Of all the key policy recommendations on the Middle East that have already been directed to the next US administration, the one that is most interesting is the Arab Peace Initiative.
This is not new, but its relevance in today’s geopolitical environment in the Middle East couldn’t be greater. Proposed by Saudi Arabia and approved by the Arab League in 2002 and again in 2007, the initiative calls for Israeli withdrawal from the Arab territories occupied since 1967 with the option for mutually agreed territorial swaps; the establishment of a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital and a “just” and “agreed upon” solution to the Palestinian refugee question in accordance with UN Resolution 194. In return, Arab states would normalise relations with Israel.
Concerns
According to Tel Aviv, the initiative is not a useful document because it lacks specifics and provides an ineffective mechanism to end the conflict. Washington shares these concerns. However, the changes that have recently swept over the region have created a new strategic context that is conducive to turning the initiative into reality.
First, the Arab states and Israel now face two common foes: a resurgent Iran and an extremist ideology as practised by ISIL and Al Qaeda. Together, Arab and Israeli governments have a much better chance of confronting these grave national security threats. Yet without a peace agreement that would formalise relations, the two sides are unable to work in tandem to help counter the forces of instability in the region. Israel needs the Arabs to secure its borders effectively and to avert the scenario of ISIL reaching the West Bank. Arab states could rely on Israel to help check Iran's expansionism.
Leadership shift
Second, leadership in the Arab world has shifted from Egypt to Saudi Arabia, and the latter has expressed a strong desire to execute bold foreign policy initiatives. By battling pro-Iranian Houthis in Yemen, the Saudis intend to send a stern message to Tehran that they will counter its meddling hand in the region. But Mohammed bin Salman, the Deputy Crown Prince, also wants to show the world that he is a man of peace. It’s possible he has already put out feelers about reviving the initiative.
Opportunities
Third, Syria as a confrontational state in the Arab-Israeli conflict is no more. While that presents problems, it also creates opportunities. The Golan Heights are Israeli-occupied Syrian territory, and this has been a major item in Arab-Israeli peace diplomacy. Even though Bashar Al Assad has lost international legitimacy and his country’s membership of the Arab League has been suspended, no Arab-Israeli peace agreement can last without Syria and Lebanon. However, that shouldn’t preclude an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, and arguably makes it more probable, now that Syria has collapsed. The initiative could be revised to reflect this new change and state explicitly that Israeli-Syrian peace would be negotiated following the end of the civil war and the creation of a new Syrian government.
Different focus
Fourth, there is a new generation in the region many of whom do not share the same taboos about Israel. With more than 30 per cent of the region’s population between the ages of 15 and 29, this generation is globally connected and better informed. Their focus is economic opportunity rather than armed struggle.
What matters
But process, framework, and details always matter. For the initiative to achieve its outcome, it has to have legs: a credible peace accord that would be acceptable to both Israelis and Palestinians. There is no substitute for Israelis and Palestinians negotiating directly, but the Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians would crucially serve as enablers, alongside the US. Led by Saudi Arabia, this coalition of Arab states has a unique advantage: they can legitimise an Israeli-Palestinian deal by placing it within a broader Arab-Israeli reconciliation. They also possess the necessary leverage to nudge the Palestinians towards an agreement and they can help address the Israelis’ concerns regarding borders, security and refugees. Israel fails to realise how much more invested the Arabs currently are in an outcome that helps them build a stronger team against Iran.
Several former US officials involved in the peace process find fault with the initiative. It's too ambitious, unsophisticated and unconventional, they say. Equally important, the sequencing isn't right. In today's Middle East, Syria is the priority, the argument goes. No Israeli-Palestinian deal will terminate the burning civil wars of the region, defeat ISIL or counter Iranian aggression. Finally, Arabs are domestically focused and not in a position to embark on complex diplomatic overtures. While most of this is true, critics are missing the point. To achieve serious progress on any of these challenges, deeper cooperation is a must.
Question of leadership
So let’s be clear: Israeli-Palestinian peace is not expected to establish order in the region and it is not an end in itself, but it would bring major players together like never before to address the region’s problems.
As always, this will require leadership from all sides. The Saudis say they are up for it. But Israeli, Palestinian, and even American leadership are big question marks. Mahmoud Abbas is possibly too weak to deliver and Benjamin Netanyahu is too strong to even bother. But those are not insurmountable challenges. The IDF, along with some in the Knesset, see a lot of good in the initiative, and it's possible they can pressure Mr Netanyahu. In Washington, the choice is likely to be between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Mrs Clinton has the experience and the regional relationships. But Trump is raw and unpredictable.
Washington has tried conventional means in the past to help solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, yet they all failed. With the arrival of a new administration, it would be wise to think more creatively about ways to break this vicious cycle in the Middle East. The massive turmoil in the region could be used to structure a set of incentives for Arabs, Israelis, and Palestinians. It is easy to find deficiencies in the Arab Peace Initiative, but with amendments that would be agreeable to both sides, it is exactly what a profoundly unstable Middle East needs: a game changer.
Bilal Saab is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council