The beginning of the Middle East peace conference in Madrid marks a critical moment in the decades-long conflict between Arabs and Israelis. Face-to-face talks are a much needed sign of hope, but the peace process is fragile. The United States, the Soviet Union, Europeans, and others must nurture it by providing structure, framing issues, and clarifying options.
Painstaking diplomatic initiatives have brought the various parties to this pivotal juncture. For their part, the Palestinians have already made numerous compromises. Both the Palestine National Council and the West Bank and Gaza leaders who have met repeatedly with Secretary of State James Baker have made clear their willingness to participate with Jordan. They have yielded reluctantly to Israel's insistence that the participants have no visible ties to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
The Palestinians have sought assurances from the United States on three key points. First, they want to know that the conference will affirm their right of self-determination, or at least an initial commitment to uphold Palestinian political rights.
Second, they want clear understandings on the applicability of U.N. Resolution 242, the now-famous 1967 resolution setting forth the "land for peace" formula. The Palestinians formally accepted Res. 242 as a basis for negotiation in November 1988, when the United States demanded it as a precondition for talks with the PLO. Palestinians now want to know that the peace conference will examine and explore proposals for territorial compromise.
Third, the Palestinians want assurances that the conference will include consideration of the status of Jerusalem, perhaps the most sensitive and potentially divisive issue for all parties to the conflict.
These minimal requirements of the Palestinians are consistent with stated U.S. policies and long-held positions developed in the United Nations. The Israelis, however, have staked out a strong and seemingly uncompromising position that appears to preclude these elements. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir has continuously stressed that Israel will not give up "one inch" of land in Eretz Israel (the land of Israel).
Shamir's position on Jerusalem appears to leave no room for discussion. His government has gone so far as to insist that the Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem be precluded from any Palestinian-Jordanian delegation, since their participation might suggest that the status of Jerusalem is in question.
ALL PARTIES recognize the need for U.S. leadership, not just to convene the conference but to help frame the issues to be negotiated. The United States must consistently affirm the principles undergirding the search for peace, including restraint from violence and a commitment to negotiate, mutual recognition of the legitimate political rights and the need for security guarantees for all parties, and full discussion of "land for peace" options. Most analysts agree that the question of Jerusalem should be addressed as the last major issue in the context of a comprehensive settlement.
If the structure and aims of the conference are too amorphous, it will be in danger of collapse from the beginning. Those who want no settlement but do not want to be seen as the spoilers may simply try to stall the process by introducing numerous procedural or agenda issues. At the same time, extremists on all sides may well attempt to disrupt or shift the focus of negotiations by staging violent confrontations.
As the strong ally of Israel, the United States can help address Israeli fears and security concerns even as it encourages flexibility and compromise. Given Shamir's hardline position, the United States will need to demonstrate its resolve at points -- even, if necessary, in the face of strong objections from close allies. The behavior of the Bush administration this fall in delaying the debate over Israeli loan guarantees set an important precedent.
Constructive movement on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict can open the way for a regional conference to address other critical issues such as distribution and sharing of water resources, long-term economic cooperation, security needs, and arms control.
One week after the cessation of fighting in the Gulf war, President Bush identified the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a top priority in the Middle East. In his address to a joint session of Congress, Bush declared, "No one will work harder for peace than we will." Concerted efforts in the subsequent eight months -- including eight trips to the region by James Baker -- have added substance to Bush's bold promise. The level of agreement between the various parties -- Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Israel, and the Palestinians -- is encouraging. But the hardest work lies ahead.
There are no quick or easy solutions in the Middle East. But the way forward is not blocked. In the short term, several major obstacles should be removed in order to build trust and clear the way toward a viable agreement. Israel should halt its settlement process in the occupied territories. The Arab states and others should end their economic boycott of Israel. The United Nations should reject the "Zionism is racism" resolution it adopted in 1975.
Peace between Israel, the Palestinians, and the Arab states will not provide a regional panacea, but it will remove the most difficult and pervasive problem in the region. Now is a crucial moment in the long-overdue peace process. Failure to move forward at this juncture may well strengthen those who advocate armed confrontation. Meaningful progress will provide hope, even as it strengthens those who advocate nonviolent negotiations as the best way to resolve conflict and build a lasting peace.
Charles Kimball was associate professor of religion at Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina and author of Religion, Politics and Oil: The Volatile Mix in the Middle East (Abingdon Press) when this article appeared.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!