In Focus: In the absence of an alternative Arab countries can make as many reasonable demands as they want but unless they have a credible course of action when those demands are not met they will never be taken seriously, writes Galal Nassar The peace process was "dead", declared a gathering of Arab foreign ministers following the recent war in Lebanon. It died because it was left at Israel's mercy and must be revived through the intercession of the UN Security Council (UNSC), the ministers said in a meeting in Cairo on 20 August. They promised to urge the UNSC to meet in September and discuss a formula for settling the Arab-Israeli conflict within a fixed timetable and backed up with international guarantees. September came and went with no sign of progress. Then came October, and nothing was done. In November, the US vetoed an Arab resolution condemning the Beit Hanoun massacre. Correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot remember the UNSC ever doing anything tangible for the Arabs and their cause. The best resolution it ever passed, Resolution 242 of 1967, remains unimplemented to this day. Evidently, there is something in the very structure of the UNSC that makes it ineffective. All tangible steps towards peace have taken place outside the UNSC. These include the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of 1979, the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty of 1994. Even the Oslo agreement of 1993 and the US-sponsored roadmap, however limited in their impact, were envisioned outside the UN framework. Israel pulled out of Lebanon in 2000, and from Gaza in 2005, due to military pressure from the resistance. Why Arab ministers believe that things can change is beyond my comprehension. The UNSC cannot act as a fair arbitrator in the Arab-Israeli conflict so long as the US flexes its veto muscle at every turn. The UNSC did nothing when Israel refused to accept an international team charged with investigating the massacre in Jenin. It has done nothing to prevent Israel from continuing the construction of the separating wall. The situation on the ground daily gets worse. There was a time when the US was, theoretically at least, opposed to the building of settlements and concerned about the rights of refugees but not anymore. In April 2004, President Bush made it clear that he was opposed to the dismantling of major Israeli settlements and the return of refugees. Despite its recent humiliation in Lebanon, Israel still feels militarily superior. The Israeli government is less under pressure from peace activists at home than from the war mongers. As things stand, Israel is unlikely to offer substantial concessions leading to a historic settlement. At best, Israel seems willing to address minor issues such as the detainees and the Shebaa Farms while Iran, the one regional actor that lends moral support to the Arab cause, is viewed with suspicion both inside and outside the region. At the same time Arab officialdom appears to be far more interested in posturing than making actual progress. For years Arab summits have issued initiatives that proved irrelevant, the Fez Initiative of 1982, and the Beirut Initiative of 2002, among them. Arab officials have repeatedly shown themselves unable to pressure either Israel or the US. The Arabs cannot expect their gestures to bear fruit unless they are backed by an alternative course -- or courses -- of action. The Arabs should formulate a clear political discourse, one that addresses every detail of a peace settlement with Israel, get the Palestinians to endorse it, and then back it with a credible threat. The threat doesn't need to be military. There are dozens of diplomatic, economic and legal options. Don't underestimate the power of non-military forms of pressure. India gained its independence through peaceful resistance and South Africans ended apartheid through a mix of political and military struggle. Arab resistance -- not least in Lebanon -- has proved effective more than once. The Arab official system should back up its diplomacy with a package of alternatives, should that diplomacy fall once again on deaf ears. There is no point in bothering the UNSC otherwise.
