demand), the amendment allows for small swaps of land, crucially giving space, in theory, for many of Israel’s large settlement blocs in the West Bank to be incorporated into Israel as part of a final peace agreement.
Both the Israeli and Palestinian responses to the amendment were mixed. The Palestinian Authority coolly accepted the amendment, while Hamas and Islamic Jihad were predictably opposed (as they do not formally accept Israel’s existence). On the Israeli side, some politicians in the center and left of Israel’s political spectrum praised the move as an encouraging step forward. Prime Minister Netanyahu, however, responded in a much terser tone. It was reported that indirectly responding to the Arab League amendment, Netanyahu declared that the conflict is not about land. “The root of the conflict,” he is reported saying, “is Acre, Jaffa and Ashkelon [cities deep inside of Israel] and you need to say it…you need to say the truth.” Netanyahu elaborated, remarking that “until the Palestinians recognise our right to exist as a national state—no matter what the borders—and until they declare that the conflict is over, there will not be peace.”
While many have criticized the Israeli prime minister’s lack of enthusiasm in response to the sweetened initiative, Netanyahu may have actually displayed a keen awareness of the issues that must be confronted on any path to Arab-Israeli peace. Notwithstanding the irony of someone who is known for being inflexible on borders saying that the conflict is not about land, Netanyahu is somewhat on point. Just a few days ago marked the 65th anniversary of the Nakba (or “catastrophe”, the Palestinian name for the 1947-1949 Arab-Israeli war that ended with the creation of Israel and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians). In order to commemorate this sober chapter of Palestinian history, Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Lebanon (and Israel) took to the streets and other public venues. These were not protests against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank that began in 1967, but rather the expression of grievances that go back to 1948, the year Israel was established. The public commemoration of the Nakba serves as a manifestation of the extant desire of Palestinian refugees and their descendants – now numbering in the millions – to return to their homes in Israel itself. Simple math reveals that were this to happen, Israel would lose its Jewish majority and effectively no longer be a Jewish state.
Suddenly, Netanyahu’s statements seem much more relevant.
As Netanyahu remarked, the Palestinians have grievances that go way beyond 1967 (the beginning of the occupation), and these issues will need to be dealt with on any road to peace. Looking at the records of previous negotiations, one may infer that there is some (although limited) hope for compromise. In European Union Ambassador Miguel Moratinos’ report of the talks at Taba, Egypt in 2001—when the Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams tried desperately to save the Oslo peace process after the Second Intifada had broke out just months before—Moratinos wrote that the Palestinians understood that Israel would only allow a limited number of refugees back into Israel. Records from peace talks under former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert indicate the same thing. And just as importantly, the Arab Peace Initiative itself is somewhat vague on the refugee issue (the original Arabic version included), potentially leaving room for it to be negotiated.
But is the Palestinian public willing to accept a compromise wherein most Palestinian refugees would not be allowed to return to their cities and towns in what is now the state of Israel? This is a question that remains up in the air. Some reputable polls indeed show that there is a majority of Palestinians that would be willing to agree to a compromise similar to those discussed in negotiations. Yet other polls suggest that a majority of Palestinians would not accept a compromise on the refugee issue, supporting the view – as Netanyahu suggested – that the Palestinians have their sights set on “Acre, Jaffa and Ashkelon.” A poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion and the Israel Project, for example, showed that most Palestinians think that the real goal of their national aspirations should be to start with a two-state solution, yet eventually move towards both states becoming one Palestinian state. In this context, Netanyahu’s additional statements make even more sense: “If we reach a peace agreement I want to know that the conflict will not continue. That there won’t be any more Palestinian claims afterwards.” In an Arab world where the public will seems to slowly be gaining traction at a practical level, Palestinian public opinion on such a weighty issue cannot be dismissed.
This is not to say that Israel should not see the amended Arab Peace Initiative as a very encouraging breakthrough. Indeed, it has been a Zionist dream to live in peace with the Arab world since the advent of modern political Zionism in the second half of the 19th century. And just a few decades ago, it would have been unimaginable to think that representatives of the Arab world would declare that they are ready for a peace treaty with Israel—especially one that would allow Israel to retain some of the land it won in the 1967 War.
In fact, Israel may have already partially responded to the Arab peace overture in deed (if not in words), as recent reports have claimed that Netanyahu has ordered his ministers to cease issuing tenders for further settlement construction in the West Bank (at least outside of the major settlement blocs). Yet like all things related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the situation is extremely fragile. While the renewed and sweetened Arab Peace Initiative may present an attractive opportunity for peace, monumental obstacles remain on the road to its fruition.
