Traveling from Beirut to Cairo on Monday, I read Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni’s statement that it was impossible for Israel to accept the 2002 Arab Summit peace initiative in its current version. I thought what a shame it was that she could not make the same trip as I had just made – between the Lebanese capital where the 2002 Arab peace initiative was endorsed, and Egypt, the first country to make peace with Israel. Beirut to Cairo is a significant journey in a symbolic way: Lebanon is where some Arabs actively defy and fight Israel, and during the war last summer fought it to a draw – at a very high cost to all Lebanese to be sure. Egypt made its peace with Israel a generation ago, but it has proven to be a peace of Egyptian government bureaucrats and American mediators, more than a genuine resolution of a historic conflict. For the past generation, the simple lesson of visiting Egypt and talking to senior officials and ordinary people alike has been that Israel can prompt some Arab countries to make peace, but it will not enjoy true acceptance and lasting peace with the Arab people until it comes to grips with its core dispute with the Palestinians. Significantly, Livni ruled out accepting the current Arab peace offer because, she said, of its problematic references to the right of return of Palestinian refugees. Jordan and Egypt were able to sign full peace agreements with Israel because their accords were not complicated by the refugee issue. The fate of the refugees cannot be addressed with cliches on both sides. It will require hard work by all the concerned parties to find a resolution to the refugee problem that adheres to the principles of international law and United Nations resolutions, yet that is also politically acceptable to all concerned. This seems to be the last major issue that Palestinians and Israelis cannot resolve, and it is significant that Livni singled it out as the reason why Israel could not accept the Arab peace plan. The Arab summit planned for the end of this month in Saudi Arabia will grapple with this matter once again. A breakthrough seems impossible to achieve today: Arabs demand that Israel unilaterally accept the Palestinian refugees’ right of return to their original homes and lands, and Israel refuses outright to discuss the issue. Some sort of middle ground must be identified and accepted by both sides. The Arab summit would do well to clarify its position on options that the Palestinians could accept in the context of a comprehensive peace agreement, leaving it to backroom diplomacy and formal negotiations to hammer out the details. The summit should not do this unilaterally, however, but rather present its offer conditionally, in such a way that reciprocal steps or statements are demanded of Israel. Unilaterally giving Israel what it wants is not a solution. It would be wrong for the Arab summit to change the 2002 peace plan just to meet the Israeli objections that Livni expressed last weekend. More appropriate would be for the Arabs to offer Israel a broad package that includes steps that they and the Israelis would take together. Reciprocity and simultaneity are powerful partners that could unblock the stalled peace process. Israel should be offered a comprehensive, permanent peace by the Arabs, but it should also be required to make gestures of its own on the refugee issue that could make a settlement possible. The openings here are not many, but they must be identified more rigorously than has been the case to date. A critical element for the Palestinians and Arabs is Israeli acknowledgement of how the birth of the state of Israel was based on the expulsion, exile, and disenfranchisement of the Palestinians. Israel’s acceptance of pertinent UN resolutions on this count would be an important step, which would unlock the door for a negotiated agreement that affirms the refugees’ right of return, compensate them for their losses, and give them full rights in a Palestinian state, while maintaining the majority Jewish nature of the state of Israel and leading to its formal acceptance by its neighbors. If this comes about, the Arab summit would be right to make peace offers to Israel, but it should do so in a manner that realistically entices Israel to engage in serious negotiations while affirming the refugees’ rights as enshrined in UN resolutions. You only have to travel from Beirut to Cairo or Beirut to Amman to appreciate the difference between formal peace agreements that have thin popular support, and a lasting peace based on resolving the core issues in the conflict between Arabs and Israelis. Rami G. Khouriwrites a regular commentary for THE DAILY STAR.
Give Israelis peace, but take from them
