America Froze The Roadmap, Israel Is Devouring Land With The Wall… And Arabs Have No "Alternatives"

Raghida Dergham     Al-Hayat     2003/10/3

A deeper analysis of the Arab Foreign Ministers' speeches at the General Assembly reveals fears, sadness and conflicted ideas about how to deal with the current and coming situation in the Middle East. Some of them was afraid to recognize the dangerous collapse on the Palestinian-Israeli scene, so they hung to the illusionary strings of an optimism spider net. Others raised unusual ideas. And they all agreed on headlines such as the necessity to hold Israel accounted for possessing weapons of mass destruction while threatening Arab and Muslim countries, accusing them of owning this kind of weapons; however, no one suggested a built strategy to deal with this issue. A number of them spoke of a schedule for the American troops to leave Iraq, but most of them discussed a schedule to hand sovereignty to a doubted ruling council, especially since its current president has pointed out that the main idea was to give the American presence a different name than "occupation," hence asking it to remain. Nevertheless, they all shared, deep down inside, the fear of occupying the first rows in confronting the U.S., and hence waiting.

Oman's Foreign Minister, bin Alawi, was as honest as always in talking to Al-Hayat (September 27) regarding both Palestinian and Israeli issues, and he was fascinating in diagnosing the Arab peoples' point of view in this matter.

He said, "no one thought there was only reform in the West" within the Arabs, and added: "As for the Arab world, people are convinced that things could not have been better."

The general feeling is that the Arab populations believe the current situation does not serve their interest, as they neither vote nor participate in the decision-making, which, according to bin Alawi, is a "philosophic issue;" he did not want to get into a "debate" because he believes that "life is no paradise. We live in this world and there are problems everywhere." He thinks that "people should be happy with their life and properties, and with the fact that they live in a fair system… and when we talk about a good regime for everyone, we address a controversial topic."

Oman's Foreign Minister pronounced words reflecting one of the most brilliant Arab diplomats' analyses of the popular Arab reality. If he is right about the fact that "people are convinced things could not get any better," then reality is worse than anyone can imagine. But if he is wrong, then there is a terrible disparity between the Arab populations and the Arab rulers, which deserves to be discussed and debated.

Regarding the Palestinian issue, bin Alawi raised an entirely innovative idea by saying that "the American policy, which we want to be balanced, can never exist. The U.S.'s policy is not a specific managing one, because the American strategic policy consists of standing beside Israel and granting its safety and peace. So if we are aware of this fact, all we have to do is act with a bit of wisdom and perception."

A great deal of the Arab Foreign Ministers believe that the wisdom and perception consist of holding on to the Roadmap and insisting on a central and effective American role, as well as relying on the U.S. to play the "mediator" while it is Israel's "ally," and reiterating the call to resume the negotiations that shall never be resumed, as they have become quite impossible.

Most of them see there is no choice for the Roadmap, which has become the policy of the Bush administration, although he has practically emptied it of its content and destroyed the parallelism and mutual Palestinian-Israeli steps it shrouded. There used to be the "peace process," then came "Oslo" and now the Roadmap; each time, the Arabs get attached to the fringes of the means while the goals are practically shattered on the ground.

According to bin Alawi, it is impossible now for any Palestinian party to engage reasonable negotiations with Israelis, "and it might be more suitable for the future negotiations to be held between the Arab League and Israel." He argues his point of view with the fact that the U.S. is not dealing with the Palestinian Authority, and to the vain Palestinian-Israeli negotiations that had been taking place for years. "Hence, the only solution is for the Arab League to engage the required negotiations in order to achieve peace between Arabs and Israelis in the future," where the Arab League would be "the representative of all the Arab countries."

Would that be a provocative suggestion or a realistic one? It is a proposal that deserves to be considered. The Palestinian issue has been on the Arab League's agenda for 55 years, said the Minister. And despite the intense Arab efforts over the past 15 years, whether in the peace process, Oslo, or the decisions of a unique Arab summit in Beirut, the eventual conclusion is that Israel practically refuses to seriously negotiate with Palestinians. Hence, bin Alawi suggests, "the Arab countries negotiate," as a collective party. It is a serious and courageous proposal.

He is marginalizing the mediator-ally from the equation and forcing the Arabs on taking united stances within a common strategy, where everything is clear, instead of the usual pattern of open oral biddings while interests impose a secretly different reality behind the scenes.

The least that can be said is that this suggestion is worth being discussed, regardless of its future, so that we do not hear a repetition of the expression "no alternative" for the Roadmap and for the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, no matter how impossible they are. The Roadmap was a good idea when it was first born, as it promised a qualitative change when President Bush declared his "personal" commitment to grow it, as to eventually establish a Palestinian state alongside with Israel within three years.

All this took place before the radical hawks managed to convince the American President that the key to the Roadmap lied in blaming the Palestinians exclusively and dispensing the Israelis from any accountability, because Israel was waging a war of "self-defense," just like Americans are doing in their "war against terror." And so he did. Thus, the American administration involved the Roadmap in "war on terror," the way it had previously done with Iraq.

Some Arab countries do not care if the Roadmap is buried before it is actually born, because they did not want it in the first place. However, there are countries that fear for themselves if the Roadmap is not revived, and Jordan is the first on the list.

Jordanian Foreign Minister, Mr. Marwan Maashar, also spoke honestly to Al-Hayat (September 28). He said that the idea of a "transfer," meaning the Israelis deporting Palestinians, was "worrying" Jordan, "if Israelis refused to establish a Palestinian state alongside with Israel. If they do not want Palestinians to remain occupied or to treat them as second-class citizens, then the only choice left is the transfer. And this is what is worrying the Jordanian government."

This is one of the reasons why Jordan is holding on to the Roadmap, as the rise of a Palestinian state would cancel the "transfer" option, which in reality would grant Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's wish to make Jordan the Palestinians' "substitute country."

The Jordanian Minister was clear: "We are not holding on to this plan because of what it is, but because it calls for the establishment of a Palestinian country based on the 1967 borders…" He added: "if we were to raise new ideas, we would need more time to translate them and to all agree on them. We do not have enough time as long as Israelis are swallowing the land through the wall they are building and their settlement activities."

This talk is logic, but practically, the Roadmap cannot keep Israel from swallowing the land. Practically, Israel is hiding behind the American protection that has frozen the Roadmap as well as any international or regional efforts, while everyone is waiting for the American President to return to this map after having been obsessed with terrorism and security.

American academic and intellectual institutions setting Israel as their first priority have started preparing for a substitute to the Roadmap, which they did not want in the first place, and decided to "rid" the American President of it.

One of the alternatives that the academic work has started preparing is putting Palestinian territories under the UN 'custody'. Marwan Maashar said before the Foreign Relations Council in New York that the idea might be "interesting, or even acceptable, if the custody was on the entire West Bank… but if it is only on 40% of this region, then the idea is unacceptable."

According to the way the American academic people are dealing with this issue, it is unlikely to put the entire West Bank or the 1967 occupied territories under UN custody. This actually does not suit these people's goals that support Israel in refusing a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders under the framework of a two-state solution, as much as they absolutely refuse a one democratic state solution that gives the Jews and the Arabs equal rights. It is the suggestion that late Edward Said held on to.

No Arab suggestions, whether academic, governmental or intellectual, facing both the transfer and the custody ideas, the way Israel and its supporters want. No besiegement or preemption initiatives, just the way it is on the American-Israeli scene. Even when the Arabs made significant initiatives such as the one following the Beirut summit, which is extremely important, no serious campaigns of awareness, marketing, media or diplomatic were launched. Hence, the initiatives were forgotten amid the effective counter-work of the American and Israeli institutions.

Regarding the Iraqi issue, the different ideas and suggestions have made the Arab governments and populations a target of accusations, even for Iraqis. As for the fact that Israel has banned nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, most of the Arab countries are afraid of being accounted for possessing chemical weapons, so they settled with verbal objection to dispensing Israel from any accountability. But it certainly requires much more than that. It requires a practical challenge raised within an open strategy that admits that some Arab countries possess chemical weapons, and using that when it is time to demand that Israel is put on an equal footing in regard of the international claim to remove all these weapons.

As long as fear and hiding control the Arab mind, objections and bidding will be useless. And as long as the Arab majority tends to submit to one fact after the other, Arabs will never be taken seriously. Until they are courageous enough to make unpredicted stances and be honest in diagnosing the Arab reality, only sadness and frustration will prevail and the Arab world will remain a world of misery, and a field where persecution and battles between the parties of the terrorist war are allowed.