I often browse through “alternative” news sources, just to see what the other side is saying. The following blog needs to be put into perspective, understanding the nature of the writer’s biases. It will be interesting to see if this develop in our mainstream media and equally interesting to see the responses.The Arab League is proposing a peace plan, much like the one offered in 2002, but expects it to fail because of the U.S. and Israel. According to the Fars News Agency:
The preceding article was supposedly based on an article published in the Bangkok Post. Below the fold is what they published.
The Israelis and the Americans are already denouncing the plan, and will likely reject it, as they have done with similar proposals since the 1970s.
With the Palestinian Intifada or uprising over, and Israel no longer suffering from martyrdom seeking operations, Israel and the United States no longer have an excuse to reject reasonable peace offers. One of the most common claims made by Israel and the United States is that peace has not been possible because of lack of an Arab ”partner for peace”.
However, the Arab world has endorsed the international consensus on Palestine and Israel, which has been in place since the 1970s after UN Resolution 242 was passed.
Resolution 242 bases a peace agreement on Israel relinquishing all territories captured in the 1967 war, while leaving the question of Palestine open for negotiation.
The first comprehensive peace plan came in 1976, when the international community agreed that 242 would include a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
When put before the UN General Assembly, the proposal was passed with only Israel and the United States voting against it. The US vetoed the proposal in the Security Council.
During the 1980s and 1990s, numerous similar peace offers were tabled in the UN – all were based on Resolution 242, which was endorsed by Arab states and the broad international community.
All of the offers were passed by the General Assembly with only Israel and the US voting against them (and occasionally one or two small Third World republics, such as Dominica).
All of these proposals were vetoed by the US in the Security Council. Israel and the United States also blocked numerous Arab, Palestinian and European proposals that would have solved the Israel-Arab dispute.
The Saudi Plan is not unique in content. Except for small concessions in Israel’s favor, it is almost identical to the Arab peace offer of 2002.
However, when Israel and the US rejected the 2002 plan, they alleged that they had an excuse – they claimed that Intifada was killing hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians in attacks by suicide bombers. Of course they forgot to say that such operations always followed Israel’s terrorist blasts, assassinations of Palestinian leaders, demolition of Palestinian commercial and residential units and infrastructures and massacre of thousands of innocent Palestinian people inside their houses or outside on the streets when participating in peaceful demonstrations. But now things have changed.
Martyrdom seeking operations of the Palestinians have dropped to zero, and save for several crude, home-made rockets (many of which are fired into illegal settlements inside Palestine), the Israel-Palestinian border seems peaceful.
Polls indicate that most Israelis and Americans support the Arab peace offers, and Israeli critics are loudly denouncing rejection as never before.
Unfortunately, these pleas are unlikely to change the government’s position. Israel’s radical settler movement, which advocates the colonization of the would-be Palestinian state, is a growing force that holds the balance of power in Israel’s ”one man, one vote” democracy.
Appeasing the settlers is essential for any modern Israeli government, which is why settlement construction has persisted under both Labor and Likud governments.
For example, settlement construction peaked during the Oslo peace process from 1993-2001, when the settler population nearly doubled and as many as 740 Palestinian houses were demolished.
It also accelerated since Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in 2005 when tens of thousands of settlers illegally moved the West Bank – in the would-be Palestinian state.
A comprehensive peace settlement based on the international consensus is impossible as long as these settlements remain.
Until the moderate majority in Israel and the United States demand an end to their governments’ rejectionism, peace between Israel, its Arab neighbors and the Palestinians is impossible.
Filed under: Politics
“The Arab Peace Initiative, or the Saudi Plan as it is often called, offers Israel full diplomatic ties with the Arab League’s 22 members exchange for Israel’s withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders.”
The problem with this offer is that no chain is stronger than it’s weakest link. In this case it means that no matter how many states would ratify this agreement, the deal breakers would be the numerous Arab groups and militias such as Hamas, Hezbollah, al Queda, etc. The process of returning the land would result in stronger staging points for the Terrorists among those groups.
I have this funny feeling that when these nations sign on with Israel and the Terrorists continue to attack you would not hear a peep from them. Unless and until the countries in the Arab League take control of their factions they don’t have the standing to cut a deal. After that, then you have the Iranian to deal with. ……….. Next Stop Lauderdale
I think you are the right track, the militias and smaller groups won’t buy into the AL’s plan and will even continue to bicker among themselves.
Did you notice the comment about “the several, crude, home-made rockets”? Until they understand the true nature of the Palestinian violence against the Israelis, no deal will ever be struck.