The Saudi Peace Plan

Columnist MB NAQVI discusses Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah’s important initiative.

Talking about the Peace Plan, M.B. Naqvi said he has to report a big flutter in the dovecots of Middle East’s power brokers: the Saudi Crown Prince took the rare step of taking a diplomatic initiative on the thorny question of Arab-Israeli conflict. He said in effect that should the Israelis withdraw from all the Palestinian areas occupied by them in the 1967 war, the Saudis will undertake to make all Arab states not merely to recognise the Israel state but to fully normalise relations with it. It took sometime for Israel and the US to take in its full import. Eventually both made positive noises. Its reception in the European countries was far more enthusiastic. Key Arab countries, and Palestine Authority among them, were even more cautious while countries like Egypt, Morocco et al of a deep conservative hue — pro-US really — went ga ga on it. 

What does this initiative comprise? Superficially little more than UNSC Resolution 242 of November 1967 and others that more or less reiterated it. All it (the Saudi scheme) asks Israel to do is to withdraw from West Bank and Gaza Strip without any further specifics or conditions. For that the entire Arab world will do what the Israelis now despair of: full normal inter-state relations with the Arab world, with normal trade, cultural exchanges and economic and political cooperation. This is the dream that had inspired the Zionists to ask for the state in Palestine with a view to future expansion, mainly economic and political. Doubtless the Saudi Crown Prince has withheld details of what either side has to do or not to do in addition to the main denouement for negotiations: withdrawal and recognition. Still, there remains gaping holes in it from the Palestinian and the larger Arabs viewpoint.

Insofar as the Palestinians are concerned, who are now virtual slaves of Israel, they want two things most urgently as a part of the settlement that hopefully gives them a Palestine state albeit of micro size: first the right of Palestinian refugees, now dispersed all over the globe, particularly in other Arab countries, to return home. Secondly, there has to be an end to the Jewish Settlements in West Bank and Gaza Strip. Not only no further settlements should be set up on ‘their ‘ lands but there has to be an end to them. What they have a right to fear by from the drift of general Arab-American relations is that the US diplomats will, before long, persuade the major (ultra conservative) Arab regimes to lean on the Palestinians to accept at least some of these Settlements just to make Israel agree to withdraw and extend recognition to PA’s right to be a state. That would be the thin end of the Israeli wedge that will keep physically dividing the micro-Palestinian state into ribbons, even if it ever become a state. There will be other doubts in Palestinian minds: If Israel and its diaspora continues to be able to organise unlimited Jewish immigration into Israel, and given the Zionist ideology of expansion at the Arab expense, they have the worst to fear from the Zionist drive for Lebensraum. The Saudi scheme is silent on these matters. The Saudis need to define what do they mean by Israeli withdrawal. 

There are other Arab states that are vulnerable to Israeli aggression and its power drive, including its thirst for both land and water. These include Syria, Lebanon and Jordan in the first instance and other Arab states, including Egypt, from a longer range viewpoint. How can these other Arab states be assured that they will remain outside the scope of the all too expected Israel’s expansionist drive? Insofar as Syria is concerned, its Golan Heights are still under Israeli occupation since 1967. It wants to know when will Israel vacate it. It also wants to know what about the Israeli Settlements on the Heights across from Konnetra? Lebanon had had its southern part occupied by Israel in the name of forward security of its cities. Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and it withdrew from most parts only recently after calculating the cost and benefits of occupation. It has not discontinued its bombarding of Hizbollah targets in Lebanon. The message is: ‘we can come back any minute we like’. Lebanon too will need some assurances, preferably international guarantees.

Jordan, which was historically a part of the old Palestinian area and even in 1920s it was called Trans-Jordan, meaning areas of Palestine across the River Jordan or areas on the East Bank of Jordan; it has special reason to be fearful of Israel. The hardline Zionists want all the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza areas to be deported across the River Jordan and to rename Jordan the state of Palestine. Thus they would be done with their Palestinians problem. For the rest, their Army would make the decision stick. The way Israel has continued to lurch to the right in recent decades, it seems only a matter of time that these hardliners will have their say carried out. In view of the Arab weaknesses, including military, and their disarray means that Israel can do it with impunity — should the rest of the world allow it, that is. Jordan shall need special assurances. Initially, it seems, the Saudis have reassured the Syrians after a visit by President Basharul Asad of Syria to Riyadh that when they say withdrawal of Israel from Palestinian areas they also include Golan Heights. On that basis the Syrians have withdrawn their objections to the Saudi Plan, though they remain wary. Farther afield, other and larger Arab states like Egypt and even the Saudis ought not to be unmindful of the possibility of some day Israel knocking at their doors. 

There is one factor, however, that is troubling all civilised people. It is the Israelis, brutality in applying unimaginably overwhelming physical force on the basically unarmed and dispossessed people of what was Palestine. The conscience of all simple civilised human beings is outraged. They ask why should the Israelis be visiting such utterly contemptible violence on a hapless people. What have the Palestinians done? Violence? People should want to know what do the Palestinian want and why? Also, what do the Israelis say? Do either of the two positions satisfy the common people everywhere as being justifiable?

As it happens, Israel talks only of terrorism. Some Palestinians try to kill as many Israelis, specially soldiers, as they can out of sheer desperation and frustration because they have no other option or real support from anywhere for their cause. They use the word Cause all the time; Palestinians proclaim it. They want their homeland to be free of foreign occupation. As anyone can see, they are in fact waging a national liberation struggle against colonialists who have forcibly usurped their homeland. As soon as that question is raised, it becomes incumbent on all right thinking and dispassionate observers to sit in judgement over the cases made by both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Doubtless there is an international context. For all practical purposes, Israel is an outpost of — what? From one point of view that is widespread in the west, it is an outpost of western civilisation. It is the home of the Israelis, the Jewish immigrants into Palestine, of yester years, representing Modernism; their original Zionist Movement was informed with the values of French Revolution and all other humanistic movements. In fact, it tried to reflect the basic values of the Russian Revolution though that came later. But they have not been original inhabitants of Palestine, though they introduced modern techniques, having been well versed with them in their original homelands. A word about the Jews in general.

The Jews are an extraordinarily gifted people. In most societies of Europe and America, the majority among the leaders of culture and various other walks of life were and still are Jews. They were among the finest writers, professors, poets, thinkers and achieved successes in all manner of professions, including money and banking. But they were discriminated against in almost all white Christian lands that had modernised themselves in Europe and America. They generally lived in ghettos in all major cities of Europe and even in America they oppressed often lynched. They were hated by the common people and this hatred generally was based on their being of Semetic race and of a different religion. The Jews lived by their wits and learning  — not money, as it is commonly supposed, though they made good even in this sphere. 

The new modernist social movements of democracy, socialism and other social reforms preached human equality and solidarity; they stood for better treatment for the Jews as of the other minorities. The old ruling establishments everywhere had tolerated oppression of the Jews. But the younger generation everywhere, toward the end of 19th Century, consciously tried to be, or at least posed, as friends of the Jews. That characteristic had become the badge of honour for all the idealistic young persons in the later half of that century. The Zionists Movement was started at the beginning of the 20th Century and its leaders used beautiful terminology, even if they did not take these ideas to their logical culmination. It is true that there were many practical idealists among the Zionists and their later work in Israel can be commended and put up as an example of what can be done by human skills and proper social organisation.

But the fact of their arrival in Palestine remains a matter of deep controversy and of high passions among the Arabs. Let us not forget that for realpolitik, the basics of the problem are different from that of a simple justice-loving civilised person. Realpolitik views the facts of who has how much power; it is not concerned with what is right and what is wrong per se; the more powerful are, for practical purposes, more right — if that could be possible: Therefore, the wishes of the powerful have to be accepted. Forgetting that it would be injustice to countless Palestinians and will make for enforcing unconscionable solutions that ignore the basic moral values. Israel’s right to be where it happens to be is not questioned because it is powerful and has even more powerful backers. That it ignores not only morality altogether but also countless human beings’ miseries, is ignored by practitioners of realpolitik. Which is why it is good to have a look at the basics from the viewpoint of simple common folks. 

The ruling establishment in all the leading imperial and colonial countries of Europe, particularly Britain and France which were the superpowers of the day, used to have had bad conscience vis-a-vis the Jews. They wanted to do something but they could not do anything for fear of surviving prejudices in the society. Indeed some of these prejudices have survived to this day, though they are not openly acknowledged. Despite its strong modernist rhetoric, the Zionists Movement also had a pervasive religious aim and motivation. If we take a historical overview, it would appear that its modernism was more or less a frill or the icing on a cake, while the movement’s motivation was basically religious fulfilment. Their claim on Palestine was based on mythology — and not proven or established history — that their religious destiny was to return to Palestine — lands around river Jordan and around Jerusalem: and to become Israel. But where was to be Israel? It was not defined; it extends to God knows how many places and how far. They hankered after going and living in and around Jerusalem in much the same way as some Muslims want to die and be buried in Mecca and Madina. No doubt the European Jews vaguely yearned to return to Jerusalem on the basis of religious faith. But was this enough basis for the creation of the state of Israel?

In the crisis faced by Britain and France during the First World War, the Zionists got their chance. They wangled a masterfully drafted Declaration from Britain that was highly ambiguous. Britain was then the administering power of the areas known as Palestine over which recognised sovereignty belonged to Ottoman Emperor-Caliphs. These were what was so-called a  “capitulations” granted by the Ottoman Empire. It was like what East India Company had done: taking a concession of administering an area from the Turkish Emperor against financial advances. Lord Balfour’s famous Declaration promising the Jews a National Home in Palestine remains to this day a bone of contention. The Israelis make it the origin of their state and its basis by way of legal continuity with that Declaration. The Declaration said: 

 “His Majesty’s Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” 

Mind you, it assured all the Arabs that the historical, political and human rights of the Arabs living in these areas (Palestine) shall not be compromised; only a limited number of Jews were to be permitted. But Palestine was recognised as the National Home of the Jews in full or in part. But that was not the recognition of a state-to-be and the British continued formally to assert that point till the very end of their Mandate. Jewish National Home was not to be a state as such. The distance between the words and actions in the case of the perfidious Albion is proverbial. The British administrators had turned a Nelson’s eye toward the fact that the restricted immigration had in fact become a flood in 1930s. The Jewish immigrants smuggled in plenty of arms that were not simple small arms. So much so that in 1948 when the UN passed the resolution creating the state of Israel, a war erupted. All the Arab armies invaded and tried to capture the areas where Israel was to be. There was no Army of Israel, only the erstwhile Jewish terrorist gangs which fought against the Arabs. The combined armies of most Arab states, including the legendary British led Arab Legion of Jordan, were decisively defeated and Israel actually annexed more lands than the UN had sanctioned — by right of conquest. This is how the state of Israel started its career. Insofar as the Arabs are concerned, they generally look upon the Israelis as interlopers and usurpers. The immigrant Jews have no moral right to be where they are. The idea that 4,000 or 5,000 years ago they had lived there is pure mythology, not history. And even if it is accepted that they had lived a certain number of centuries before in these lands in small numbers, so what. They had stayed out of these lands for 4000 years or more. Such a right of return is laughable. That the British gave them some kind of a fig leaf of justification by creating a National Homeland, without it being a state or without  “compromising” the Arabs political and other rights, is neither here nor there. That means nothing really in law or morality. Moreover, the British or even the UN had no moral right to gift away some lands to interlopers. The British did not possess that land, or had moral authority over it as the sovereigns of the land. It was not something British that the British could give away. It was the actual homeland of the Palestinians that they could be said to have given away to others from Europe by following such a large immigration. They gave away something that was not theirs to give. The simple fact is that Israel has no business to be where it is.

This moral aspect is inescapable to anyone who has to think of the problem of resolving the unending Israeli and Palestinian war that has killed so many Arabs and some Israelis. The moral right is on the side of the Palestinians. The gibberish that Ariel Sharon is wont to utter about terrorism would be in order if the Palestinians were the Israeli citizens and that they were killing other citizens of Israel. Apart from that, the fact is that Sharon has an actual terrorist record of his own and indeed many other Israeli Prime Ministers were former terrorists, designated as such in British documents. There is also the fact that Sharon heads an establishment that is historically a foreign force militarily occupying the Palestine’s parts. The land has been inhabited by Arabs continuously for thousands and thousands of years. It is true that in view of the religious beliefs of Jewish minorities in Europe and America, some immigration on a limited scale on human grounds might have been allowed by Arabs themselves if they had been master of their land. But they were not. The argument needs being repeated: Even supposing that the Jews had once been there, Jewish inrush in 20th Century would still mean foreigners coming in to occupy Palestine by deceit or force a land over which they had no moral right to be. Their later oppression and suppression of the original inhabitants can only be treated as an outrage. The original inhabitants’ right to resist and even engage in what may look like terrorism to others cannot be questioned. The kind of terrorism the Palestinians are employing — suicide bombing — is, all said and done, an extreme form of self-sacrifice — for a Cause. No Israeli has ever done anything of this kind. The Palestinians are fired with the passion to free and defend their land and their rights in the context of the standing threat from an unjust foreign rule. There is no further need for argumentation, insofar as moral rights and wrongs are concerned. 

The fact, however, has to be faced that in modern world power counts. This theme irresistibly recurs. There are aspects of the Palestinian struggle for their national liberation that need to be considered: The Israelis have enjoyed and continue to enjoy a lot of support from western countries, though heavy erosion of sympathy is now taking place among its European sponsors of yester years. But the significance of Israel for the US, the sole superpower of today, has to be kept in mind: Israel is an outpost of America and indirectly of the American financial empire that is based ultimately on its military prowess. Israel is a key ally of the US, without which the Middle East and its resources cannot be controlled for the ultimate benefit of the American oil giants. No one is now interested in talking about how Israel came into being and how has it become so strong that it has repeatedly thrashed all the Arab armies put together. The fact that the Americans prop up Israel against all the Arabs is obvious. And the evolution of the Arab-Israeli relationship needs to be mentioned in historical perspective. 

Time was when all the Arab states regarded the induction of Israel in their region as an outrageous visitation. So they stormed into the areas around Jerusalem and tried to kill the new born state at its birth. They miserably failed at a time when today’s Israeli armed forces did not even exist. This story has already been told here. On the Arab side that was the highest watermark of Arab support for Palestine and Palestinians. As a result of the 1948 defeat, several Arab nationalist regimes sprang. These were simply nationalists, some xenophobic in part. Their anger were directed against Israel primarily and world imperialism derivatively. The high watermark of this phase of the Arab nationalists’ glory was the staunch support to the Palestinian’s Cause. That is how the 1967 war came. The Arabs lost it badly too. The Khartoum Summit was a brave but empty verbal response to it: full Arab support for the Palestinian Cause was reaffirmed. But with the leadership of the Arab states shifting from the old Monarchs to the new Arab regimes, the old dyed-in-the-wool Monarchs sulked, while a Rejectionist Front, comprising mainly the PLO and the new nationalistic Arab states run by military dictators, came to the forefront. But it could be clearly seen at the time that the old Monarchs and the Sheikdoms were lukewarm. They no longer had the stomach for confronting Israel any more; meanwhile, the American government had started turning the screw on them. Morocco and Jordan were thought to be secretly negotiating a deal with Israel. The origins of the 1973 war remain shrouded in mystery, insofar as the basic assumptions and objectives were concerned and so soon after the decisive defeat of 1967. In any case, it largely seemed an Arab initiative in which the initial gains were made by Egypt. Egyptians were the first to desert the Arab ranks after their quasi-victory and quasi-defeat —- in fact it was a defeat that was bravely dressed up as victory for propaganda purposes. Anwar Sadat went on a solo flight to Tel Aviv and addressed the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, offering unconditional peace. The Israelis joyfully accepted it and returned the Nagev desert in full to Egypt in exchange for recognition of the state of Israel. Many other Arab states promised recognition, if only their public opinion would permit. That hurdle has lasted to this day. The relationship between the old-style Arab potentates and Israel has remained a matter of speculation and suspicion — until this new Saudi Plan came. 

Details and omissions of the Saudi Plan have already been noted. Its significance has to be seen for what it is: it is all the Arab states offering to Israel full recognition of the state of Israel and economic, political and cultural cooperation with it in exchange for what has been vaguely described as Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. The traditional states’ support for Palestinians, except for some money which has continued, gradually declined after 1967 war; more sharply after 1973 war. The Palestinians were left in the lurch by almost all the Arabs. Palestinians are actually not welcome in many conservative Arab states. They are looked down upon and are hated. Why? because the Palestinian struggle is preventing the conservative Arab states from recognising Israel. Recognition of Israel is now seen as an imperative of the realpolitik. Israel exists; it is powerful; it has the support of the UN, US and most other western Europeans. Ergo, you cannot go on ignoring such a big reality. You have to recognise it one day. Even the Pakistani establishment keeps on hinting from time to time that it will recognise Israel once the Palestinian question is out of the way. 

The Palestinians in fact are not ready to do what the other Arab states are actually anxious to do: to give full recognition to Israel to rule in effect over all the Palestinian areas, including even West Bank and Gaza, if only it can be shown as an Arab-Israeli Settlement on which Yasser Arafat also signs. Sadly, the other Arabs are now prepared to barter away the future and the basic rights of Palestinians for the benefits that they expect from recognising Israel. What are these benefits? Goodwill of the US chiefly, which power is the main protector of all the conservative Arab potentates. Protect against whom? Why, against their own people of course; against the possibility of a nationalistic revolution. Naturally, the basic motivation of the conservative Arab rulers is to protect their own thrones. It is for that reason that very reason they seem to be reverting to the support of Palestinian rights. The fact that the Saudi Plan does not include the following has some significance: (a) The Palestinian refugees’ right of return; (b) sovereignty of the Palestinian state; and (c) any mention of Jewish Settlement. Why? And even the definition of the term of withdrawal —- on which depends all that the Arabs are offering —- has not been given. Making it a subject of negotiations means being mentally ready to accept some whittling down from the position that Palestinians favour. Other Arabs are to approve the Plan in the scheduled Beirut Summit conference in March 2002. It is expected to pass the test, save for Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Libya that remain suspicious; Iranian criticism is also sure to be loud. Israeli response will depend on the state of Arab support to the Palestine’s struggle against their Israeli overlords? 

On the surface, it is an absolutely unequal fight in Palestinian areas today. The Palestinians have no chance of a military victory over Israel; latter’s military strength is simply incomparable. In realpolitik, the Palestinian struggle against Israel would seem to be irrational. But this irrationality is based on high moral ground; it is a national liberation struggle against foreign occupation of their land. The Israeli Colons need to be overthrown in any case. But the example of this unequal fight can fire the imagination of all the Arab masses, on the one hand, and can recruit the support of what may be called the Other Israel, on the other. What is this Other Israel? There used to be a flourishing left wing inside Israel from the beginning, though its power and popularity has become attenuated as the Israeli passions against the Arabs have been rising as a result of their growing casualties. Their American connection has seriously undercut even the moderate left. And yet there are liberals in Israel even today who want genuine peace in Palestine and with Palestinians. 

The true Israeli liberals want to make common cause with Palestinians for transforming Israel into a secular democratic state. Indeed all their demand from the Palestinians is to accept them as either equal citizens of a greater Palestine or partners and friends of the new mini-Palestine state to arise. This part has not been made clear or said loudly. They are actually too timid to say so clearly, except on the extreme left. There is also a small extreme left in Israel. In between the extreme left and left there is a large gap. Which is why no one wants to go public and say what is true and is actually their belief. In any case, Palestinians will be ill-advised to bank on this. Nevertheless, the possibility is there. The threat of international revolution reaching even inside Israel, is not entirely fanciful. The threat from the new Palestine state is that it may cause the revolutionary impulses to spread to Israel, not to mention other areas. 

One aspect of the Saudi Peace Plan is to cement the ranks of the Arab Monarchs who are preparing to recognise Israel and in cementing the US support for the preservation of the status quo. It suits Israel fine; except that it would like the Arabs to accept itself in full first and without requiring it to undo its Settlements or the road network it has built around them to keep its overall control over the subjugated areas of West Bank and Gaza. With such recognition under their belt, the Israelis would be ready to do all that they had been promising: to convert the Arab deserts into flourishing market gardens and to exploit their untapped resources to the full. The old Israeli dream of becoming the powerhouse of the Middle East by combining its expertise and management skills with Arab resources, raw material and labour and American and other western capital has not gone away. This would be a grand partnership of the conservative elements of the West, the Middle East and of the Israel itself. The Other Israel is, however, likely to remain a non-entity on present assumptions. Only the Palestinian Resistance stands in the way of all old Arab Potentates’ climbing this bandwagon.