French
German
Hebrew
Noruegan
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Polish
Portuguese
In the wake of the terrorist aacks on September 11, 2001, Saudi Arabia was under intense scruny since fieen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers had proved to be Saudis. In February 2002, Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia gave an interview to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman in which he proposed to Israel “full withdrawal from all the occupied territories, in accord with UN resoluons, including in Jerusalem, for full normalizaon of relaons.”
• In a flash, Abdullah had transformed the discourse: Instead of focusing on Saudi involvement in terrorism, the Western press was now talking about Saudi peacemaking. However, by the me the Abdullah trial balloon reached the Arab summit in Beirut in March 2002, the iniave had been modified and its terms hardened.
• “Full normalizaon” became “normal relaons” (which sll marks significant progress over the Arab League formulaon in Khartoum of 1967: “no peace, no recognion, no negoaons”). It called for an Israeli withdrawal from all the territories to the lines of June 4, 1967, in contradicon of UN Resoluon 242, and which would bring Syria to the shores of the Sea of Galilee. It also enshrined a Palesnian “right of return” to Israel.
• Several aspects of the Arab Peace Iniave represent significant and posive developments in the official, collecve Arab view of the future of Israel in the Middle East. However, Israel should refrain from accepng the iniave as a basis for peace negoaons because it contains seriously objeconable elements. Israel should also reject the “all or nothing” approach of the Saudis and the Arab League. Peacemaking is the process of negoaon, not diktat.
