Both sides against the Middle East, part one

Just about four years ago, in March 2003, at a summit in Beirut, the Arab League announced its endorsement of a Saudi Arabian peace plan for the Middle East.

The basic outline of the Saudi plan was known but the details were vague, said the BBC in 2005. But it summed the proposal up just a few days ago as

- Israel to withdraw from land seized in 1967
- Palestinian refugees "right of return" to Israel
- Relations between Arab states and Israel

Recently, Israeli officials have indicated that the government was now "ready to take [the plan] seriously." However, some "reservations" were expressed. Those apparently centered around the "right of return," enshrined in UN Resolution 194, which dates from 1948 and declares that

the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date....

Many Israelis regard such a right of return as a demographic time bomb, fearing that Jews would quickly become a distinct minority within Israel if the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians they're told would able to claim such a right either as actual refugees or descendents of refugees were to do so. As a result,

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni recently called for deleting that clause. She was reportedly ready to negotiate the extent of Israel's withdrawal but not discuss the refugees' return.

While it could seem reasonable from an Israeli perspective to resist an unlimited right of return (but see this post), the outright refusal to even discuss the entire issue could hardly be seen as wise if the intent was truly to encourage renewed negotiations for a lasting peace. The response was predictable:

Saudi Arabia has rejected calls by Israel for changes to be made to a Saudi-led plan for Middle East peace. ...

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal described preconditions raised by Israel as "ludicrous".

"We only hear conditions from Israel about everything, but no acceptance," Prince Saud told reporters during a visit to Riyadh by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.

The Saudis want the Israelis to accept the proposals and then work out the details. Which it's certainly true the Israelis could do with just a little massaging. For one thing,

Jordan tried to ease Israel's objections by noting the text talks of an "agreed upon" solution [related to a right of return]. That means the solution requires Israel's consent, it argued.

Which, it would appear, means that what defines such a right of return would be decided by negotiations. Related to that is the fact that some experts have noted that the text of Resolution 194 says that refugees "should" be allowed to return, not "shall." That, they say, means that such a return is not mandated but only "recommended." I doubt that argument would be easily accepted by many Palestinians, but it should be possible for the sides to postulate that a right of return and an unlimited right of return are not the same thing and go from there.

The Arab League is to take up the plan again at a summit in Riyadh later this month. I hope that they can find the wisdom to jiggle the proposal a bit, perhaps by pointing out the word "should" in Resolution 194 or by modifying their text to something like "dealing with the concerns of those who wish to return to their homes from which they were refugeed must be part of any final settlement," giving Israel wiggle room to accept it without seeming to commit itself to an unlimited right of return - and then that Israel can find the wisdom to take advantage of the opportunity.

I admit to a great deal of pessimism on both points. But I refuse to despair.

Footnote: I know there is a question among some as to whether or not it is legitimate for Israel to exist as an explicitly Jewish state, especially when there are so many in the US and, interestingly enough, Israel that will condemn the notion of an Islamic state. Frankly, this is not the time to discuss it.