There is not much disagreement between Arab capitals on the basis of the settlement of the Palestinian issue, most importantly the Arab initiative and the decisions of international legitimacy which provide for the establishment of an independent Palestinian State, with Jerusalem as its capital. But the controversy and even the sharp contrast in Arab views begin when the conversation is about the mechanisms, not the fundamentals of resolving the dispute.
The political settlement of any dispute means inevitable dialogue, either directly or indirectly. For many years, Arabs have tried rhetorical fight back and catchy slogans without any avail as the situation worsened for the Palestinians.
Since the mysterious so-called deal of the century was publicized, controversy has been raging about its dimensions and implications.
Refuting any idea is often done by presenting an alternative, a more persuasive one. In fact, the Arabs started an initiative for a more rational solution to the Palestinian issue. Put forth by the late King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud in 2002, the Arab peace initiative calls for the establishment of an internationally recognized Palestinian State within the 1967 borders, ensuring the return of refugees and Israel’s withdrawal from the Syrian Golan Heights in exchange for recognition and normalization of relations between Arab States and Israel.
Indeed, this important initiative is still alive and in full conformity with the resolutions of international legitimacy and the Security Council resolutions, particularly resolutions 242 and 338. This realistic solution stems from the collective Arab consensus as the only option that adheres to the Land for Peace principle, the establishment of an independent Palestinian sovereign State with Jerusalem as its capital in exchange for building a framework for comprehensive peace and normalization of relations between the Arabs and Israel in a way that would end the Middle East’s most complex conflict.
Some argue the initiative was overturned by events and that the geo-strategic and geopolitical changes that have been taking place in the Middle East since 2011 have strengthened Israel’s negotiating position and made the land-for-peace idea an unacceptable alternative for the Israelis, particularly regarding Jerusalem—which the United States recognized as the capital of Israel—and the Golan Heights (Israel is seeking to pass a resolution by the US Congress on recognizing permanent annexation of the territory).
Maybe that’s the case now, but peace cannot stand on frail foundations, nor can peace-making happen at a moment of historical weakness. History tells us that true peace is lasting peace; we’re talking about the just settlement for all parties, building normal, functional relations and preventing the Palestinian cause from being exploited by the terrorists and radicals..
The Palestinian issue requires Arabs to have quiet, in-depth and serious discussions that take into account the current international scene and to look for the future in order to avoid further deterioration and losses on the Palestinian side. This is not an invitation to recognize the status quo but to do a reality check, because more catchy slogans mean more suffering in the West Bank and Gaza.
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently visited the Sultanate of Oman, some went on the warpath. They couldn’t wait to hear any new ideas or proposals that could help the Palestinian and Israeli sides reach a just solution. But no solution can work unless it achieves minimum Palestinian-Arab consensus.
On the other side, Israel should know that no visits or normalization effort will bear fruit and be recognized by the Arab public opinion without comprehensive and just peace. Since the signing of the peace agreement with Egypt, we learned that genuine peace and coexistence in the region depend on the settlement of the Palestinian issue.
