Background on the Panel Discussion:
The panel discussion focused on the lessons learned from the Madrid Conference and the path forward for Arab-Israeli peacemaking. The panel comprised distinguished individuals: His Royal Highness Prince Turki al-Faisal, His Excellency Eitan Ben-Sur, Nabil Shaath, and Nimrod Novick.

Prince Turki al-Faisal’s Perspectives:
Madrid Conference’s Accomplishments: Brought Arabs and Israelis to the negotiating table, leading to subsequent developments like Oslo and Syrian-Israeli negotiations. Facilitated multi-party talks in various Arab capitals, which unfortunately ended due to the collapse of Oslo discussions. Public Perception: Madrid was viewed as a serious attempt to end the conflict and held hope for a potential resolution. Support for America in the Arab and Islamic world was at an all-time high after the Gulf War.

Eitan Ben-Tsur’s Perspectives:
Historical Significance: Regards the Madrid Conference and process as pivotal in Israel’s history and the Middle East. Established a mechanism for Israel to negotiate directly with its Arab neighbors, including the Palestinians. Led to the Oslo Accords, which provided a framework for Palestinian self-rule.

Common Themes Emerge:
The Madrid Conference served as a significant breakthrough, bringing Arabs and Israelis together for direct negotiations. The conference’s legacy includes the Oslo Accords and subsequent diplomatic efforts. Public opinion in the Arab and Islamic world initially perceived Madrid as a genuine attempt to resolve the conflict.

Leadership and Diplomacy:
Secretary Baker’s leadership, vision, and diplomatic skills were crucial in making the Madrid Peace Conference a success. He recognized the unique opportunity for peace and ensured that it was not missed.

Interwoven Elements of Peace:
The Madrid process addressed the three elements of peace, security, and territory as interconnected. Success in one element required addressing the other two.

Fairness, Recognition, and Compromise:
The American administration emphasized fairness, recognition of basic interests, and the need for compromise. President Bush highlighted the importance of give and take in the peace process.

Madrid as a Sole Opportunity:
The Madrid process was seen as a unique chance to bring the Middle East towards comprehensive peace. It was recognized that without compromise, the process would be doomed.

Historic Significance for Palestinians:
The Madrid Peace Conference marked a significant moment for Palestinians. It was the first time they felt the United States’ genuine commitment to resolving the conflict.

Sha’ath’s Perspective on Madrid:
Despite the absence of the PLO and Jerusalem representatives, the Madrid conference was successful due to skillful diplomacy and clear U.S. commitments. The U.S. letter of assurance on implementing agreements was crucial in convincing Palestinians to participate without Yasser Arafat.

Sha’ath’s Role and Observations:
Sha’ath was not allowed inside the meetings but communicated with delegation members surreptitiously. He believed the Madrid compromise was worthwhile and highlighted the importance of the U.S. $10 billion loan guarantee deal.

Madrid and Oslo’s Significance:
Sha’ath emphasized that peace between Arabs and Israelis is doable, as demonstrated during the Arafat-Rabin era. He stressed that the post-Madrid and Oslo periods will be discussed in the next question.

Individual vs. Circumstances in History:
Speaker 02 believes that individual leadership, particularly Secretary Baker’s unwavering resolve, was more influential than circumstances in making the peace process possible. The circumstances alone would not have guaranteed success under different administrations. Presidential backing and effective use of American soft power were key factors in the Madrid process.

Madrid Concept:
Speaker 02 highlights the creativity and usefulness of the Madrid concept. The bilateral negotiation framework for peace and multilateral framework for regional issues addressed Israeli concerns and fears.

Historical Filters and Security Concerns:
Israel’s historical experiences influence its perception of regional power dynamics. Despite its military strength, Israel feels a sense of insecurity.

Framework for Peace Recognition:
The Madrid Conference provided a framework for peace recognition that Israel had been seeking. Previous Prime Minister Shamir rejected a similar concept in 1987, but circumstances changed.

Two Schools of Thought on US Policy:
There are two contrasting views on US policy in the Middle East peace process: The US cannot want peace more than the parties themselves. Peace in the Middle East is in the strategic interest of the US. The Madrid Conference reflected the latter view, compelling the parties to engage.

Madrid Model and Future Negotiations:
Edward Djerejian poses the question of replicating the Madrid model in future negotiations.

Nabil Sha’ath’s Perspective:
Negotiations must have two essential requirements: Adherence to agreed-upon terms of reference. Implementation of agreed-upon terms. After 20 years of negotiations, the Madrid Conference terms have been abandoned by Israel. Agreements signed in Oslo and after, including the roadmap, have not been implemented. The Palestinians have fulfilled their obligations, such as maintaining security and pursuing non-violent goals. Meaningful negotiations require a time frame, as outlined in the Madrid Conference. Without credible negotiations, there is a risk of further land loss and delayed peace.

Eitan’s Perspective on Terms of Reference:
Edward Djerejian seeks the Israeli perspective on terms of reference from Eitan.

Missed Opportunities and the Madrid Peace Process:
Eitan Ben-Tsur criticizes the one-sided historical narrative presented by his colleague, emphasizing the need for a more balanced view of the Madrid Peace Process. He highlights the far-reaching proposals made by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to President Abbas, which were beyond the consensus of Israeli public opinion, and expresses regret over the lack of a response.

The Importance of Mechanism and Diplomacy:
Ben-Tsur emphasizes the strength of the Madrid Peace Process’ mechanism and meticulous diplomacy, arguing that personal disenchantment should not overshadow the potential for success. He believes that if the process had continued, the Middle East could have been transformed, with comprehensive diplomatic and economic relations, as well as people-to-people development.

The Role of the Oslo Option:
Ben-Tsur expresses his view that the shift to the Oslo option sidetracked the potential progress of the Madrid Peace Process, preventing a more favorable outcome. He shares an anecdote about a conversation with Dr. Abdul El-Shafi, who expressed regret that the PLO had not been incorporated into the Madrid process, believing it would have led to a better result.

Terms of Reference for the Next Phase:
The panel discusses the importance of clear terms of reference (TORs) for the success of the next phase of peace negotiations. Nimrod Barkan emphasizes the lessons learned from the Madrid conference, where the structure and mechanism were critical to its success. He proposes that the concept of a “second Madrid” already exists within the framework of the Saudi or Arab Peace Initiative, which provides a comprehensive approach to bridging Madrid and the next phase.

The Saudi/Arab Peace Initiative:
The panel recognizes the significance of the Saudi/Arab Peace Initiative, which offers a historic breakthrough by proposing that the entire Arab world would recognize Israel within the context of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. Edward Djerejian highlights the importance of these terms of reference, questioning how long they can remain on the table without progress being made.

Fahd Plan:
The Fahd Plan, proposed in 1981, was a significant Arab initiative that recognized Israel’s existence as a state with territorial definition. It was the first time the Arab world acknowledged Israel’s legitimacy, although it avoided mentioning Israel’s name directly. The plan was initially rejected by President Assad of Syria but later agreed upon by all Arab states, including Syria, in 1982.

Arab Peace Initiative:
The Arab Peace Initiative, launched in 2002, was a comprehensive framework for peace between Arab states and Israel. It envisioned normalization, diplomatic exchange, trade, and an end to hostilities, with defined borders, recognized capitals, and a mutually agreed-upon solution to the refugee problem. The initiative is still supported by the Arab League and Arab countries and is considered irreplaceable.

Importance of the Arab Peace Initiative:
The initiative provides a clear roadmap for a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It addresses the core issues of the conflict, including borders, refugees, and the status of Jerusalem. The initiative offers a comprehensive approach that goes beyond negotiations and envisions a future of peaceful coexistence.

Criticism of the Arab Peace Initiative:
Critics argue that the initiative is unrealistic and fails to address the underlying causes of the conflict. They question whether Israel is willing to make the necessary concessions for a just and lasting peace. Some critics also argue that the initiative is too vague and does not provide a clear path forward.

Turki al-Faisal’s Perspective:
Turki al-Faisal emphasizes the urgency of resolving the Middle East conflict, particularly the Palestinian issue. He views the Arab Peace Initiative as essential and irreplaceable, arguing that there is no viable alternative. He calls for decisive action and a clear roadmap for peace, moving beyond endless negotiations and rhetoric.

US Involvement:
Turki al-Faisal acknowledges that American leaders have often viewed the Middle East conflict as a luxury that they can choose to address or ignore. He emphasizes that for people in the region, the conflict is a matter of life and death, with daily consequences and bloodshed. He expresses hope that US leaders will commit to resolving the conflict and take concrete steps to implement a comprehensive peace plan.

Importance of U.S. Involvement in the Middle East:
U.S. cannot ignore the Middle East as it tends to have global repercussions. The Middle East peace process can show up on the U.S. doorstep one way or another.

Arab Peace Initiative:
Nabil Sha’ath’s involvement in the development of the Arab Peace Initiative. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia’s approval and delight at the high Israeli public support for the Arab Peace Initiative. Opportunity for a breakthrough in peace between Arabs and Israelis.

Madrid Conference and Arab-Israeli Peace:
Madrid Conference brought together Arab states, Palestinians, Israelis, and major global players. The idea of the Quartet (U.S., Soviet Union, Europe, and the United Nations) emerged from the Madrid Conference. Arab involvement and proposals, such as King Abdullah’s peace proposal, can facilitate Palestinian progress in negotiations.

Palestinian Unity and Arab Spring:
Unity between Palestinian factions, particularly Fatah and Hamas, is crucial for successful negotiations. The Arab Spring, composed of nationalists and Islamists, has shown the strength of Islamists in democratic processes.

Ghaddafi’s Statement on Islamist Participation:
Ghaddafi’s statement acknowledging the role of Islamists in Tunisia’s parliament highlights their growing influence.