Print
Copyright (c) 2005 The Daily Star
Friday, May 06, 2005
The 'road map' is dead; here are some ways to resurrect it
By Abdul Aziz Said and Nathan C. Funk
Commentary by
There is much less to the peace process than meets the eye. Photo opportunities at U.S. President
George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, are one thing; reality is another. A picture may say a
thousand words, but the words themselves are not always edifying.
Truth be told, there is no peace process in the Middle East today. Substantive Israeli-Palestinian and
Arab-Israeli negotiations have ceased, and the Bush administration has demonstrated neither the
will nor the desire to expend political capital on a diplomatic process that would involve difficult
compromises. Simply put, Bush would rather negotiate with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon about
the details of an imposed, American-Likud solution to Israeli security and settlement problems than
mediate between Israelis and Palestinians. The "road map" is leading nowhere.
The scenario looks bleak, but let us think creatively. People of goodwill in the Middle East cannot
afford to allow the current pact between Bush and Sharon to demolish hopes of a brighter future.
Even if it is not possible to achieve immediate progress toward a livable and humane final-status
agreement between Israel and Palestinians, there is much work that can still be done to plant seeds
of peace in Israeli and Palestinian societies. One of the first necessary steps is to educate the
international community about steps that Arab leaders are willing to take. Here are a few proposals
for action:
First, Arabs should underscore the fact that Crown Prince Abdullah's peace proposal approved at the
2002 Beirut Arab League summit is still on the table, even if it is being overlooked. Given the
absence of other viable frameworks for peace, efforts should be made to move this proposal to the
center of the table for serious attention and multilateral deliberations. To achieve this, leaders should
consider ways of involving Israelis and Palestinians in discussions about how the Arab peace
initiative might become the basis for an alternative road map, perhaps through engagement with the
civil society leaders who crafted the Geneva Accord. Arab leaders can help to build a new coalition of
actors - official and nonofficial - who are willing to work together to jump-start the official peace
process and support it at strategic junctures.
Second, Arab leaders cannot afford to allow their positions vis-a-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to
be misunderstood. Among Arabs, it is self-evident that the Palestinian Authority desires a return to
negotiations, and that many Arab leaders are willing - at least in principle - to recognize Israel after
implementation of a "land-for-peace" formula, with due consideration for the rights of Palestinian
refugees. Unfortunately, this message does not always reach foreign audiences, and bears repeating
in international forums.
Third, Arab governments should sponsor cooperative international efforts to address the plight of the
refugees - both those living in Palestine and those in neighboring countries. Participation in
Palestinian relief and development efforts should be open to all peoples, including conscientious
Israelis who would like to take important new steps toward reconciliation.
Fourth, Arab governments should also seriously reconsider the tired notion that contact with Israeli
civilians is equivalent to "normalization" with the Israeli state. This has impeded peace efforts in the
region, and has fostered the impression among Israelis and Westerners that the Arab people are not
emotionally prepared for peace with Israel or with Jews. It is time for Arab leaders to dispel this
myth. Progress could start with a declaration from any Arab leader who has not yet signed a formal
peace agreement with Israel: "We are willing to offer our hospitality to all Israeli civilians who come
with a message of peace and who express a desire for a negotiated settlement, in accordance with
universal principles of equality and justice."
Fifth, Arab leaders can make a statement affirming people-to-people contact in the cause of peace in
conjunction with their announcement of an initiative honoring the late Israeli peacemaker Maxim
Ghilan: namely, the founding of a "Brotherhood and Sisterhood of the Middle East Movement," to
expand and deepen commitment to principles of regional peace, justice and coexistence.
Sixth, to create venues giving life to such a movement, Arab governments or North American
universities should host conferences for academic and civil society leaders committed to the idea of a
new peace process. A major American university with experience in the field of peacemaking might
provide an ideal venue. Invitees should include Israelis, Palestinians, non-Palestinian Arabs, and
perhaps Iranians as well. If officially sponsored by an Arab leader, such a conference would have the
potential to gain international media attention and catalyze debate about the need for negotiations.
Seventh, Arab as well as Western governments should also consider providing funds to support
university consortiums that would connect Palestinian, Israeli, Arab and Western universities for
cooperative projects in all areas - including conflict-resolution education as well as technical fields.
These consortiums should include major Israeli, Palestinian and Arab institutions such as Ben Gurion
University, Bir Zeit University, and the American University in Cairo. Such consortiums might
undertake projects of great practical and symbolic significance, such as the construction of
economically viable and ecologically sustainable communities.
Eighth, Arab and Western leaders should also consider jointly sponsoring a major international
conference on Confidence and Security Building Measures (CSBMs) in the Greater Middle East. The
purpose would be to draft a document outlining possibilities for a cooperative regional security
system, to be developed through high-level dialogue and exchange among military leaders.
Important lessons should be drawn from the role of CSBMs during the 1980s between the U.S. and
the Soviet Union.
There is still time for bold steps that will put new energy into the search for a positive Middle Eastern
future. Let us all seek to embark on this new journey.
Abdul-Aziz Said is Mohammad Said Farsi Professor of Islamic Peace at the American
University in Washington. Nathan C. Funk is assistant professor of peace and conflict studies at
Conrad Grebel University College, the University of Waterloo, Canada. They wrote this commentary
for THE DAILY STAR.
Copyright (c) 2005 The Daily Star