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

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 the context in which they were published. The first document, the Friedman Document, is in fact an article published in the New York Times on 17 February 2002 by journalist Thomas Friedman, reporting on a meeting with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and 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 document a newspaper article presenting a journalists impressions of his conversation with a Saudi leader while 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.

Support 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.

2. Borders: Both the Friedman document and the Arab Peace Initiative mention full withdrawal from the territories occupied in June 1967. In the Friedman document, the Crown Prince uses the phrase 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 an independent 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 demilitarized with authority over its internal security forces and 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 full Israeli 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 3

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 full withdrawal to the lines of 4 June 1967. The Arab Peace Initiative specifically calls for withdrawal from the Syrian Golan Heights to the lines of 4 June 1967. The Israeli Peace Initiative indicates preparedness to withdraw from the Golan Heights but asserts that the borderline be based on the 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 highlevel 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 the remaining 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 4

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 Palestinian refugee 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 agreedupon 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 5

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, the Crown 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 sides Israel on the one hand and the Arab and Islamic states on the other would 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.

This is the text as translated directly from the Hebrew version. There is a difference in this paragraph between the terminology in the Hebrew version and the English version as published.