March 1992, Page 11

Diplomacy

As Palestinians Present Their Plan, Baker Speaks Frankly About Israel

By Eugene Bird

The Palestinians laid a full-scale plan for an autonomous and interim self-government on the table at the mid-January bilateral peace talks, just before they left Washington. The only written Israeli response was a draft agenda for the next meetings, tentatively scheduled for Washington on Feb. 24.

The refusal to allow the participation at the Moscow Middle East regional talks of an expanded Palestinian delegation that included representatives from outside the occupied territories is unlikely to affect the continuation of the bilaterals. But any U.S. agreement to offer substantial new loan guarantees without an Israeli agreement to freeze further building in the territories would end in freezing further talks, according to all sources on the West Bank. All signs indicate, however, that President Bush is determined to stick with the "Green Line" policy of not just describing further settlements as "obstacles to peace," but making sure that no U.S. government resources are used, directly or indirectly, to expand the present Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

The Palestinians, meanwhile, should be given credit for putting the first interim accord on the table, although, to date, no U.S. newspaper has printed the text. A New York Times reporter dismissed the historic Palestinian proposal as a "maximalist" position, saying America's "newspaper of record" had no reason to publish it in the absence of an Israeli response. A Jerusalem Arab newspaper published the full text, but it has not been published inside Israel.

Dubbed "Outline of Model of the Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority (PISGA)," the plan seems designed to deal with the near paranoia of mainstream public opinion in Israel. It concedes a demilitarized West Bank, with U.N. peacekeepers. The plan asserts, of course, the Palestinian claim to all of the territory seized by Israel from across the "armistice Green Line" in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.

"Total cessation of all settlement activities" is a pre-condition, based on "universally accepted democratic principles." The purpose of PISGA, the document goes on, is to "ensure the peaceful and orderly transfer of authority from Israel to PISGA and to create the proper conditions for sustainable negotiations on the final status of the occupied Palestinian territory."

The plan calls for the establishment of a legislature of 180, an Executive Council of 20 and a chairperson of that Council elected by the full Assembly. The Assembly would be elected by occupants of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, as well as persons "displaced since 1967 and deportees." This would limit the electorate to some 1.8 million inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza, plus another 120,000 to 150,000 who fled during or after 1967. Deportees would add another few hundred.

The plan seems designed to deal with the near paranoia of mainstream public opinion in Israel.

Omitted are more than two million members of the Palestinian diaspora living in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and around the world, including the PLO leaders in Tunis!

Since some key PLO leaders were in Washington at the time the plan was handed over to Secretary of State James Baker, it is reasonable to assume that they approved of this formula. It is a concession to Israelis, who are in mortal fear that the Palestinians will eventually imitate Israel's worldwide drive to bring home all Jews: a Palestinian aliya might bring more than 4.5 million persons to the West Bank and Gaza. Limiting the vote to Palestinians who left or were forced out of the occupied territories since 1967 sends a reassuring signal that will not be missed by the great mass of Jews in Israel.

But the model PISGA proposal will be ignored or rejected outright by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, even though the head of Israel's Labor Party-affiliated Jaffe Institute only last month described Shamir's Likud program of settlements as "crazy."

What is America's role in this? Probably the most important country in the world to both Palestinians and Israelis, it is irreplaceable in the negotiations. If the U.S. holds to its principled stand that settlements are a real obstacle to peace, it stands a chance to get a better and more representative government in Israel, one that does not describe the American president as a liar and a fool and one willing to really talk with the Palestinians about something more than an agenda.

Present indications show continued firmness, even in an American election year. Secretary of State Baker has denied, for the record, that he or the Russian co-sponsors are at the point of becoming directly involved in these negotiations. He told the House Foreign Affairs Committee Feb. 6 that the U.S. and Russia are "The driving force behind the discussions, a catalyst, and we try to be helpful and we try not to be unhelpful." The parties themselves, he said, would both have to agree that they needed the co-sponsors before the U.S. would intervene.

Continued Firmness

When asked by Congressman Stephen Solarz (D-NY), however, about not placing conditions on the settlements so that Israel could use them to extract such concessions from the Arabs as ending the boycott and the intifada, Baker replied with characteristic bluntness: "When we talk of conditionally on the loan guarantees, we want them in order. . . that we not contravene long-established U.S. policy. It is not a case of doing it for the Arabs, but of doing it for our own policy. . . We asked if the Arabs would be willing to end their boycott and take other steps if the Israelis froze the settlements. They agreed. King Fahd and President Mubarak and a host of other Arabs agreed. But Israel turned it down flat."

It was the bluntest criticism of Israel that Baker has allowed himself in public, but there was more to come.

When Rep. Benjamin Gilman (D-NY) said that Israel had always been a good credit risk and repaid her loans, the Secretary of State replied, "Generally speaking, because we appropriate the money up here with which to repay ourselves, that's correct."

The president and his secretary of state have begun to add tough talk to their simple and effective strategy to keep the peace talks going: No interference in the peace talks until both parties request it; no fudging on a settlement freeze, and, apparently, no fuzzing of the Green Line boundaries between Israel and the occupied territories. If the Israelis want the aid they say they need, they must cease settlements in the occupied territories.

It's American firmness whose time has come. The parties are engaged and, as one Department of State officer put it proudly: "No one believed Baker could get this far. The most significant progress in the Middle East talks between Arabs and Israelis has been made, against all odds, in the dialogue between the Israelis and Palestinians."

Eugene Bird, a retired U.S. foreign service officer, is diplomatic correspondent for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

< Prev		Next >