عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

Amr Moussa: Israel Reacted With Negativity to Arab Peace Initiative

Amr Moussa: Israel Reacted With Negativity to Arab Peace Initiative
TT
TT

Amr Moussa: Israel Reacted With Negativity to Arab Peace Initiative

Amr Moussa: Israel Reacted With Negativity to Arab Peace Initiative

In the fourth episode of excerpts from the biography of former Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa - published by Dar El-Shorouk and edited and documented by Khaled Abu Bakr – Asharq Al-Awsat reviews Moussa’s efforts and the work of the Arab League on the Palestinian file.

In his upcoming book, “The Years of the Arab League”, Moussa dedicates two chapters of 66 pages to talk about the birth of the Arab Peace Initiative at the 2002 Beirut Summit, launched by the late Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, the Palestinian division between Fatah and Hamas over the Palestinian file, the Annapolis conference for peace, and then the Arab division in light of the aggression on Gaza in 2009.

In these excerpts of the first chapter, Moussa narrates the details of the Arab Peace Initiative and his role in drafting some of its provisions to overcome some of the differences over it.

He says that he assumed the position of Arab League Secretary-General while the second Palestinian Intifada was ongoing. The Israeli intransigence was continuous and even escalating, so was the stalemate paralyzing the “peace process.” Since US President George W. Bush officially assumed office on Jan. 20, 2001, until the events of Sep.11 of the same year, his administration did not present any political initiative to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Moussa says that the US administration regarded the Palestinian uprising as acts of violence, which should be only addressed with security measures.

However, things changed after 9-11, Moussa recounts.

He says that after the attacks in New York, while the American forces were completing their preparations for the invasion of Afghanistan and the US administration was busy mobilizing a wide international coalition to support the “war on terror”, Bush declared that the “establishment of a Palestinian state has always been part of the American vision as long as Israel’s right to exist is respected…”

The former Arab League secretary-general says in this regard: “In fact, as soon as I heard those statements, which are the first by Bush on a Palestinian state, I considered them as nothing more than a flawed operation, with its meanings and goals; at that time, I was aware that the man needed the support of Arabs and Muslims in his next war against some of their countries, and therefore, he had no objection to flirting with them on the central issue, which is the Palestinian cause. What confirmed my conclusion is that nearly five days after these statements, specifically on Oct. 7, 2001, the United States began its war on Afghanistan.”

Friedman and the Birth of the “Arab Initiative”

Moussa recounts that Thomas Friedman, a famous columnist for The New York Times, published on Feb. 6, 2002, a letter to Arab leaders purportedly on behalf of US President George W. Bush - under the title, “Dear Arab League.”

The letter says: “You’re the ones with the power to really reshape the diplomacy, not me. And here is my advice for how to do it. You have an Arab League summit set for March in Lebanon. I suggest your summit issue one simple resolution: “The 22 members of the Arab League say to Israel that in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the June 4, 1967, lines -- in the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, and on the Golan Heights -- we offer full recognition of Israel, diplomatic relations, normalized trade, and security guarantees. Full peace with all 22 Arab states for full withdrawal.”

Moussa says that less than a week later, Friedman met Prince Abdullah, then crown prince, on his ranch near Riyadh. The American journalist wrote the details of that interview, which included the announcement for the first time of what was known as the “Prince Abdullah’s Peace Initiative in the Middle East”, before it was adopted by 22 Arab countries at the Beirut Summit on March 28, 2002, to become the “Arab Peace Initiative.”

“For my part, I say that the content of Friedman’s letter was preceded by a long discussion that extended throughout my last year as Minister of Foreign Affairs of Egypt and first year as Secretary-General of the Arab League, between me and him (Friedman) in Davos, on the best and most effective ways to lay the foundations for a balanced peace that takes into account the basic needs of both parties.”

Moussa adds: “Prince (King) Abdullah was the only one who had the status that qualifies him to present the Arab initiative… He had tremendous credibility with Arab public opinion, all Arab governments, and the world, and hence his proposal or initiative was a historic step that deserves full support.”

Syrian-Lebanese pressure to dicker over the initiative

Moussa says that the Syrians were not comfortable with the initiative of Prince Abdullah, as he did not consult with them before announcing it in The New York Times.

“I think that the Emir set his sights on (the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s) experience with the Syrians. He decided not to consult or coordinate with them before formulating the initiative, for fear that they would hamper it before its announcement.

Moussa adds that the Syrians did not openly declare their anger, but focused their efforts on criticizing the “full normalization”, which was mentioned in the initiative.

“At the same time, the Syrians brilliantly rushed to use the card of the “Palestinian refugees” and “the right of return”, which was not mentioned in the published details of the initiative. They were well aware of the Palestinian and Lebanese sensitivity to this issue because some Lebanese sects believe that the settlement of about 350,000 Palestinian refugees, most of whom are Sunni Muslims, distorts the demographic balance in Lebanon.”

Moussa continues: “On March 3, 2002 (prior to the Beirut summit and perhaps a prelude to it), Bashar Al-Assad made an official visit to Beirut. It was the first visit of a Syrian head-of-state to the Lebanese capital in more than fifty years. During the visit, Assad and Lebanese President Emile Lahoud issued a joint statement in which they did not explicitly refer to Prince Abdullah’s initiative, but said: “A comprehensive settlement with Israel must allow the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes and the removal of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.”

After Assad’s visit, the Saudis quietly withdrew the term “full normalization” from the official statements paving the way for the initiative. In this context, on March 10, Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal described the initiative as offering Israel “complete peace” in exchange for withdrawal to the 1967 borders.

The 2002 Beirut Summit

“On the morning of the opening of the Beirut Summit on March 27, 2002, Prince Saud Al-Faisal invited me to an early breakfast (about an hour before the arrival of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Syria, Faruq Al-Sharaa, for the same invitation). I noticed that he wanted to be alone with Saud… I had to formulate the initiative in its final form, leaving the issue of refugees and normalization until the end of the Syrian-Saudi talks. I sat writing at a distant table, but in the same hall. I intended to write the text in the presence of Syria, and to present the text to Saud in the presence of Sharaa.”

Moussa continues: “We were on the sixth floor of the famous Phoenicia Hotel in Beirut, and in the hall dedicated for VIP guests… I saw tension on Farouk Al-Sharaa’s face and little patience with Saud…”

“The truth is that Syria’s position added to the initiative and did not weaken it. I do not see that Syria was opposed to the idea of the initiative in itself, and I also assert that it was keen not to clash with (King) Abdullah. The important thing is that after the understanding that took place between Prince Saud and Farouk Al-Sharaa, I joined them… A discussion took place about the final wording, and Prince Saud said that Amr Moussa would be in charge of finalizing it.”

“I said that I will quickly prepare it and present it to each of them - perhaps while they are sitting here - before we print it and present it to the other ministers… Saud quickly viewed it and agreed to it, while Farouk al-Sharaa read it carefully, then stopped at the expression, “normal relations”, in a paragraph that says: “Establishing normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace.”

I told him: This is less than the complete normalization, which you have reservations about.” So he kept silent and did not comment, which I considered as a consent to the wording.”

Moussa recounts how Syria and Lebanon were opposed to the broadcasting of a speech by Yasser Arafat, who was besieged in Ramallah. He says he was frustrated when he saw that the position of the summit or some of its members was not sound at all, neither in terms of form nor in content, and made Israel smile sarcastically at the attitude of the Arabs towards the Palestinian President.

A negative Israeli-American response

Moussa says he did not expect a positive response from the Israelis to the Arab initiative.

“Because it will lure them into negotiating with the Arabs as a group on the Palestinian issue, a position that they have always rejected. The second reason that made me rule out a positive response from Israel is that the initiative is selling them “full normalization”… in exchange for the Arab land and the borders of June 4, 1967. In fact, based on my experience, the Israeli strategy seeks to win “free normalization” from the Arabs without the need to forfeit the land that is important to its national security.”

The former Arab League secretary-general says that he was surprised by the tepid American response to the initiative “even though many US sources and institutions were pushing for its issuance from the 2002 summit so that the Israelis could be “reassured” and the peace process moved forward.”

“Yes, the initial American reaction to the initiative was tepid, with State Department spokesman Richard Boucher describing it as just “an important and positive step.” A few days later, in the same tone, Secretary of State Colin Powell described it as an “important step,” but he stressed the need for more details about it (as if they were not aware of it!)”

In special agreement with Dar El Shorouk - all rights reserved.

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

Report: Europe’s Options in the Strait of Hormuz Are Few and Risky

A cargo ship in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from northern Ras al-Khaimah, near the border with Oman’s Musandam, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in United Arab Emirates, March 11, 2026. (Reuters file)
A cargo ship in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from northern Ras al-Khaimah, near the border with Oman’s Musandam, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in United Arab Emirates, March 11, 2026. (Reuters file)
TT
TT

Report: Europe’s Options in the Strait of Hormuz Are Few and Risky

A cargo ship in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from northern Ras al-Khaimah, near the border with Oman’s Musandam, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in United Arab Emirates, March 11, 2026. (Reuters file)
A cargo ship in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from northern Ras al-Khaimah, near the border with Oman’s Musandam, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in United Arab Emirates, March 11, 2026. (Reuters file)

When senior officials from 40 countries met virtually this week to discuss how to bring shipping traffic back to the Strait of Hormuz, Italy’s foreign minister had a proposal. He urged them to establish a “humanitarian corridor” allowing safe passage for fertilizer and other crucial goods headed to impoverished nations.

The plan, described after the meeting by Italian officials, was one of several competing proposals from Europe and beyond that were meant to prevent the Iran war from causing widespread hunger. But it was not endorsed by the envoys on the call, and the meeting ended with no concrete plan to reopen the strait, militarily or otherwise, reported the New York Times.

European leaders are under pressure from US President Donald Trump to commit military assets, immediately, to end Iran’s blockage of the strait and tame a growing global energy and economic crisis. They have refused to meet his demands by sending warships now. Instead, they are hotly debating what to do to help unclog the vital shipping lane once the war ends.

But they are struggling to rally around a plan of action.

That partly reflects the slow gears of diplomacy in Europe and the sheer number of nations, including Gulf states, that are invested in safeguarding the strait once the war ends. Many nations involved in the talks, including Italy and Germany, have insisted that any international effort be blessed by the United Nations, which could slow action further. Military leaders will take up the issue in discussions next week.

More than anything, the struggle reflects how difficult it could be to actually secure the strait under a fragile peace — for Europe or for anyone else. None of the options available to Europe, the Gulf states and other countries look foolproof, even under the assumption that the major fighting will have stopped.

Naval escorts

French officials, including President Emmanuel Macron, have repeatedly raised the possibility that French naval vessels could help escort merchant ships through the strait after the war ends.

American officials have pushed for Europeans and other allies, like Japan, to escort ships sailing under their own countries’ flags.

Naval escorts are expensive. Also, their air defense systems alone might not be sufficient to stop some types of attacks, like drone strikes, should Iran choose to start firing again.

“What does the world expect, what does Donald Trump expect, from let’s say a handful or two handfuls of European frigates there in the Strait of Hormuz,” Defense Minister Boris Pistorius of Germany said last month, “to achieve what the powerful American Navy cannot manage there alone?”

Sweep for mines

German and Belgian officials, among others, say they are prepared to send minesweepers to clear the strait of explosives after the war.

Western military leaders aren’t convinced that Iran has actually mined the strait, in part because some Iranian ships still pass through it. So while minesweepers might be deployed as part of a naval escort, they might not have much to do.

Help from above

Another option is sending fighter jets and drones to intercept any Iranian air assaults on ships. American officials have pushed Europe to do this.

It is quite expensive and still not guaranteed to work. Iran can attack ships with a single soldier in a speedboat, and if just a few attempts succeed, that could be enough to spook insurers and shipowners out of attempting passage.

Diplomacy

Another option are negotiations and economic leverage to pressure Iran to refrain from future attacks, and deploy a variety of military means to enforce that. This effort would go beyond Europe. On Thursday, the German foreign ministry called on China to use its influence with Iran “constructively” to help end the hostilities.

This option is expensive and still not guaranteed. Negotiations seem to have done little to stop the fighting. But this may be Europe’s best bet, for lack of a better one.

What if none of that works?

Iranian officials said this week that they would continue to control traffic through the strait after the war. They have already made plans to make ships pay tolls for passing through the strait, which is supposed to be an unfettered waterway under international law.

A continued blockage risks global economic disaster. Countries around the world rely on shipments through the strait for fuel and fertilizer, among other necessities.

In some regions, shortages loom. In others, like Europe, high oil, gas and fertilizer prices have raised the specter of spiking inflation and cratering economic growth.

“The big threat right now is stagflation,” said Hanns Koenig, a managing director at Aurora Energy Research, a Berlin consultancy. “You’ve got higher prices, and they strangle the tiny growth we would have seen this year.”

*Jim Tankersley for the New York Times

Features

US Military Jets Hit in Iran War Are the First Shot Down by Enemy Fire in Over 20 Years

An F-15E Strike Eagle turns toward the Panamint range over Death Valley National Park, Calif., on Feb. 27, 2017. (AP)
An F-15E Strike Eagle turns toward the Panamint range over Death Valley National Park, Calif., on Feb. 27, 2017. (AP)
TT
TT

US Military Jets Hit in Iran War Are the First Shot Down by Enemy Fire in Over 20 Years

An F-15E Strike Eagle turns toward the Panamint range over Death Valley National Park, Calif., on Feb. 27, 2017. (AP)
An F-15E Strike Eagle turns toward the Panamint range over Death Valley National Park, Calif., on Feb. 27, 2017. (AP)

Iran shooting down two American military jets marks an exceedingly rare assault for the US that has not happened in more than 20 years and shows Iran’s continued ability to hit back despite President Donald Trump asserting it has been “completely decimated.”

The attacks came five weeks after US and Israeli strikes first pounded Iran, with Trump saying earlier this week that Tehran's “ability to launch missiles and drones is dramatically curtailed."

Iran shot down a US F15-E Strike Eagle fighter jet Friday, with one service member getting rescued and the search still underway for a second, US officials say. Iranian state media also said a US A-10 attack aircraft crashed after being hit by Iranian defense forces.

The last time a US warplane was shot down by enemy fire in combat was an A-10 Thunderbolt II during the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, said retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, a former F-16 fighter pilot.

But, he said, that’s because the US had largely been fighting insurgents who didn’t have the same anti-aircraft capabilities. The fact that there have not been more fighter jets lost in Iran, Cantwell said, is a testament to the capabilities of US forces.

"The fact that this hasn’t happened until now is an absolute miracle,” said Cantwell, who served four combat tours and is now a senior resident fellow at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. “We’re flying combat missions here, they are being shot at every day.”

Shoulder-fired missile likely used, experts say

US Central Command said in a statement Wednesday that American forces have flown more than 13,000 missions in the Iran war while striking more than 12,300 targets.

After more than a month of punishing US-Israeli airstrikes, a degraded Iranian military nonetheless remains a stubborn foe. Its steady stream of strikes against Israel and Gulf Arab neighbors have been causing regional upheaval and global economic shock.

When it comes to American dominance over Iran's airspace, there’s still a distinction between air superiority and air supremacy, said Behnam Ben Taleblu, Iran program senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish Washington think tank.

“A disabled air defense system is not a destroyed air defense system,” he said. “We shouldn’t be shocked that they’re still fighting.”

American planes have been flying missions at lower altitudes, which makes them more vulnerable to Iran's missiles, Taleblu said. It’s possible that Iran fired at the F-15 with a surface-to-air missile, but it's more likely that a portable, shoulder-fired missile was used, he said. Those are much harder to detect and reflect how Iran is “weak but still lethal.”

“This is a regime that is fighting for its life,” he said.

Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel and a senior defense adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, agreed that a shoulder-fired missile was likely used against the fighter jet.

Nonetheless, the American air war against Iran has been a “tremendous success” so far, he said.

To put things in perspective, he said the loss rate for American warplanes flying over Germany during World War II was 3% at one point, which would equal about 350 warplanes in the US war against Iran.

“But then there’s the political side — you have an American public that is accustomed to fighting bloodless wars,” Cancian said. “Then a large part of the country doesn’t support the war. So to them, any loss is unacceptable.”

Pilots are trained on what to do if their plane is hit

The last US jet shot down in combat was struck by an Iraqi surface-to-air missile over Baghdad on April 8, 2003. The pilot safely ejected and was rescued, according to the Air Force.

In high-threat environments like missions over Iran, Cantwell, the retired general, said an aviator's blood pressure goes up and they become highly alert to incoming missiles. Those are typically either infrared- or radar-guided missiles, he said, requiring different evasive tactics.

If they are hit and need to eject from their aircraft, they are trained on what to do next, he said.

Pilots learn to check for wounds after a violent ejection and the shock of a missile explosion and, most crucially, how they are going to communicate their location so rescuers can find them.

At the same time, he said, the enemy is likely working to intercept the communications or even spoof the location.

Helicopters are more at risk than other aircraft

The planes that went down Friday were not the first crewed American aircraft to be lost overall in Iran.

A military helicopter and airplane exploded in 1980 during an aborted mission to rescue several dozen American hostages at the US embassy in Tehran, according to the Air Force Historical Support Division.

After a series of setbacks, including severe dust storms and mechanical failures, the mission was called off. As the aircraft took off, the rotor blades of one of the RH-53 helicopters collided with an EC-130 aircraft full of fuel and both exploded, killing eight.

More US helicopters have been shot down in recent decades, including a MH-47 Army Chinook helicopter that was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade in Afghanistan in 2005, killing 16. Helicopters are more dangerous because “the lower and the slower, the more susceptible you are,” Cantwell said.

That’s why those who went out on this week's rescue missions, likely in helicopters, he said, did “such a brave and honorable act.”

Features

Iran Leaders Join Crowds on Tehran’s Streets to Project Control in Wartime

An Iranian flag is seen on a residential building that was damaged by recent strikes at Vahdat town in Karaj, southwest of Tehran on April 3, 2026. (AFP)
An Iranian flag is seen on a residential building that was damaged by recent strikes at Vahdat town in Karaj, southwest of Tehran on April 3, 2026. (AFP)
TT
TT

Iran Leaders Join Crowds on Tehran’s Streets to Project Control in Wartime

An Iranian flag is seen on a residential building that was damaged by recent strikes at Vahdat town in Karaj, southwest of Tehran on April 3, 2026. (AFP)
An Iranian flag is seen on a residential building that was damaged by recent strikes at Vahdat town in Karaj, southwest of Tehran on April 3, 2026. (AFP)

After more than a month of being stalked by targeted assassinations, Iran's leadership has adopted a new tactic to show it is still in control - with senior officials walking openly in the streets among small crowds who have gathered in support of the regime.

In recent days, Iran's president and foreign minister have separately mixed with groups of several hundred people in central Tehran. On Tuesday, state television aired footage of the two posing for selfies, talking to members of the public and shaking hands with supporters who had gathered in public areas.

According to insiders and analysts, the appearances are part of a calculated effort by Iran's theocratic leadership to project resilience and authority — not only over the vital Strait of Hormuz but also over the population — despite a sustained US-Israeli campaign aimed at "obliterating" it.

One insider close to the hardline establishment said such public outings are intended to show that the regime is "unshaken by strikes and that it remains in control and vigilant" as the war grinds on.

The US-Israeli war ‌on Iran began on ‌February 28 with the killing of veteran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several senior military ‌commanders ⁠in waves of ⁠strikes that have since continued to target top officials.

Iran's new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has not been seen in public since taking over on March 8 from his father. Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, meanwhile, was removed from Israel's hit list amid mediation efforts last month, including by Pakistan, to bring Tehran and Washington together for talks to end the war.

Talks aimed at ending the war have since appeared to have petered out, as Tehran brands US peace proposals "unrealistic". Against that backdrop, recent public appearances by President Masoud Pezeshkian and Araqchi appear designed to project defiance, if not a convincing display of public support.

A senior Iranian source said officials' public presence demonstrates that "the establishment is not intimidated by Israel's targeted killing of top Iranian ⁠figures".

Asked whether Iran's foreign minister or president were on any sort of kill list, an Israeli ‌military spokesperson, Nadav Shoshani, said on Friday he would not "speak about specific personnel."

NIGHTLY RALLIES TO ‌SHOW RESILIENCE

Despite widespread destruction, Tehran appears emboldened by surviving weeks of intense US-Israeli attacks, firing on Gulf countries hosting US troops and demonstrating its ability ‌to effectively block the Strait of Hormuz.

On Wednesday, US President Donald Trump vowed more aggressive strikes on Iran, without offering a timeline ‌for ending hostilities. Tehran responded by warning the United States and Israel that "more crushing, broader and more destructive" attacks were in store.

Encouraged by clerical rulers, supporters of the regime take to the streets each night, filling public squares to show loyalty even as bombs rain down across the country.

Analysts say the establishment is also seeking to raise the "political and reputational" cost of the strikes at a time when civilian casualties are deeply disturbing for Iranians.

Omid Memarian, ‌a senior Iran analyst at DAWN, a Washington-based think tank, said the decision to send officials into gatherings reflects a layered strategy, including an effort to sustain the morale of core supporters ⁠at a moment of acute pressure.

"The system ⁠relies heavily on this base; if its supporters withdraw from public space, its ability to project control and authority weakens significantly," Memarian said.

Speaking to state television, some in the crowds voice unwavering loyalty to Iran's leadership; others oppose the bombing of their country regardless of politics; and some have a stake in the system, including government employees, students and others whose livelihoods are tied to it.

Hadi Ghaemi, head of the New York-based Center for Human Rights in Iran, said the establishment is using such loyal crowds as human shields to raise the cost of any assassination attempts.

"By being in the middle of large crowds they have protections that would make Israeli-American attacks against them very bloody and generate sympathy worldwide," he said.

POTENTIAL PROTESTERS STAY OFF STREETS AT NIGHT

The Islamic republic emerged from a 1979 revolution backed by millions of Iranians. But decades of rule marked by corruption, repression and mismanagement have thinned that support, alienating many ordinary people.

While there has been little sign so far of anti-government protests that erupted in January and abated after a deadly crackdown, the establishment has adopted harsh measures, such as arrests, executions and large-scale deployment of security forces, to prevent any sparks of dissent.

Rights groups have warned about "rushed executions" during wartime after Iran hanged at least seven political prisoners during the war.

"Many potential protesters are frightened by the continuing presence of armed men and violent crowds in the streets and largely stay at home once darkness falls," Ghaemi said.