In the summer of 2011, the Saudi regime was fuming at the Obama administration for its support for the Arab Spring, which the Saudis viewed as a threat. One of the more outspoken expressions of Riyadh’s rage came in an article, penned by Prince Turki al-Faisal in the Washington Post, which lambasted Obama’s “failed favoritism toward Israel.” Referring to the then-pending United Nations vote on recognition of Palestine, Faisal bluntly threatened: “There will be disastrous consequences for U.S.-Saudi relations if the United States vetoes” the motion.
Four years later, the Arab Spring has turned into a Jihadist Winter and relations between Washington and Riyadh, notwithstanding the Iran nuclear deal, have improved significantly, if not dramatically. The Palestinians are still pursuing full-fledged recognition at the United Nations, but Faisal no longer believes that their salvation will come from the international body, nor does he imagine that the United States will pressure Israel to make peace. It’s a pity, he says, but that’s not going to happen.
“Obama began his administration very much gung-ho on solving this issue,” Prince Turki tells Haaretz in an interview. “He backed down rather quickly. That was disappointing, and in the Arab world there was a letdown. I don’t think anyone expects the U.S. to push Israel to agree to the Arab Peace Initiative and to reach a two-state solution. It lacks the political will. So it must come from Israel.”
Turki portrays the peace initiative, originally presented by his uncle, then Crown Prince Abdullah, at an Arab League summit in Beirut in 2002, as the only vehicle capable of breaking the diplomatic logjam between Israel and the Palestinians. He submits that the core principles of the initiative – withdrawal to the 1967 borders, establishment of a Palestinian state, an “agreed solution” to the Palestinian refugee problem and normalization with the Arab world – can still serve as a foundation for peace talks. And he rejects the position put forth by many in Israel that until the current turmoil in the Middle East settles down, it’s preferable to maintain the status quo.
“I beg to differ with that view,” says the former, longtime Saudi intelligence minister, who now heads the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, in Riyadh, in impeccable English. “Israel enjoys relative peace now, but that is not sustainable. It can come to the negotiating table from a position of strength. That would be a much better way to go forward than to maintain the status quo and have a flare-up once in a while that only brings more condemnation and more isolation, and the growing boycott movement throughout the world against Israeli goods and Israel itself.”
Both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas, he claims, are potential partners. Abbas hasn’t abandoned the principle of negotiations to achieve a two-state solution, and Hamas “has always said publicly that it will accept what the PLO accepts.”
He also rejects another frequent Israeli claim about past accords and withdrawals: that instead of peace, they produced more bloodshed. “There are two sides to the story,” he explains. “If it wasn’t for the 18-year occupation of Lebanon, there would be no Hezbollah. In 2005, Sharon withdrew from Gaza without any consideration for what Gazans want. ‘I’m leaving,’ he said, and then imposed a quarantine that only fostered fermentation, a sense of resistance and animosity toward Israel.”
As for the Oslo agreements, Turki adds, “The other side of the story was the continued settlements. There were supposed to be continued withdrawals, and without that the Palestinians were left with a sense of neglect and disappointment that the Israelis had not lived up to their commitments.”
‘Accept the reached-out hand’
But there’s no point dwelling on the past, he adds, because “we can go on forever and find excuses. It’s better to go forward with the Arab Peace Initiative. Israel should take this opportunity and accept the hand that has reached out to it.”
Four years later, the Arab Spring has turned into a Jihadist Winter and relations between Washington and Riyadh, notwithstanding the Iran nuclear deal, have improved significantly, if not dramatically. The Palestinians are still pursuing full-fledged recognition at the United Nations, but Faisal no longer believes that their salvation will come from the international body, nor does he imagine that the United States will pressure Israel to make peace. It’s a pity, he says, but that’s not going to happen.
“Obama began his administration very much gung-ho on solving this issue,” Prince Turki tells Haaretz in an interview. “He backed down rather quickly. That was disappointing, and in the Arab world there was a letdown. I don’t think anyone expects the U.S. to push Israel to agree to the Arab Peace Initiative and to reach a two-state solution. It lacks the political will. So it must come from Israel.”
Turki portrays the peace initiative, originally presented by his uncle, then Crown Prince Abdullah, at an Arab League summit in Beirut in 2002, as the only vehicle capable of breaking the diplomatic logjam between Israel and the Palestinians. He submits that the core principles of the initiative – withdrawal to the 1967 borders, establishment of a Palestinian state, an “agreed solution” to the Palestinian refugee problem and normalization with the Arab world – can still serve as a foundation for peace talks. And he rejects the position put forth by many in Israel that until the current turmoil in the Middle East settles down, it’s preferable to maintain the status quo.
“I beg to differ with that view,” says the former, longtime Saudi intelligence minister, who now heads the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, in Riyadh, in impeccable English. “Israel enjoys relative peace now, but that is not sustainable. It can come to the negotiating table from a position of strength. That would be a much better way to go forward than to maintain the status quo and have a flare-up once in a while that only brings more condemnation and more isolation, and the growing boycott movement throughout the world against Israeli goods and Israel itself.”
Both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas, he claims, are potential partners. Abbas hasn’t abandoned the principle of negotiations to achieve a two-state solution, and Hamas “has always said publicly that it will accept what the PLO accepts.”
He also rejects another frequent Israeli claim about past accords and withdrawals: that instead of peace, they produced more bloodshed. “There are two sides to the story,” he explains. “If it wasn’t for the 18-year occupation of Lebanon, there would be no Hezbollah. In 2005, Sharon withdrew from Gaza without any consideration for what Gazans want. ‘I’m leaving,’ he said, and then imposed a quarantine that only fostered fermentation, a sense of resistance and animosity toward Israel.”
As for the Oslo agreements, Turki adds, “The other side of the story was the continued settlements. There were supposed to be continued withdrawals, and without that the Palestinians were left with a sense of neglect and disappointment that the Israelis had not lived up to their commitments.”
‘Accept the reached-out hand’
But there’s no point dwelling on the past, he adds, because “we can go on forever and find excuses. It’s better to go forward with the Arab Peace Initiative. Israel should take this opportunity and accept the hand that has reached out to it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment