What Does the U.S. Guarantee?

According to some Arab press reports from New York, the Follow-up Committee for the Arab Peace Initiative authorized Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al-Thani, to request from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton written guarantees relating to the peace process in the Middle East before taking any additional initiatives related to peace.

This request comes after a meeting between Clinton and foreign ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, during which Clinton requested them to take steps toward normalization with Israel. However, participants gave her, according to the same sources, their refusal to provide free gifts to Israel, stressing that they want to see tangible progress on the Palestinian path, as well as the Lebanese and Syrian paths, before activating the fourth multilateral path between Arab countries and Israel.

The same reports inform that after consultations between the ministers, they agreed on one principle: “in return for U.S. demands from Arab countries, Arabs should ask for guarantees in writing, like the letter addressed by former U.S. President Bill Clinton to the late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat in 2000.” All this according to the Lebanese “Al-Nahar” paper, quoting an Arab minister in New York, without disclosing his identity, adding that “the Arab Initiative contains an important condition with regard to normalization, and it must be carried out with both parties fulfilling their obligations … However, Israel decided not to stop building settlements, and did not include Jerusalem in the equation… (Therefore) we should not expect the Arabs to make any concessions about Israel’s negative attitudes. This will not happen.”

These declarations, which have not been confirmed officially and which were not issued publicly by any of the Arab officials concerned, raise, in fact, two contradictory observations: one positive and one negative.

On the one hand, this collective Arab rejection of any normalization with Israel before coming to a comprehensive deal including a just settlement with Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese, is a good point to be highlighted and respected. That way the U.S. pressure will not sneak into Arab states individually so as to reach some formulas for the return of relations of one kind or another between any Arab country and Israel.

However, on the other hand, guarantee requests from Washington in this and other issues related to the Arab-Israeli conflict reflects a kind of naivety, since, originally, what proves that any U.S. administration will respect such guarantees? After all, we know that previous guarantees, whether written or oral, made to the late Yasser Arafat – and may be to others – were not respected?!

What if these guarantees seem to be contradictory, with previous guarantees made by Washington to Israelis… Who will have the last word?

We may not necessarily need an answer, not only because it is so axiomatic, but also because previous guarantees by former President George Bush to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, on the settlement blocs, Jewish State and others, are reality on the ground, while there is no guarantee that those were possible guarantees made by Washington. Palestinian and Arab absurdity in dealing with the settlement issue has reached a peak. There is a need for an honest and sincere introspection to choose a new and completely different approach. Otherwise, our officials will not only be accused of compromising, but of what is harshest and most bitter: misleading.