The Arab peace initiative is one side of the story, not manna from heaven, writes Amin Howeidi* Originally, the initiative was Saudi. It was in Beirut that it was christened as the "Arab initiative". Full peace for Israel in return for the land it seized in 1967, we offered. But Israel wasn't impressed. Why give up land for peace, the Israelis thought. Why not peace for peace, for example? What interests me here is the term "initiative". Are we really discussing an initiative, or a declaration of intent? Initiatives are usually preceded by an exchange of opinion among the various parties. Someone then puts the ideas together and calls them an initiative. This is what Henry Kissinger used to do. He would shuttle among various capitals, collect views, think of formulas, and rigorously phrase his findings. He would travel thousands of miles to do that. And that's how he brokered peace agreements that survive to this day. Another example, the roadmap of President Bush cannot be called an initiative. It was a statement designed to soothe, placate or gain time. This is why the roadmap is dead and buried. President Bush's timing of the roadmap was wrong, although his timing is exquisite when it comes to setting off fires. The US president still cannot extinguish any of the fires he started, but that's a minor detail. Anyone can start a fire, but it takes a great mind to bring about peace. I wish the White House had someone within it like Metternich, the man who gave Europe 100 years of peace. The so-called Arab initiative was merely a declaration of intent, and one-sided at that. No communication took place beforehand, and the opponent's reaction was not explored. The declaration gave Israel something it always wanted: recognition. The strange thing is that this declaration was given away for free. We sold ourselves short; gave something for nothing. Now all we have is the occasional nod from President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. This is not the way to manage a crisis. Israel let the Beirut initiative die because it wants more. It always does. This reminds me of a story Henry Kissinger relates in one of his books. He was visiting Cairo in Anwar El-Sadat's time, and prior to the expulsion of Soviet experts from the country. Someone high up asked him, "What would you give us if we were to expel Soviet experts?" Kissinger says he didn't respond, for he realised that Cairo was willing to expel the experts and that it was just a matter of time. A few weeks later, he was going into a meeting of the National Security Council in the White House when the news came through that Egypt had expelled the Soviet experts. "What are you going to give Sadat in return?" he was asked. "Why should I give anything? He has already done it," Kissinger said. In politics, revealing one's intentions is like giving one's cards away. You cannot start negotiating by telling people what's on your mind. You only reveal your intentions once you know what how much you're getting in return. Politics is a big bazaar with everything up for sale, at the right price. Another story is worth telling here. When the Egyptians crossed the Suez Canal in 1973, President Sadat sent a telegram to the Americans, saying, "we don't intend to enlarge the confrontation or advance any further." The message was relayed to Israel and Kissinger started acting accordingly. So this Arab initiative, if you ask me, is just a declaration of intent. If you want to keep calling it an initiative, by all means do. But don't get your hopes up. The initiative was delivered by caesarean in Beirut, came out stillborn, and was buried in Riyadh. * The writer is former defence minister and chief of General Intelligence.
