U.S. Commitment to Israel

I commend Rep. Levine for his call for a demonstration of “American resolve and staying power in the pursuit of peace in the Middle East.” Indeed, it has been 10 years since we assumed an assertive and activist role of the kind we performed in securing the Camp David accords.

But to be effective, President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker must have a broader vision of the U.S. role than Levine’s. The U.S. must demonstrate a respect for the views of Israelis and Palestinians, a commitment to the legitimate rights of both, and a conviction that a continuation of the conflict is abhorrent to U.S., not because of our national “interest and prestige,” but because of our basic values as a nation. These are what compel us to seek a peace that will relieve the human suffering this conflict has imposed upon Arabs and Jews.

Levine refers to the death of Israeli soldiers and to PLO leader Yasser Arafat’s “support for the odious policy of killing ‘collaborators’ resulting in 100 deaths.” Although he failed to mention it, I know he must hold at least equally odious the death of more than 600 Palestinians and the imprisonment of thousands at the hands of Israeli military authorities.

This Administration has taken an important step: Affirming its support of Israel, it opened the dialogue with the PLO. This move and the intifada itself have served as a catalyst in creating a fresh opportunity for progress, and in eliciting the Israeli proposal for elections in the West Bank and Gaza.

Yes, this is a time for a diplomacy of action. But there is no need to do it alone. Egypt, the Soviet Union, and others can make a valuable contribution, as Sweden has already, and should not be excluded. The urgency of this historical moment calls for a more embracing view of the possibilities.

RABBI LEONARD I.

BEERMAN

Los Angeles