End Game in the Middle East?

July-August 1996

By Donald A. Kruse

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Those of us who were on the White House lawn in September 1993 exulted as we watched Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat shake hands. Many of those present had waited for decades to see Israeli and Palestinian officials meet openly and begin talking to each other about their common interests and aspirations. With that handshake began a difficult process of negotiations toward a final settlement of the long struggle between Jews and Arabs over control of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Despite the continuing turmoil caused by rejectionist extremists on both sides, including the assassination of Rabin by a Jewish zealot and the killing of scores of Israelis by Palestinian suicide bombers, those who believe in peaceful dialogue have renewed their pleas for both parties to follow the timetable laid down in the historic 1993 Oslo accords. The final round of negotiations, which began in May, will address the toughest issues, including the status of Jerusalem, the future of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, final borders, and the question of Palestinian refugees. They could rightly be seen as the end game of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle.

What can we expect from these negotiations? It is quite clear what the Palestinians want—a complete Israeli withdrawal to pre-1967 borders. This has been the consistent Arab position since the 1967 War and is supported by United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. Such a withdrawal, of course, is made much more complicated by Israeli actions in the intervening years, especially the building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza as well as construction in and around Jerusalem. The Palestinians expect that once Israel has completed its withdrawal they will install their own government and set up a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

It is less clear what Israel is willing to concede in return for peace with its neighbors. Part of the uncertainty stems from the clash of political views within Israeli society: the Labor party has shown more flexibility whereas the Likud party, winner of the recent elections, is more hard-line and is inclined to give less to the Palestinians. (During the campaign Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu promised to slow down the peace process and rejected outright the "land for peace" formula.) These divisions aside, there appears to be a general consensus within Israel for continued Israeli control over all of Jerusalem and in opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state. It is highly unlikely, however, that Arafat or any Palestinian leader could accept such conditions.

Fortunately, rhetorical positions can and do change. Five years ago, for example, political pundits were writing off Palestinian nationalism as a lost cause and the general consensus in Israel was to oppose any dealings with the PLO. It is thus entirely possible that as the negotiations proceed the tough initial positions will be modified under the pressure of world opinion. If negotiations are to succeed, however, terrorist acts from the Palestinian side must end and Israel must stop its repression of the Palestinians.

Perhaps the most serious obstacle to the pursuit of a balanced outcome is the overwhelming strength of the Israeli side. Since this superiority is due in large part to generous American support, the United States is in a good position to advise Israel not to impose unacceptable terms on the Palestinians. Now is the time for the United States to prove itself a friend to the Palestinian people and to help welcome them into the family of nations, just as it did Israel in 1948. For almost fifty years, the U.S. has worked to bring about a situation in which Israel could live in peace and security and the Palestinians could receive a reasonable measure of dignity and justice. These "final status" negotiations should provide us plenty of opportunities to encourage both parties to achieve these aims.

American Christians have special reasons for desiring a just solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. First, the lives and hopes of Palestinian Christians are involved, and their leaders realize that the best hope for the viability of the local Christian communities lies in a Palestinian state that guarantees religious freedom to Christians and other religious minorities. Second, Christians should desire to see long-denied justice done to Palestinians—Christians and Muslims alike—especially now that Jews and Arabs finally have agreed to share the land. Third, American Christians, while continuing to endorse U.S. support for Israel, should recognize the wisdom of balancing this support with a commitment to the Palestinians, a step which will go a long way towards defusing Islamic extremism in the Middle East. Finally, the issue of Jerusalem is important both politically and religiously. Jerusalem has often been a source of religious conflict; it could become a center of understanding and reconciliation among Jews, Muslims, and Christians. For this to take place, however, it will be necessary to ensure that no one religion or government dominates or acts in a fashion prejudicial toward others. Christians, of all people, should pray that justice will be done to all the peoples of Jerusalem and of the Middle East.

[Donald A. Kruse is a retired U.S. foreign service officer who worked for many years in the Middle East.]