Normalisation doesn’t necessarily advance peace

The Israelis never operate in good faith in their dealings with the Arab world, and most certainly with Palestinians. They do not reciprocate gestures from the other side

For as long as I can recall, Israelis have sought recognition and acceptance from the Arab world without reciprocity. At times, they have made the argument that if the Arab states simply recognised them as a normal state in the Middle East then they would feel secure enough to make accommodations with the Palestinians.

In 2002, in an effort to test Israel’s commitment to achieving a comprehensive peace that would result in its recognition and acceptance, the then crown prince, Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz, of Saudi Arabia had announced an Arab Peace Initiative (API). The API, which was later unanimously endorsed by the Arab League, contained the following elements:

If Israel were to agree to a full withdrawal from the Occupied Territories to the pre-June, 1967 borders and the establishment of a Palestinian state in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem and an agreed-upon solution for the Palestinian refugee problem; in exchange, the Arab states would consider the ArabIsraeli conflict over and sign a comprehensive peace agreement.

Giving the lie to their interest in finding a peaceful and just solution to the conflict, Israel has repeatedly rejected the API, insisting that the Arab states normalise without preconditions. Not only the Israelis have pushed this line, but key figures from various United States administrations have also encouraged Arab leaders to turn the API “upside down” and move towards recognition and normalisation first. In making their case, US policymakers have used the Israeli argument that if the Israelis felt more secure, they would be more open to compromise with the Palestinians.

Time and again, however, we have seen clear evidence that this is simply not true.

A few examples come to mind to illustrate this point: During the lead-up to the Madrid Peace Conference, the administration of former US president George Bush had proposed to the Arab states that they offer a “sweetener” to the Israelis, which they hoped might entice Tel Aviv to be more accommodating. What they suggested was that if the Arabs agreed to end their secondary boycott of entities that did business in Israel, then the US administration would press the Israelis to accept a freeze on colony construction in the Occupied Territories. I remember, in 1994, making my first trip with a delegation of Arab-American and American-Jewish business leaders to Israel/Palestine as co-chair of Builders for Peace — a project launched by former US vice-president Al Gore. On that visit, I saw the betrayal that had occurred at Madrid. As we passed Tel Aviv on our first night in the region, one of the Jewish members of our group marvelled at the signs on buildings in the city advertising Korean and Japanese companies then doing business in Israel. He noted that just a few years back, none of those companies had been there. Madrid and the end of the secondary boycott had brought them to Israel.

The next day as we left occupied Jerusalem, heading towards Ramallah, we could see on hill after hill colony construction taking place at a feverish pace. When I commented on this, an American-Jewish leader responded defensively that he had been told by the Israelis that this wasn’t colony expansion, it was merely “natural growth” of existing colonies — even though the new construction was completing a ring of “Jewishonly” housing that was circling occupied East Jerusalem severing it from the rest of the West Bank. Later that year, I went to Casablanca to chair a session on the Palestinian economy at the first region-wide economic summit — one of the fruits of the Oslo Accords. The Israeli business delegation was there in full force. They were so obviously delighted to be in an Arab country mingling with business leaders from across the Arab world. At times, it was almost embarrassing to watch as they a little too eagerly sought to have their pictures taken with any Arab they saw dressed in a thobe and keffiyah.

No exit permits

The following year’s summit took place in Amman. But there was a difference. Palestinian political leaders were there, as were the representatives of the American and Israeli governments and their business communities. But Palestinian businessmen and women from the Occupied Territories were not present. Israel had denied them exit permits and so they were not allowed to cross the Allenby Bridge to attend the summit that had only been made possible by the Palestinian endorsement of the Oslo Accords. While in Amman, I fought back and insisted that if the Palestinians couldn’t come to us, then we would bring our group of business leaders to them. We met a few days later in a hotel in occupied Jerusalem. Present were representatives of our business delegation, and US and Israeli government representatives. We waited for more than an hourand-a-half for the Palestinian business leaders to come. Finally, we received a call from the Palestinians who informed us that they were stuck at a border post because the occupation authorities were refusing them permission to enter the city. The Israeli government officials who were present apologised. The planned meeting was adjourned. And that was the end.

What comes through so clearly from these examples and others is that the Israelis have simply never operated in good faith vis-avis their dealings with the Arab world, and most especially with the Palestinians. They take and they do not reciprocate. That is why I say “Don’t be fooled. Normalisation doesn’t advance peace and it most certainly doesn’t advance Palestinian rights.”

■ Dr James J. Zogby is the president of Arab American Institute, a non-profit, non-partisan national leadership organisation.