Only a Grand Gesture Can Jump-Start Peace Talks : Middle East: The Arabs must be persuaded that a concession from them will move the Israeli majority toward compromise.

If events in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe are unfolding like a videotape racing on fast-forward, the peace talks between Arabs and Israelis seem like a tape going in reverse. Even though the cycle of violence in the Middle East seems never-ending, the election of Yitzhak Rabin to head Israel’s Labor Party last month and the Likud Party’s rebuff of the hawkish Ariel Sharon offer intriguing possibilities of a new Israeli government unrestrained by the far right.

How will Israelis vote on June 23? To some degree, that will depend on the actions of Arab leaders in the next few months. To break the stalemate, the Bush Administration must persuade the Arabs to make a dramatic gesture that would create an Israeli consensus for a new policy.

Many Israelis spent the Gulf War isolated and hidden helplessly in sealed rooms, gas masks over their heads, and they believe that peace is impossible with the Arab states or the Palestinians who cheered Iraqi Scud attacks on Israel. That belief has only been reinforced by the recent conflict between Israel and the extremist Hezbollah, the guerrilla attack on an Israeli army base and a recent phone call from Yasser Arafat to a PLO aide in which Arafat reportedly said that Jews are “dogs, filth and dirt . . . with whom we’ll settle accounts in the future.” If no dramatic developments occur to change the widespread Israeli perception about Arabs, then hard-liners are likely to be returned to power because violence makes a greater impact on voters than inconclusive peace talks continents away.

Some Israelis believe for ideological, nationalistic or religious reasons that compromise is not desirable. The largest group of Israeli voters, however, simply does not trust the Arabs. Many Israelis believe that Arab participation in the peace process is a public relations tactic in the planned destruction of Israel.

No democratic government wants to ask its people to sacrifice, especially in the middle of an election campaign. Israel’s government could do so only because an alliance currently exists between Israelis who seek to retain the occupied territories regardless of the consequences and those who do not trust the Arabs. The hawks, who account for 15% to 20% of Israelis, will not budge. The skeptics, perhaps 50% to 60% of Israelis, would have to be persuaded that genuine opportunities for peace would otherwise be lost for them to support a government that would make major concessions to its Arab neighbors. This alliance between hawks and skeptics will continue unless the Arabs persuade the Israelis with a Sadat-like gesture that they are seriously committed to peace.

While Arab leaders have the power to influence Israeli elections, they lack an incentive to compromise. Arab governments benefit because they are talking to Israel, but do not have to take any other steps so long as Americans blame Israel’s “intransigence.” Instead, the alliance of Israeli hawks and skeptics provides enormous benefits to the Arabs because it means that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories will continue--weakening Israel economically, politically, militarily and diplomatically.

Some may argue that Arab leaders should not be pressed for concessions because, for domestic reasons, they dare not take the risk of making peaceful gestures without further Israeli moves. If this position is accurate, however, it confirms the position of those Israelis who oppose compromise. If the Arab governments are so weak that they cannot make public overtures now, how will they make peace later? If they are so weak that they will be overthrown once they make peace, why should Israel give up territories it deems necessary for its security?

But why should we assume that the Arab governments are so weak? Why should we assume that they could not collectively or independently take such actions as recognizing Israel’s right to exist or ending the Arab boycott of Israel?

Ironically, because Israel is a democracy, Arab leaders can make real advances by winning over the Israeli public. None of the Arab states are democratic, so any Israeli gesture would have no effect in determining an election or changing the leadership of an Arab state.

If the Bush Administration wants the Israelis to be more forthcoming, then it must persuade the Arabs that a dramatic gesture on their part could produce a breakthrough. This step would alter the political perspective in Israel and create a consensus for a new policy. The Administration must also persuade Arab leaders that if the peace talks remain stalled, their relations with the United States will be compromised as much as Israel’s. Without American backing, weak Arab states would then be at the mercy of Iran, Iraq and the Islamic fundamentalists. A dramatic Arab gesture is needed, and it is needed now.