Finding Ground for Peace Under Israel-PLO Gunfire

Secretary of State James A. Baker III told a pro-Israel audience in Washington last week that Israelis will have to forgo visions of a “Greater Israel” and advised them to regard Palestinians as neighbors, enunciating perhaps the strongest U.S. stance to date on the Middle East peace process.

Six months after Chairman Yasser Arafat renounced terror “totally and absolutely” by his Palestine Liberation Organization and formally recognized the existence of Israel, international diplomacy is urgently seeking a new breakthrough toward peace in the Holy Land. The United States leads with an unequivocal appeal that Israelis and Palestinians find the compromises that can end their bloody stalemate. Other governments are also most actively engaged in the latest efforts, from Sweden to the Soviet Union.

With reason, they fear that time may be running out for a peaceful settlement. Recrudescence of Israeli-Palestinian violence this month--including the first outbursts of gunfire from the Arab side--only add to the sense of urgency.

Yet knowledgeable diplomats, reporting on their recent peacemaking initiatives, see positive elements in the current situation despite the death toll in the occupied territories and despite the angry early Israeli reaction to Baker’s speech. In broad outlines, these are the grounds for encouragement:

-- The United States is privately satisfied with the evolution of its conversations with PLO representatives in Tunis, begun officially after the Arafat statements renouncing terror. The talks conducted by U.S. Ambassador Robert H. Pelletreau Jr. now follow a regular pattern, not always publicly announced. President George Bush keeps personal tabs on these exchanges. Earlier in May, for example, the President joined Baker in an unpublicized discussion of peace prospects with the visiting Swedish foreign minister, Sten Sture Andersson. Sweden played a key role last year in persuading Arafat to satisfy the U.S. conditions for dialogues; now, Sweden quietly continues to act as international peace broker.

-- Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir appears to be more flexible diplomatically than he was six months ago; at least this is the impression held privately by diplomats dealing with the Palestinian question. Shamir’s proposal for elections in the Israeli-occupied territories--the West Bank and Gaza Strip--to produce Palestinian representatives who would negotiate for self-rule with Israel, is taken seriously as “a good start in the right direction,” in the words of a State Department spokesman. Although Bush takes the public view that the Israeli occupation cannot be considered as permanent and Baker remarked last week that Israel is “too cautious” in its diplomacy, there is a general belief that the Shamir concept offers long-range prospects for a solution. The immediate worry in Washington is that Shamir’s Likud coalition of rightist parties may reject his election proposals at its Central Committee meeting next month. Should this occur, observers worry about full-fledged warfare erupting between the Palestinians and Israel.

-- Arafat appears to retain support from the PLO mainstream for his policies of recognizing Israel and, in effect, maintaining contact through the United States (though Washington chooses to deny that it constitutes a formal channel for the two sides). While the PLO Executive Committee in Tunis has rebuffed the Shamir election plan, diplomats do not take that as the final word. They think that if Israel allows Palestinian candidates to run as PLO members in the proposed elections and if Israel accepts international monitoring, the PLO may go along with the electoral process. Though violence keeps growing, diplomats believe that the 17-month-old Palestinian uprising now yields diminishing returns. Having forced the start of international diplomacy and impelled the U.S.-PLO dialogues, the intifada from now on can only produce more blood--not a solution.

-- The Soviet Union is so far playing an unexpectedly helpful part in Middle Eastern diplomacy. It now has public high-level contacts with Israel (though it has not resumed formal diplomatic relations), it has been using leverage to try bringing Syria into Palestinian settlement discussions (thus far without results) and it has been advising the PLO to exercise greater patience in its international dealings. Moscow urged the PLO to refrain from seeking membership in the World Health Organization because such a premature move was certain to be defeated (it was) and to keep a low profile. The current Soviet posture of advocating moderation contrasts dramatically with past policies toward Palestinians.

This analysis reflects an optimistic interpretation of current events and future possibilities. Yet it clearly constitutes the basis for Baker’s diplomatic offensive launched on Monday. The background ranges from a fact-finding visit to Israel by principal Middle East advisers to the most recent conversations here with Foreign Minister Andersson, Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Arens and French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas. And last week, Arab leaders met in Casablanca, attempting to persuade Syria and Libya to support the PLO’s new stand toward Israel, buttressed by messages of encouragement from Bush and Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev. The PLO issue is back on the diplomatic front-burner--and not a moment too soon.