Israel’s Initiative Can Plant Seeds of Middle East Peace

There is today a chance to launch a comprehensive peace process to end the 41-year-long Arab-Israeli conflict. It won’t come easily; the situation is too complex, too rife with passion and history to lend itself to quick fixes. Still, as once-intractable regional conflicts from Afghanistan to Angola now wend their way toward resolution, why not the Arab-Israeli deadlock as well?

Two months ago, the Israeli Cabinet approved a bold peace initiative that addresses the conflict’s two basic elements: the struggle between Israel and the Palestinians and the belligerency of the Arab states, with the notable exception of Egypt since 1979, against Israel.

The plan aims to achieve a promising new beginning in our troubled region. President Bush underscored the point last month when he referred to the Israeli initiative as “an important contribution” to the peace process. Secretary of State James A. Baker III added: “The Israeli proposal . . . deserves constructive Palestinian and broader Arab response.” Those views were reaffirmed in a June 8 letter to Secretary Baker signed by 95 U.S. senators who expressed unreserved support for Israel’s peace initiative. “It is our conviction that Israel’s offer is both sincere and far-reaching,” the legislators wrote.

The initiative contains four key points:

--Reaffirming the principles of the Camp David accords and the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, the plan calls for a summit meeting of the leaders of Egypt, Israel and the United States to press for a comprehensive peace in the region built on a firm foundation of Israeli-Egyptian peace and the principle of direct negotiations.

--Genuine peace means an end to the abnormal state of belligerency, economic boycott and hostile propaganda conducted by the Arab world (apart from Egypt) against Israel. Instead, it is time for those countries to recognize Israel’s reality and join with us in pursuing bilateral and regional cooperation.

--Mindful of the inexcusable tragedy of Palestinians kept in squalid refugee camps by Arab governments and Palestinian leaders more interested in fanning hatred of Israel than permitting decent housing, Israel is prepared to join with the world community in a major rehabilitation effort to address living conditions and economic development in these areas. Such an international effort need not await a political solution nor be a substitute for one. Basic humanitarian consideration ought to be the driving force.

--Israel calls for free, democratic and secret elections, in an atmosphere devoid of violence, threats and terror, in the West Bank and Gaza to permit the Palestinian Arab residents to select their own indigenous representatives. These elected leaders would then conduct negotiations for a transitional period of self-rule. Some critics have suggested that self-rule means little more than “garbage collection.” In fact, self-rule would include responsibility for all areas affecting the lives of the residents, with the sole exceptions of foreign policy, security and matters affecting Israeli citizens living in these areas.

Further, the plan specifies that not later than the third year after the onset of the transitional period, negotiations with the elected Palestinian leadership would begin for achieving a permanent solution. At the final status talks, which should also include Jordan, our neighbor with the longest common border, all proposed options for an agreed settlement will be reviewed.

Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, referring to the territories, declared in a speech in New York in April: “We have a 3,000-year claim on them. The Arabs say they have a claim on them, too. It is their right to put their claim against ours. That is what negotiations are for. We shall present our claim and they will present theirs and we shall reach a settlement. It will not completely satisfy either side, but we shall be able to live with it.”

The Likud Party’s debating this issue last week did not affect the initiative approved by the government May 14.

Israel is prepared to negotiate over these difficult issues with the elected leaders of the West Bank and Gaza. It is not, however, prepared to conduct talks with the Palestine Liberation Organization. The simple fact is that, notwithstanding the media and diplomatic attention given the PLO in the past year, this organization, which perfected the art of modern-day terror, including hijacking, murder and aid to other anti-Western terrorist organizations, has not changed its fundamental character. Although the PLO may have adopted more dulcet tones for Western consumption, no one should be misled.

The PLO covenant calling for the elimination of Israel remains unchanged. Indeed, the PLO’s logo, found, for example, on the shoulder patch worn by Arafat and on the stationery used by the PLO to apply for full membership in the World Health Organization this year, shows the Palestinian flag over a map of Israel--all of Israel, pre-1967 and post 1967! Attempted terrorist incursions into Israel continue unabated. Several have been publicly claimed as the work of the PLO-affiliated Democratic Front for the Liberation of the Palestine, one of whose leaders, Yasser Abed-Rabho, actually heads the PLO team negotiating with the United States in Tunis.

In a June 12 interview with the French Arabic-language periodical, Al Yom Assabeh, Rabho, commenting on Israel’s right to exist, stated: “Some of the Israeli parties who met with us . . . presented us with joint documents or ideas which included talk about the principle of a right of self-determination for two peoples on the land of Palestine. We reject this. . . . (I)t is impossible for the Israelis to become a part of the region or of its people, tradition or culture. The problem of Zionism, as an idea, as an ideology and as a realization, will be the subject of the future struggle.”

In recent weeks, more than 40 Palestinian Arabs have been killed by fellow Arabs for such “heinous” crimes as advocating cooperation and coexistence with Israel.

True, the Israeli peace initiative does not propose to end the conflict in one fell swoop. Rather, it seeks to plant the seeds of mutual trust and confidence-building. There simply is too much anger and suspicion on all sides, the gaps currently are too wide to focus on the terms of a final settlement. Accordingly, any realistic approach to peace in the region must be two-pronged, involving, first, interim, and then final status talks. Echoing longstanding U.S. policy, then-Secretary of State George P. Shultz emphasized this point last September when he noted that “peace between Israel and its neighbors will need time and growing mutual good will to succeed. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza this means there must be a transitional period.”

There is a serious Israeli peace plan on the table. It deserves the careful consideration of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who now have a chance to move from the street to the peace table. It merits the support of Egypt, the engagement of Jordan and, yes, why not Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Syria as well? Once the plan’s basic approach is accepted, let differences over the details become the focus of discussion and negotiation.

The road to peace is fraught with risks for all sides. But is there a better alternative? Israel’s desire for peace is genuine, our yearning for an end to four decades of war, terror and regional isolation profound. A workable peace plan is on the table, but two months have passed with no positive response. Will the Palestinians and Arab political leaders once again miss a real chance to add the Arab-Israeli conflict to the growing list of regional trouble spots in the midst of peaceful resolution?