The Arab League’s ‘Peace Process’ Deception

kerry-arab-leagueAP61769474_620x350The Times of Israel has the following headline this morning: “In sea change, Arab League backs land swaps in peace talks.”

A sea change is defined as a marked change or a transformation.  But what we’re looking at here is nothing of the sort.

Members of the Arab League, representing seven Arab nations, met with top US officials yesterday in Washington.  The topic of discussion was the “peace process” and ways in which the Arab nations might advance it.

After the League delegation huddled for consultations at Blair House, Qatari Prime Minister Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Al Thani announced “the possibility of ‘comparable,’ mutually agreed and ‘minor‘ land swaps between the Israelis and the Palestinians.”  (Emphasis added)

Note that “land swaps” are not agreed to firmly in principle.  There is a “possibility” of support for this, which means at the end of the day they might say, “Sorry, we won’t do this after all.”  After all, only seven of 22 nations of the League were represented here.

And even if they were to agree, in any case it would be “minor,” mutually agreed upon, swaps only.  Piddling. Only piddling.

Most importantly, this entire notion is predicated upon an erroneous and unacceptable concept.

Secretary of State Kerry, who seems to have staked his entire professional (sic) reputation on succeeding with the “peace process,” gushed:

“We’ve had a very positive, very constructive discussion over the course of the afternoon, with positive results…”

He praised the League for the “important role it is playing, and is determined to play, in bringing about a peace in the Middle East.”

A bit of background is in order here:

The Arab League “Peace Plan” had originally been advanced by Saudi Arabia in 2002, then was adopted by the League, and subsequently “re-endorsed” by the League in 2007.  It was, and is, a horror:

If Israel will surrender all lands acquired in 1967, and provide for a “just” settlement of the Palestinian Arab refugee problem, based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194— which the Arab world interprets as giving the “refugees” “right of return,” when in fact there is no such thing—then the Arab world will “normalize” relations with Israel.  No specification of what normalization means re: diplomatic, security, or economic ties.

Translation: If you will surrender the Temple Mount, and the Kotel, and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hevron, and Shilo, and much more, including the Golan Heights.  And if you will return to the 1967 line [the Green Line], which, admittedly, was recognized by Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War, as not providing a secure border.  And in addition, if you will take within your borders millions of so-called refugees, rendered radical and hostile by decades of UNRWA influence.  Then all 22 of the Arab states—and not just “Palestine”—will have some sort of ties with you.

This was touted as a great opportunity for Israel, which would secure “normalization” with the whole Arab world in one fell blow.

There were to be no negotiations with this plan.  It was a take-it-or-leave-it deal.

Israel rejected it out of hand:

Israel has legitimate rights to Judea and Samaria, based on a heritage that is more than 3,000 years old, as well as legally binding resolutions in the twentieth century, notably the Mandate for Palestine.

Israel will never return to the ’67 line—which, in addition to everything else, provides insufficient strategic depth for adequate security.

Resolution 242 says the final border of Israel must be determined by negotiations.  Agreeing to pull back without negotiations is not the way to go.

For years now, the Palestinian Authority and its supporters have promoted the idea that the ’67 line is Israel’s “real” border, and that everything on the other side “belongs” to the Palestinian Arabs.  It is a crock. A myth.  But unfortunately—because successive Israeli governments have not been vigorous enough in countering this—it has become accepted thinking in many places.

It is this myth, this crock, upon which the Arab League fashioned its “peace proposal.”

More recently, President Barack Obama has advanced proposals based on the same myth.  Has he swallowed it whole, so that he really believes it?  There is no way to be certain, although there is ample reason to suspect so.  We only know what he says.

Obama’s only deviation from the stipulation of return to the ’67 line is the concept of “agreed-upon swaps” of land.  This means the principle of the ’67 line as Israel’s legitimate border is retained but if Israel wants to hold on to a community that, say, spreads over two square kilometers east of the line, then “Palestine” will be given two square kilometers of land west of the line, inside of Israel.  In the end, Israel will be defined by an area no greater than what rests within the ’67 line.

For the record: the ’67 line, or Green Line, was, with very minor adjustments, the 1949 armistice line.  It is the line that was drawn when Israel and Jordan stopped fighting, at the end of the War of Independence: Israel fought that war defensively, having been attacked by the Arab nations on the day she declared independence.  It is referred to as the “’67 line” because Israel was behind that line until June 1967, when the Six Day war was fought.

The armistice agreement signed between Jordan and Israel stipulated that the line was temporary and that the permanent line would be determined by negotiations.  Actually, this stipulation was put in at Jordan’s insistence.  And, please, note that it WAS Jordan on the other side of the line—the nation with which, it was presumed, Israel would ultimately negotiate. There was no talk of “Palestine” or a “Palestinian people” with whom Israel had to negotiate.  Whatever existed on the other side of the armistice line, it certainly wasn’t a Palestinian state, or land defined as belonging to a Palestinian people.

How Israel could be required to “return” Judea and Samaria to the Palestinian Arabs is a genuine mystery.  The historical situation has been distorted:  It has morphed from the reality into what people of a certain political bent wish it to be.

What I see is that Kerry went to these Arab League members and asked them for some flexibility so that he might move ahead with the infernal process. And, to his delight, they delivered.  Not only delivered, but stated themselves willing to go along with certain parameters outlined by the president.

At a press conference, Kerry declared:

“The US and Arab League delegation here this afternoon agreed that peace between Israelis and Palestinians would advance security, prosperity, and stability in the Middle East. And that is a common interest for the region and the whole world…”

Well, then, it’s the Arab world that sees eye-to-eye with President Obama, yes? And Israel?

We can anticipate that the secretary will now turn to Israel with a request/a veiled demand for more “flexibility,” for the sake of stability in the Middle East.  But what has been tentatively proposed is no more acceptable to Israel than the previous formulation of the Arab League plan, or only very minutely so. (Now, presumably, there would be some negotiations to determine the “minor swaps.”)

The essential premises of the plan remain as unsatisfactory, and as faulty as a basis for peace, as ever.

I do not, for a moment, anticipate that Israel will agree to the terms tentatively outlined by the Arab League.  But I do anticipate a huge amount of pressure coming down the road.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • AdinaK

    IF Obama Inc, as well as Israel's "leading lights", really wanted to secure the "peace", they would be listening to those who know what it takes to get from here to there –

    In fact, PM Netanyahu's sister-in-law, Daphne Netanyahu, had this to add to the mix –

    The rest of the baltherings from Washington (and Israel's obsessed "peace" chasers/processors) is dangerous balderdash.

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel

  • Chanameel

    How about the Saudi's giving the Palestinians a new homeland?

    In Saudi Arabia.

    They have loads of space and the Palestinians could feel right at home in a muslim country.

    Turkey has lots of land too! !!!

    Where's the love between Muslim brothers????

  • Cassandra

    Israel should never accept a deal like that. It would be committing suicide.

  • @michael_dar

    The Arab aggressors proposing a "peace plan" isn't that weird? It's something like the Allies agreeing to a peace proposal by Hitler under his own conditions!

    • defcon 4

      Both peace plans would have genocidal, unstated aspirations as well.

  • vladtepes2

    What the Muslim can't win in war,
    he wants to gain by swindle in the Bazaar.

  • Marty

    This so-called peace plan is nonsense. arab regimes simply want to weaken Israel. Why was there no peace when Israel was at the 1967 lines? Same response today as then: the arabs don't want peace with Israel, they want Israel's destruction and the slaughter of its Jewish citizens. Did the arab league run this plan by hamas, one of several terrorist organizations dedicated to Israel's annihilation?

  • Choi

    The only "return" that SHOULD occur is Kerry SHOULD RETURN HOME-RETIRED!
    He can stay busy COUNTING Theresa's money.
    He's been a POS since 1972 when he TURNED on American Troops .
    HOW he escaped the Jane Fonda "vilification" is a Mystery?

  • Ken Kelso

    So would America have accepted Hitler's 'peace plan?

    The Arab league can go to hell.
    Why would Israel even consider reading much less agreeing to such an insult?
    Peace for Peace is the only response.
    The Arabs are in the midst of their own personal bloodbath. Let them eliminate one another NOT Israel.
    Like Nancy Reagan once said,
    "Just say no."

    If anyone deserves a state, its the Kurds, Berbers and Western Sahara.

    If leftists in Israel agree to this deal its based 100% on trust of Arabs and all our security will be in their hands.

    The tens of thousands of victims of Oslo should import a good class action lawyer, from America, and sue the Labor Party for criminal negligence in the maiming and murder of thousands of Israelis.
    Hamas Schools Teaching Children How to Kill Israelis–with Real Guns
    Evelyn Gordon

    But the truth is that Israeli-Palestinian peace will never be made until Palestinian leaders do two things: stop teaching their children that killing Israelis is life’s greatest glory, and start providing their people with a decent life instead.

    It’s no wonder that, according to a new Pew poll, Palestinians are the biggest supporters of suicide bombings against civilians in the Islamic world.
    April 30, 2013

    • defcon 4

      The kurds were complicit in the genocide of 2.5 million Armenian and Assyrian Christians — they are, by and large, muslimes themselves.

  • Mutantone

    Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood want a return to the 1967 borders. Kerry is just using the same points as Hillary and Obama have been, Supply the Brotherhood with weapons funds and political support so they can attack and over throw the the Nation of Israel. It seems to be a common thread for the Obama administration support and expand the Muslims agenda against that of our Allie Israel.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    What will the Palestinians offer, enough land for the Israelis to be buried in, maybe but I
    think they would take the bodies and burn them. There is nothing to negotiate, Israelis
    will not lay down and be killed and will not flee and be targets for Islamist murderers.
    There will never be a real and true peace with the followers and lovers of evil, they
    being the Islamist Palestinians and all others of Islam………………………..William

  • hmurveit

    Good article, thanks for continuing to write the truth

    • defcon 4

      The truth is in very short supply these days — as the MSM makes clear in each and every statement they make about islam, on practically any day of the week.

  • buller0227 –

    The Arab League’s ‘Peace Process’ Deception
    | FrontPage Magazine

  • defcon 4

    The past land for peace deals don't seem to have ever resulted in peace. The Sinai has been given back TWICE to the Egyptian islamofascists. Did that stop islamofascist terrorism against Israel? Gaza has been made a self-governing territory. Has that stopped islamofascist terrorism against Israel, or has it INCREASED islamofascist terrorism against Israel?

  • Stan Squires

    I am from vancouver,canada and i wanted to say that the Arab League's involvement with the Palestine Peace process is not very good.There should be no compromises with israel on anything.The israeli gov. is the enemy of the palestinian people.Yasser Arafat contacted the Arab League a good many times when he was alive to help him.Not once did they provide him with any useful help.
    The palestinian people have long ago given up on the Arab League.The BDS campagne against israel got a lot of support around the world and it is proving to be useful.Also the fight against israeli apartheid got a lot of support.This is the kind of action that is needed against israel.The Arab League should be involved in that.Only by getting rid of israeli apartheid will there be peace.