The peace process has not brought us one step closer to peace. Just the opposite, it has brought us closer to war. In fact the closest we have been since
The Annapolis Summit promoted the last iteration of it, without any success. If anything, it proved that the parties can’t agree on the terms. When pundits or diplomats argue that we know what the deal is, they ignore the fact that the parties can’t agree on it.
Avigdor Lieberman has rejected
The reason that this bitter pill was swallowed by
I will never agree to our waiving all the clauses - I believe there are 48 of them - and going directly to the last clause, negotiations on a permanent settlement. No. These concessions do not achieve anything. We will adhere to it to the letter, exactly as written. Clauses one, two, three, four - dismantling terrorist organizations, establishing an effective government, making a profound constitutional change in the Palestinian Authority. We will proceed exactly according to the clauses. We are also obligated to implement what is required of us in each clause, but so is the other side. They must implement the document in full.
Netanyahu was silent on Lieberman’s remarks and announced that his government would immediately review all elements of the peace process before announcing its position.
Meanwhile, Obama simply affirmed the two-state solution.
“In the Middle East, we share the goal of a lasting peace between
“That is a goal shared by Palestinians, Israelis, and people of good will around the world. That is a goal that the parties agreed to in the road map and at
While he committed to this goal, he did not commit to any part of the process including
Meanwhile, the Arabs set out their position on the peace process at the Doha Summit in late March. MEMRI reported that The Doha Summit was a defeat for the Saudi-Egyptian Camp 
After the summit, the Syrian president called it "the most successful summit of the last 20 years."  Indeed, the Iranian-Syrian camp had a number of achievements at the summit:
1) They prevented any discussion of the "Iranian threat," a concept that is at the heart of the Saudi-Egyptian alliance and over which a cold war is being waged between the two camps. 
2) Stipulations were added to the Saudi peace initiative such that it would be conditional not just on Israel's acceptance of it as it stands, but also on Israel's beginning to undertake its obligations stemming from the peace initiative's authoritative documents - namely, U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338 (which, in contrast with the peace initiative itself, do not commit all the Arab states to normalization). 
3) Emphasis was placed on the option of resistance in Bashar Al-Assad's speech.
This is hugely instructive. The Arabs did not support
By supporting the resistance they are rejecting the Roadmap. By rejecting the Roadmap, they are rejecting a Palestinian state. They don’t care about the Palestinians. They care about destroying
After forty years, their policy is still “no peace, no recognition, no negotiations”.
So where has the
On December 17, 1975, Henry Kissinger met with Sadun Hammadi, Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs. A transcript of this meeting  was published a couple of years ago. It discloses Kissinger’s attempts to assuage the concerns of Hammadi.
“Kissinger: I think, when we look at history, that when Israel was created in 1948, I don’t think anyone understood it. It originated in American domestic politics. It was far away and little understood. So it was not an American design to get a bastion of imperialism in the area. It was much less complicated: And I would say that until 1973 the Jewish community had enormous influence. It is only in the last two years, as a result of the policy we are pursuing, that it has changed,
We don’t need
We can’t negotiate about the existence of
I don’t agree
You mentioned new weapons. But they will not be delivered in the foreseeable future. All we agreed to is to study it, and we agreed to no deliveries out of current stocks. So many of these things won’t be produced until 1980, and we have not agreed to deliver them then. [..].
If the issue is the existence of Israe1, we can’t cooperate. But if the issue is more normal borders, we can cooperate.
Aide: Your Excellency, do you think a settlement would come through the Palestinians in the area? ‘How do you read it? Is it in your power to create such a thing?
Kissinger: Not in 1976. I have to be perfectly frank with you. I think the Palestinian identity has to be recognized in some form. But we need the thoughtful cooperation of the Arabs. It will take a year or a year and to do it, and will be a tremendous fight. An evolution is already taking place.
Aide: You think it will be part of a solution?
Kissinger: It has to be. No solution is possible without it. But the domestic situation is becoming favorable. More and more questions are being asked in Congress favorable to the Palestinians. (Emphases added)
President Bush offered some respite from this policy in his letter to Prime Minister Sharon prior to disengagement from
It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.
As part of a final peace settlement,
The EU, the PA and to some extent the U.S. are demanding Israel abide by past agreements, imaginary or real, while at the same time ignoring American commitments to Israel as set out in the Bush letter..
This was the goal of the
So what are we to make of the Arab Peace Initiative  which
2. Further calls upon
a. Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights to the lines of June 4, 1967 as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of
b. Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.
c. The acceptance of the establishment of a
Sovereign Independent Palestinian Stateon the Palestinian territories occupied since the 4th of June 1967 in the West Bank and Gazastrip, with east as its capital. Jerusalem
3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:
a. Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with
, and provide security for all the states of the region. Israel
b. Establish normal relations with
in the context of this comprehensive peace. Israel
4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.
5. 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.
If you are wondering what (4) means you are not alone. Essentially it means that if the solution to the refugee issue i.e., patriation leaves any refugees in
At least they are offering a “peace agreement”. Or are they? After the Initiative was reaffirmed in ‘07, AIPAC issued a Report,  which rejected it as an ultimatum.
The Arab League’s decision last week at a summit in Riyadh to reaffirm the 2002 Arab peace initiative could serve as the basis for dialogue between the Arabs and Israel if it is used as an opening to negotiations rather than as an ultimatum. However, the current positions of the Arab League—including support for violence and the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees—are not conducive to a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Israel is committed to exploring peace with the Palestinians and Arab states, but the Arabs have rejected negotiations and threatened
That’s it in a nutshell. Nothing has changed.
Some Israelis argue that
But most Israelis disagree. If the Arabs are not willing to negotiate or to make reasonable compromises, how can anyone have confidence in their peaceful intentions?
As to whether
The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.
Of course she can’t. Why trade tangible security for a temporary peace.
Besides the Arabs have presented it as a take it or leave it offer.
When Netanyahu met with Sen. Mitchell, he told him, "
A decision has been made in
Under this plan, Arab states will proceed with normalization of their ties to
Although a “regional “ solution is an advance over just dealing with the PA, Israel will be adverse to discussing final status issues at this time, will not want to cede the Golan, uproot 100,000 Israelis, return to the pre ’67 borders or permit the return of some refugees all of which are required by the Arab Peace Initiative. And she certainly will not want to accept “international security guarantees”. There is a long history of international security forces not doing their job in Sinai and in
How so? The Arab Peace Initiative weakens
This week the
Some suggest that the alternative to the two-state solution should be a bi-national single state. For Zionists, this is a non-starter. After all, the San Remo Conference in 1920,  awarded all of the Ottoman
in favour of the establishment in
This decision is binding in international law and thus the matter of who is entitled to Judea and
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with
Not only did the
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. . Thus it lies ill in the mouth for the
In 1947 the General Assembly of the United Nations, the successor to the failed League of Nations, passed the Partition Plan which proposed that two states, one Arab and one Jewish, be established. The General Assembly was thus violating the Mandate which had granted political rights only to Jews.
Nevertheless the Jews accepted it and formed their state,
Netanyahu has been clear. He won’t commit to a two-state solution and he doesn’t want to rule over the Palestinians. He wants to give them autonomy or limited sovereignty. .He is fully within his rights to do so. He deserves our full support.
The sooner we abandon the Arab Peace Initiative the better.
 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs
 Al-Sharq (
 See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 492, "An Escalating Regional Cold War - Part 1: The 2009 Gaza War," February 2, 2009, http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA49209.
 Kissinger transcript
 Bush- Sharon letters of 2004
 The Arab Peace Initiative
 The Arab Peace Initiative: Offer for Peace or Ultimatum.
 War and Peace - and Deceit - in Islam
 Saudi Press Agency
 Hamas Charter
 BBC Report
 Defensible Borders on the
 Maagar Mohot Survey Institute
 Fafo Institute
 Howard Grief, Nativ
 Myths and Facts
Ted Belman is a journalist. More of his work can be found on his blog www.israpundit.com.