In the wake of the Arab spring and amid a worsening crisis in Syria, it looks like the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has languished in the background of international diplomacy. On April 29th an Arab League delegation representing 22 countries tried to bring it back to the fore by revising the plan they first proposed over a decade ago.
In fact the 2002 peace initiative called for Israel’s complete withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, an eventual deal would probably involve minor land swaps. This implied that some Jewish settlements built on occupied land in the West Bank could remain part of Israel. Minor land swaps had already been conceded in principle in 2008 by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, in talks with Israel’s then prime minister, Olmert, before negotiations halted. But the Arab League’s latest announcement marks the first real step towards reviving the peace process since Barack Obama visited Israel in March and Mr Kerry began shuttling around the region. The Americans and the Arab League hope that Mr Abbas would alter his position that he return to the negotiating table.
While the American administration hailed the Arab League’s “very big step forward”, Palestinian and Israeli reactions were more guarded. The PLO said the announcement was in line with their official position. Hamas, the Islamist group which runs Gaza, rejected it outright, saying the Arab League had no authority to make concessions on the Palestinians’ behalf. Some Arab countries, resentful of thumb-sized Qatar’s démarche had different reactions.
Still, the participation of Arab League countries at an Israeli-Palestinian summit, which some diplomats hope to stage next month in Jordan’s capital, Amman, or in Washington might just bring the comatose peace process back to life. However, the big question that remains is that who of the Arab leaders enjoys the trust and confidence of the two major parties (Israelis and Palestinians) to be able to give a new impetus to the whole process?
Many political analysts and Middle East experts unanimously state that King Mohammed VI has positioned himself as commander of all faiths, and not just Islam, which signals to Christians and Jews that he is open-minded and a natural conduit between the three faiths. His position has always been clear : security for Israel and dignity for the Palestinians. If the West focuses on these two principles, as he has, the objective has a useful clarity and direction.
Because King Mohammed VI is the literal embodiment of moderate Islam, and simultaneously promotes a Western and democratic world view, he is uniquely positioned to offer the kind of insight on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that America desperately needs. While America should continue to play an integral role in establishing peace in the Middle East, the aid of a third party like Morocco would be invaluable.
Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both met with Mohammed VI during their terms to gain insight into the Middle East crisis, and Bush in particular relied on Morocco to promote a more democratic and progressive brand of Islam to the rest of the Arab world. When Barack Obama took office, King Mohammed VI wrote him a letter, suggesting the ways in which the president could communicate better with the Muslim world. This seems the perfect opportunity to seek the advice of someone better qualified to navigate through the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In his speech in Cairo, Obama rightly pointed out that Morocco was the first country to recognize America as an independent nation. Perhaps Obama would be wise to repay the favor, and recognize Morocco as an important delegate in advancing Middle East peace.
King Mohammed’s s inspirational words still ring in the ears of both Palestinians, Israelis, and the world community: “The world still had a long way to go before states and peoples learn to accept diversity. It was of utmost importance that the United Nations became the standard bearer of peace, tolerance, and mutual understanding and serve as a catalyst for a new form of cooperation; one based on solidarity and dedicated to achieving the dignity and well-being of all people.”
As the President of Jerusalem Committee, King Mohammed deployed great efforts to iniate a series of social, educational projects in Jerusalem for the benefit of Muslim and christian Palestinians. On the political level, Morocco praised the United Nations General Assembly’s decision to upgrade the status of the Palestinians to that of a “non-member observer state”.
Certainly, this would give a new impetus to the frozen Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
For all the Holocaust denying and minimizing in the Arab world, there is one leader in the Arab world who speaks out unabashedly about the horrors of the Holocaust, writes the chairman of the U.S. Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad, in the Philadelphia Inquirer:
“The leader of an Arab Muslim nation made some remarkable statements about the Holocaust – remarkable for their courage and respect for historical truth. In a largely unreported speech at the Royal Palace in Fez in 2009, Morocco’s King Mohammed VI called the Holocaust “one of the blots, one of the most tragic chapters in modern history.” The king added, “Amnesia has no bearing on my perception of the Holocaust, or on that of my people.”
Enjoying a wide credibility of the main conflicting parties in the Middle East, Morocco can be a major broker in the frozen peace process. Now the two main protagonists should show a total commitment to reach a comprehensive, just and lasting peace that would allow both Palestinians and Israelis to live side by side safely and in harmony. King Mohammed could help the peace dove to fly again.
