(Those of you on CMEP's postal network will receive the paper newsletter in 2-3 weeks. While the advocacy recommendations included below will be useful for considerable time, your prompt response will be most effective. ) 

President George Bush tried to bring democracy to the Middle East and fundamentally change the region by transforming the appeal of radical Muslim ideology into a quest for American-style freedom and liberty. But his Lone Ranger approach has failed, miserably. As ill-conceived strategies to create a new Iraq opened the door to a Sunni-Shia civil war, allies of the United States walked away and anti-Americanism has soared.   

Last summer’s war in Lebanon was the breaking point for the leaders of neighboring Arab states.  The ancient contest between the Sunni and Shia strains of Islam was further awakened by Hezbollah’s confrontation with Israel and the fiery claims of victory by its leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah despite the horrible destruction wrought by the 31 days of fighting.  Soon, this champion of Lebanon’s Shia population was being praised for standing up to Israel by Sunni Arabs across the region; their Presidents and Kings watched with dismay.   

Those Arab Sunni leaders who, again and again, had responded to the United States’ entreaties for help in calming the Israeli-Palestinian conflict decided to take the reins and charge ahead into the diplomatic void of Iraq and the Israeli-Arab-Palestinian conflict.  Can the Arab diplomatic surge lead to peace?  How will the United States respond?  What can the American people and churches do to support peacemaking diplomacy?   

News of the Arab League meeting on March 28 will reach CMEP newsletter readers before this publication.  The impact of the statements and speeches from Riyadh will continue to unfold over time and reverberate throughout the region. The debate on if-and-how to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be fundamentally recast by the revival of the Arab League proposal. Responses and counter proposals will proliferate, with some intended to advance the quest for peace and others designed to obstruct or destroy the fulfillment of the “land for peace” promise.  

The peace initiative began in 2002 when Saudi Arabian Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah took his proposal to an Arab League summit in Beirut on March 27-29 and gained the approval of its 22 members to break the nearly sacrosanct Arab rejection of Israel. (Egypt was expelled from the league for signing a treaty with Israel in 1979.)  The proposal Calls upon the Government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab Countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighborliness and provide future generations with security, stability, and prosperity. 

Here, in a one page document, was a peace initiative aimed at resolving all issues and fronts of the conflict – a true comprehensive peace that would end the conflict with a peace agreement and the establishment of normal relations with Israel. The document lays out what Israel must do. (1.) Full Israeli withdrawal from all territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights. (2.) Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194. (3). The acceptance of the establishment of a Sovereign Independent Palestinian State on the Palestinian territories occupied since the 4^th of June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital. 

The 2002 Arab League Proposal was, within hours, literally blasted off the table. A suicide bombing in the Israeli seaside town of Natanya on Passover eve killed 29 people. Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield and reoccupied most of the West Bank and Gaza.  Not only was the Arab League Proposal stillborn, observers and politicians declared the Oslo Process dead.  

Over the next five years as the Bush Administration focused on the “war on terror,” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was generally treated as yet another line of battle against a pervasive and largely undifferentiated terrorist enemy.  With unenthusiastic support from President Bush, the “Road Map” plan of the Quartet led nowhere.  Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, complicated by Sharon’s incapacitation, resulted in disappointments on all sides.  

The surprising win of Hamas candidates in the Palestinian elections in March 2006 shaped the Administration’s overall strategy of defeating terrorism into a diplomatic and economic boycott of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.  The plan was that the deprived and isolated Palestinian populace would support President Mahmoud Abbas in routing Hamas and returning moderates to political leadership.  But, with the Palestinian economy in shambles and political factions competing for power and patronage rights, hope for peace became a victim of internecine conflict. 

The fighting between and among Palestinian political factions can be understood in light of the tremendous difficulties and limitations endured under occupation and the boycott.  Adding to the suffering was the practice of revenge that thrived as families reacted to the killing of loved ones without benefit of police-enforced rule of law. Yet, even sympathetic onlookers could see the tragic irony of the factional fighting which discredited the vision of a viable and responsively governed Palestinian state and brought further humiliation and depression to all Palestinians and those who care about them.  

Called to Mecca, Islam’s holiest city, by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Fatah and Hamas leaders agreed, for the first time, to share authority. The Mecca accord, which ended the fighting and prepared for a Palestinian unity government, disappointed - indeed angered - the United States and Israel.  Of the three conditions set to end the boycott – recognition of Israel, commitment to nonviolence and acceptance of previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians – only the last was addressed, and insufficiently, by promising “respect” for previous agreements between the Palestinians and Israel. 

The Mecca agreement may prove to be only a fragile and temporary cease fire, but it did set the stage for the unity government and bringing well-regarded moderates into the Palestinian Cabinet.  At the first meeting of the Palestinian legislature under the national unity government, President Abbas of Fatah said that Palestinians reject “all forms of violence” and Prime Minister Ismail Haniya of Hamas said, “resistance in all forms” to occupation is “a legitimate right.”  

So, still lacking a coherent commitment to peace and nonviolence, the unity government will continue to be subject to economic and diplomatic sanctions. But, slippage is anticipated. A March 21 statement from the Middle East Quartet (UN, EU, US and Russia) said the commitment of the new Palestinian government would be measured not only on the basis of its composition and platform, but also its actions.  

Peace observers will be paying close attention to whose diplomats are meeting with which Palestinian ministers, and will be monitoring the complicated flow of financial aid.  

Of course, every member of Congress knows that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a problem that should be resolved. They have read the Iraq Study Group’s conclusion that the United States cannot achieve its goals unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.  The dispassionate warning of the ISG, which was dismissed by some Members of Congress, was enlivened vividly when King Abdullah II of Jordan addressed a joint session of Congress on March 7.  

He lamented the failure to fulfill the vision of his father King Hussein of a comprehensive settlement of all the issues following Jordan’s 1994 peace treaty with Israel. He told the Congress that “until it is, we are all at risk.”  As the King recognized that Congress was busy with vital decision making about the war in Iraq, he said, “We cannot lose sight of a profound reality.  The wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine.”  

Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are being characterized as the Arab Quartet. Peace observers will be looking for actions by the Arab Quartet to convince Israel that the Arab League’s offer of peace is indeed genuine.   

The intervention of Arab neighbors of Iraq opened the way for the Administration to diplomatically engage with Iran and Syria, helpfully opening the self-imposed isolation box.  This meeting was only a small step in the right direction, but it is a start toward diplomatic engagement and ends the United States’ exclusive reliance on military means.  

Eager to exhibit to their own restless publics and to the Western powers that the Sunni Arab state leaders are major players on the world stage, the Arab League agreed to relaunch the peace initiative of 2002 at their summit on March 28-29. The substance of the text is expected to be unchanged, but this time, there are plans for follow-up actions to promote it as a constructive contribution to regional peacemaking. It will take some work to convince wary Israelis that peace and security is indeed possible.  

Prior to its release, US officials welcomed the Arab League initiative as a “very positive and welcome development.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s efforts to kick-start Israeli and Palestinian talks are viewed as complementary to the Arab League plan.  Israeli officials are cautiously positive, despite rejection of their appeals to amend the document.  Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, in meetings with State and the Senate, raised strong objections only to the refugee section. The document calls for “a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN Resolution 194.” This point has been subject to sharp differences of interpretation.  

The necessity of sharing Jerusalem is gaining generalized acceptance as a principle. But, as we’ve learned from previous negotiations, the devil is in the details.  

Peace watchers will be looking at follow up actions by Arab leaders, perhaps a joint meeting of the Quartet and the Arab Quarter along with Israel and Palestinian leaders. Israel’s reaction is likely to be difficult to comprehend as the weakened and beleaguered Prime Minister Olmert fights for his political survival. He and the party Kadima came to power with a promise of peacemaking and his poll ratings and authority could rebound in a climate of hope.  

ADVOCACY ACTION