A Comparative Analysis of the “Saudi Initiative” (Thomas Friedman Document, February 2002), the...

8/4/2019 A Comparative Analysis of the Saudi Initiative (Thomas Friedman Document, February 2002), the Arab Peace Init

1/6

1

A Comparative Analysis of the Saudi Initiative (Thomas

Friedman Document, February 2002), the Arab Peace

Initiative (Arab League Document, March 2002), and the

Israeli Peace Initiative Document (April 2011)

By Lior Lehrs

August 2011


2/6

2

A Comparative Analysis of the Saudi Initiative (Thomas Friedman Document,

February 2002), the Arab Peace Initiative (Arab League Document, March 2002),

and the Israeli Peace Initiative Document (April 2011)

1. The Nature of the Document: The three documents differ in nature and in thecontext in which they were published. The first document, the Friedman

Document, is in fact an article published in theNew York Times on 17 February

2002 by journalist Thomas Friedman, reporting on a meeting with Crown Prince

Abdullah of Saudi Arabiaand on a proposal that was discussed during this

meeting. The second document, the Arab Peace Initiative, is an official

resolution adopted by member states upon conclusion of the Arab League summit

of 27-28 March 2002. The plan has also been approved by the 57-member

Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC),1

has earned the support of the

Quartet members, and has been noted in the Roadmap for Peace in the Middle

East (April 2003).

It should be noted that the differences among the documents are a logical

consequence of the nature of the first documenta newspaper article presenting a

journalists impressions of his conversation with a Saudi leaderwhile the

second document is an official document supported by the 22 members of the

Arab League and resulting from a process of negotiations among them.

Friedmans article presents the fundamental principle of the plan, while the Arab

Leagues resolution is more detailed and addresses the interests and

considerations of the players involved more thoroughly. The third document, the

Israeli Peace Initiative, is an unofficial civil society initiative presented on 6

April 2011 by a group of Israeli public figures. The purpose of the initiative is to

propose an Israeli response to the Arab Peace Initiative and to outline the contours

of a regional peace agreement.

1Support for the plan has been expressed, among other occasions, at the organizations meeting in Sudan in

June 2002, at another meeting in Iran in May 2003, and at the summit that took place in Malaysia in

October 2003.


3/6

3

2. Borders: Both the Friedman document and the Arab Peace Initiative mention fullwithdrawalfrom the territories occupied in June 1967. In the Friedman

document, the Crown Prince uses thephrase full withdrawal from all the

occupied territories, in accord with UN resolutions. The Israeli Peace Initiative,

in contrast, speaks of withdrawal based on the lines of 4 June 1967 with agreed

modifications and the establishment of a borderline subject to the following

principles: a ratio of 1:1 in the exchange of territories; territorial exchange of no

more than 7% of the West Bank; and inclusion of a safe corridor between the

West Bank and Gaza Strip under de facto Palestinian control.

3. A Palestinian State: The Arab Peace Initiative calls for the establishment of anindependent Palestinian state in the Palestinian territories occupied since June of

1967. In the Friedman document the Crown Prince presents the principle of full

withdrawal from the 1967 territories, including Jerusalem, but the document does

not separately address the question of a Palestinian state. The Israeli Peace

Initiative includes acceptance of a sovereign, sustainable, and independent

Palestinian state in the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip but also

indicates that this state shall be demilitarizedwith authority over its internal

security forcesand that the international community shall play a role in

providing border security and curbing terrorist threats. The Israeli Peace Initiative

further proposes a formula to address the dispute over the Israeli demand for

Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. According to this proposal, the

state of Palestine would be recognized as a nation state for the Palestinians, and

Israel as a nation state for the Jews (in which the Arab minority will have equal

and full civil rights as articulated in Israels Declaration of Independence).

4. Jerusalem: The Friedman document and the Arab Peace Initiative speak of fullIsraeli withdrawal from East Jerusalem and a return to the lines of 4 June 1967.

The Arab Peace Initiative states that East Jerusalem shall be the capital of the

Palestinian state. The Israeli Peace Initiative does not endorse full withdrawal

from East Jerusalem, outlining instead a solution based largely on the Clinton


4/6

4

parameters (December 2000). According to this proposal, Jewish neighborhoods

would be under Israeli sovereignty and Arab neighborhoods subject to Palestinian

sovereignty, with special arrangements for the Old City to address such issues as

the following: Israeli sovereignty in the Jewish Quarter and Western Wall; no

sovereignty regime (or God sovereignty) in the Temple Mount; administration

of Islamic holy places by the Muslim Waqf and of Jewish holy places (or

interests in the language of the document) by Israel; and an Israeli-International

committee to supervise implementation of these arrangements.

5. Syria: The Friedman document and the Arab Peace Initiative call for fullwithdrawal to the lines of 4 June 1967. The Arab Peace Initiative specifically calls

for withdrawal from the Syrian Golan Heights to the lines of4 June 1967. The

Israeli Peace Initiative indicates preparedness to withdraw from the Golan Heights

but asserts that the borderline be based onthe lines of 4 June 1967 with agreed

minor modifications and land swaps based on a 1:1 ratio, reflecting the 1923

international border. This is an attempt at a creative solution that would bridge

the gaps between the sides regarding the border question, i.e., between the

international border (Israels stance) and the 4 June 1967 lines (Syrias stance).

Moreover, this proposal corresponds with Baraks proposal to President Assad in

March 2000, which included a solution based on territorial exchange. It should be

noted that Danny Yatom, who served as Baraks chief of staff and security

advisor and was involved in drafting the proposal to Assad, was one of the high-

level participants in the Israeli Peace Initiative. The document further calls for

implementation of the agreement in stages, over a period not to exceed 5 years,

and addresses security arrangements that will define the scope of the demilitarized

zones and the deployment of international forces.

6. Lebanon: The Arab Peace Initiative calls on Israel to withdraw from theremaining occupied territories in southern Lebanon. The document is

presumably referring to the Shebaa Farms and the northern part of the village of

Ghajar. The Israeli Peace Initiative holds that Israel has completed its


5/6

5

withdrawal to the international border and proposes a permanent agreement

based on Security Council Resolution 1701.It should be noted that Resolution

1701 requested that proposals be developed to resolve the border dispute between

the states and mentioned the Shebaa Farms in this context . The Israeli Peace

Initiative speaks of implementation of Resolution 1701 and of Lebanons full

sovereignty over its territory through the Lebanese army, thereby addressing the

question of disarmament of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

7. Refugees: The Arab Peace Initiative calls for a just solution to the Palestinianrefugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General

Assembly Resolution 194. The refugee issue was the central issue in the

discourse surrounding the Arab initiative. Some pointed out that Friedmans

article mentioned only the border issue, not the refugee issue, whereas the Arab

Peace Initiative has included an article on the refugee issue. Israeli critics of the

Arab initiative underscored its reference to Resolution 194, whereas Israelis who

viewed the initiative favorably pointed to its call for an agreed-upon solution,

which effectively grants Israel the right of veto on this issue. In the Arab Peace

Initiative, the members of the Arab League state their objection to all forms of

Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab

host countries. This provision was added primarily because of Lebanese

pressure. The Israeli Peace Initiative states that the solution for the Palestinian

refugees shall be agreed upon between Israel, the Palestinians and all regional

parties, in accordance with the following principles: 1. Financial compensation

to be offered to the refugees and the host countries by the international

community and Israel; 2. Palestinian refugees wishing to return as mentioned in

UNGAR 194 may do so only to the Palestinian state, with mutually agreed-

upon symbolic exceptions. This solution is similar to that proposed by the

Clinton parameters, the Geneva Initiative, and Olmerts proposal of September

2008. It should be noted that the proposal mentions Resolution 194 but offers an

interpretation in which the return of refugees to the Palestinian state would

constitute implementation of that provision. The language only to territories


6/6

6

under Palestinian sovereignty2

implies that refugees could also return to areas

that would be transferred to the Palestinians in the context of territorial exchange.

It should be noted that the Arab Peace Initiative does not address the Palestinian

demand that Israel acknowledge responsibility for the refugee problem. The

Israeli Peace Initiative offers a formulation in this context by which Israel

recognizes "the suffering of the Palestinian refugees as well as the Jewish

refugees from Arab countries. Moreover, the document speaks of the need to

resolve the problem through realistic and mutually agreed-upon solutions.

8. Peaceful Relations and an End to the Conflict: In the Friedman document, theCrown Prince uses the phrase full normalization of relations. The Arab Peace

Initiative presents two aspects of this issue: 1. Arab states would consider the

Arab-Israeli conflict as having ended; and 2. the establishment of normal

relations with Israel. The Israeli Peace Initiative affirms the objective of the

finality of all claims and the end of the Israeli Arab conflict as well as the

establishment of full normal relations between Israel and all Arab and Islamic

states. The document further details the principles for peace agreements

(including refraining from the threat or use of force or from forming any military

alliance against the other side), the principles for regional security, and the

principles for regional economic development. It should be noted that the Israeli

Peace Initiative includes a provision by which the two sidesIsrael on the one

hand and the Arab and Islamic states on the otherwould take gradual steps

toward establishing normal relations, to commence upon the launching of peace

negotiations, to be upgraded to full normal relations upon the signing of

permanent status agreements.

2This is the text as translated directly from the Hebrew version. There is a difference inthis paragraph

between the terminology in the Hebrew version and the English version as published.

A Comparative Analysis of the “Saudi Initiative” (Thomas Friedman Document, February 2002), the...

Documents

Transcript of A Comparative Analysis of the “Saudi Initiative” (Thomas Friedman Document, February 2002), the...