Whose Fault This Time? : Palestinian negativism could torpedo the talks

Hanan Ashrawi, spokeswoman for the Palestinian delegation at the Middle East peace talks, dismisses Israel’s proposals for Palestinian self-rule as unacceptable, and warns that this means the talks are now virtually deadlocked. She’s right on one point and wrong on another. Of course Palestinians see the Israeli offer as unacceptable because it all but ignores the maximum demands they have put on the table. That isn’t a reason for deadlock, however, but an opportunity to make realistic counterproposals.

FLEXIBILITY: Israel’s ideas represent the most forthcoming opening position the Palestinians are ever likely to see, and certainly provide a respectable basis for discussion. Further, and of compelling consequence, is that the principle behind these ideas--that of movement toward joint Israeli-Palestinian administration in the disputed territories--is political light years ahead of what the previous hard-line Israeli government was ready to consider.

The implacable view of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s Likud government was that Israel would not give up one inch of land on the West Bank. That position, agree with it or not, is not a promising starting point for serious give-and-take negotiations. The new Labor-led government under Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, conversely and to Washington’s relief, specifically accepts key U.N. Security Council resolutions holding that the goal of negotiations should be an exchange of land for peace. Israel, in other words, no longer maintains that the whole of the West Bank is its to administer forever. The land Israel withdraws from would be land over which the Palestinians would assume control. What the new Israeli positions accepts, then, is the prospect of a self-governing Palestinian entity. That is a reversal of earlier Israeli thinking of profound importance.

INTRANSIGENCE: The Palestinians of course would like to have it all--an independent state, Israel’s total departure from the territories it has held since 1967, full control over their own political destinies. The nature of the conflict suggests that they will have to settle for something less, just as Israel will ultimately have to give up some of the territorial and political objectives it would be most comfortable with. Some Palestinians clearly accept the need for compromise and interim confidence-building measures. Others, though, continue to regard any shift away from maximum--and unobtainable--objectives as treason. This may prove to be the real basis for deadlock in the Israeli-Palestinian talks.