Back

Arab Summit Threats

The Arab summit produced two demands and a thinly veiled threat:

1) An independent Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital;

2) “Land for Peace” – a misleading slogan; and

3) If the new Israeli government does not meet Arab expectations, violence and terrorism could result, and Israel will be to blame.

The first prejudiced the Final Status Negotiations. The second deliberately misreads U.S. Resolution 242. The third mocks the very idea of a “peace process” – threatening violence if Israel doesn’t capitulate to Arab demands prior to negotiations.


The Arab summit produced two demands and a thinly veiled threat:

1) An independent Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital;

2) “Land for Peace” – a misleading slogan; and

3) If the new Israeli government does not meet Arab expectations, violence and terrorism could result, and Israel will be to blame.

The first prejudiced the Final Status Negotiations. The second deliberately misreads U.S. Resolution 242. The third mocks the very idea of a “peace process” – threatening violence if Israel doesn’t capitulate to Arab demands prior to negotiations.

UN Resolution 242 has been the cornerstone of Arab-Israeli negotiations and U.S. policy since 1967. It would be well to examine it again:

“Just and lasting peace in the Middle East… should include the application of both of the following principles:

i. Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

ii. Termination of all claims or states or belligerency and respect for an acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries, free from threats or acts of force.”

The Resolution in the original French version deliberately states des (some) and not les (the) territory. Israel is not required to do (i) in order to induce Arabs to do (ii).

Professor Eugene Rostow, a noted international legal scholar and former Undersecretary of State, summed up the status of the Resolution. “Since Israel has already returned the Sinai, which constitutes over 90% of the territory occupied in 1967, a (further) settlement could satisfy Resolution 242 if transferred all or some or none of the (remaining territory).”

Arab threats are unlikely to produce further progress toward real peace. The Government of Israel is committed to movie forward with negotiations. Peace and stability in the region would be better served by serious negotiations without preconditions.