Thomas Friedman announces the Saudi Peace Initiative
|Middle East||peacewatch||top stories||documents||culture||dialog||history||Maps||donations|
The peace initiative of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah was first presented to the world in an extraordinary fashion. It was floated as a proposal to New York Times correspondent and columnist Thomas Friedman. Abdullah was effectively the ruler of Saudi Arabia. As reported to Friedman, the proposal excited great interest, because it called simply for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories in return for Arab recognition of Israel and peace. The Palestinian refugee problem was not mentioned.
Subsequently, Abdullah's official version of the proposal given in the speech by Abdullah at the Arab summit meeting in Beirut, called for "return of the refugees" but did not specify whether they would be "returning" to Israel or to the Palestinian state that would be created. If they were to be returning to Israel, this was clearly not what Friedman had in mind when he proposed peace for withdrawal, and if, as Abdullah told Friedman, the speech was already in his drawer, then he was not exactly telling Friedman the truth when he said:
The reason I ask is that this is exactly the idea I had in mind — full withdrawal from all the occupied territories, in accord with U.N. resolutions, including in Jerusalem, for full normalization of relations...
The word "peace" is not mentioned by Abdullah as cited by Friedman. Abdullah rather used the phrase "full normalization of relations." It is not clear if that means recognition and a peace treaty, or only perhaps lifting of some aspects of the Arab boycott of Israel or ending states of belligerency. The final wording of the Arab peace proposal refers specifically to peace with Israel.
The proposal was subsequently modified to strengthen the proposals regarding refugees, and adopted by the Arab summit in Beirut, to be known as the Arab peace initiative. It was now clear that the solution of the refugee problem proposed was according to UN General Assembly Resolution 194.
Resolution 194 is interpreted in the Arab world to mean that the refugees will return to Israel, thereby creating an Arab majority in Israel in a short time and abolishing Israel as the national home of the Jewish people. As such, the proposal is not acceptable to Israel of course.
Nonetheless, in rhetoric at least, it represents a giant step toward peace relative to the stance of the "refusal camp." In reality, it is not clear if it represents a real change in attitude or a tactical ploy.
A similar proposal had been made by the Saudis in the 1980s and adopted as the Fez initiative. The plan adopted in Beirut is a significant advance on the previous one, in that it specifically mentions peace with Israel. Depending on one's point of view, this is either an indication that the Saudis are persistent in their pursuit of peace, or an indication that they are continually raising such proposals as a tactic to win the favor of the United States and embarrass Israel, without being sincere about peace.
The Arab peace initiative was ignored by Israel. However, it was revived by Amr Moussa, Secretary of the Arab League, who called upon Hamas to declare that they accept the initiative.
Notice - Copyright
This introduction is copyright © 2006 by MidEastWeb http://www.mideastweb.org and the author. Please tell your friends about MidEastWeb and link to this page. Please do not copy this page to your Web site. You may print this page out for classroom use provided that this notice is appended, and you may cite this material in the usual way. Other uses by permission only. The source material below is placed in the public domain and is free of copy restrictions.
The New York Times
February 17, 2002
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Earlier this month, I wrote a column suggesting that the 22 members of the Arab League, at their summit in Beirut on March 27 and 28, make a simple, clear-cut proposal to Israel to break the Israeli-Palestinian impasse: In return for a total withdrawal by Israel to the June 4, 1967, lines, and the establishment of a Palestinian state, the 22 members of the Arab League would offer Israel full diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees. Full withdrawal, in accord with U.N. Resolution 242, for full peace between Israel and the entire Arab world. Why not?
I am currently in Saudi Arabia on a visit — part of the Saudi opening to try to explain themselves better to the world in light of the fact that 15 Saudis were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. So I took the opportunity of a dinner with Saudi Arabia's crown prince, and de facto ruler, Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, to try out the idea of this Arab League proposal. I knew that Jordan, Morocco and some key Arab League officials had been talking about this idea in private but had not dared to broach it publicly until one of the "big boys" — Saudi Arabia or Egypt — took the lead.
After I laid out this idea, the crown prince looked at me with mock astonishment and said, "Have you broken into my desk?"
"No," I said, wondering what he was talking about.
"The reason I ask is that this is exactly the idea I had in mind — full withdrawal from all the occupied territories, in accord with U.N. resolutions, including in Jerusalem, for full normalization of relations," he said. "I have drafted a speech along those lines. My thinking was to deliver it before the Arab summit and try to mobilize the entire Arab world behind it. The speech is written, and it is in my desk. But I changed my mind about delivering it when Sharon took the violence, and the oppression, to an unprecedented level.
"But I tell you," the crown prince added, "if I were to pick up the phone now and ask someone to read you the speech, you will find it virtually identical to what you are talking about. I wanted to find a way to make clear to the Israeli people that the Arabs don't reject or despise them. But the Arab people do reject what their leadership is now doing to the Palestinians, which is inhumane and oppressive. And I thought of this as a possible signal to the Israeli people."
Well, I said, I'm glad to know that Saudi Arabia was thinking along these lines, but so many times in the past we've heard from Arab leaders that they had just been about to do this or that but that Ariel Sharon or some other Israeli leader had gotten in the way. After a while, it's hard to take seriously. So I asked, What if Mr. Sharon and the Palestinians agreed to a cease-fire before the Arab summit?
"Let me say to you that the speech is written, and it is still in my drawer," the crown prince said.
I pass all of this on as straightforwardly as I can, without hype or unrealistic hopes. What was intriguing to me about the crown prince's remarks was not just his ideas — which, if delivered, would be quite an advance on anything the Arab League has proposed before — but the fact that they came up in the middle of a long, off-the-record conversation. I suggested to the crown Prince that if he felt so strongly about this idea, even in draft form, why not put it on the record — only then would anyone take it seriously. He said he would think about it. The next day his office called, reviewed the crown prince's quotations and said, Go ahead, put them on the record. So here they are.
Crown Prince Abdullah is known as the staunchest Arab nationalist among Saudi leaders, and the one most untainted by corruption. He has a strong Arab following inside and outside the kingdom, and if he ever gave such a speech, it would have a real impact on Arab public opinion, as well as Israeli. Prince Abdullah seemed to be signaling that if President Bush took a new initiative for Middle East peace, he and other Arab leaders would be prepared to do so as well.
I also used the interview with the Saudi leader to ask why his country had never really apologized to America for the fact that 15 Saudis were involved in 9/11?
"We have been close friends for so long, and we never expected Americans to doubt us," he said. "We saw this attack by bin Laden and his men as an attack on us, too, and an attempt to damage the U.S.-Saudi relationship," the crown prince said. "We were deeply saddened by it and we never expected it to lead to tensions between us. But we've now learned that we respond to events differently. . . . It is never too late to express our regrets."
As for the "axis of evil" and reports of a possible U.S. military strike against Iraq, the Saudi leader said: "Any attack on Iraq or Iran should not be contemplated at all because it would not serve the interests of America, the region or the world, as there is no clear evidence of a present danger. Iraq is contemplating the return of the inspectors, and the U.S. should pursue this because inspectors can determine if Iraq is complying with the U.N. resolutions."
Main History Page
Israel-Palestine TimelineHistory of Israel and Palestine
Zionism - Definition and History -
Main Middle East Historical Documents
MidEastWeb - Middle East Conflict News, History, Maps, Resources, Dialogue, Peace Education
Off site - Zionism and the creation of Israel
Middle East Gateway