I was happy to read Richard Murphy’s article last Wednesday in the Herald Tribune about the exploding and explosive situation in the Middle East. What was best in the article was the straightforward presentation of viable ideas opposed to those usually we see in the media, such as the monotonous calls to revive negotiations, to stop violence and to halt all acts of incitement.
Richard Murphy must know what he is talking about. He worked as an undersecretary in the US Department of State for six years during the eighties and still remains very close to Middle Eastern issues.
He proposed that the US should support the involvement of the Security Council in a political solution based on Resolution 242, taking the 1949 borders as the reference point in order to close the gap between the positions of the two sides. He also believes that launching immediate negotiations, prompted by the seriousness of the present crisis, could result in the establishment of two states east of the Jordan River. In fact, these ideas are feasible especially when crises reach such a high level that the parties have no choice but to work out a solution. It is from serious crises that historical opportunities are born.
However, I feel it would be difficult to convince the United States to substitute Camp David for the Security Council, unless Washington is given a very important role, such as the one it played in Madrid. It was both a UN and US initiative. A move along those lines will assure the Arabs that the reference point will be the Security Council’s resolutions, which also contain assurances for Israel’s security and for its withdrawal from the occupied territories.
Tackling the existing situation only partially, by deploying observers, halting violence or returning to the Camp David accord, will not stop the war. After all, Sharon remains prime minister and at the same time, the US president seems to be determined to distance himself from the region’s issues.
It is true that what the Arabs want is what Israel fears: moving the problem from the hands of American mediators to the hands of others. This might be possible but only by establishing an acceptable mechanism and controls for negotiations. Ehud Barak, former prime minister of Israel, agreed to these controls which conform to UN resolutions and are in harmony with past negotiations concerning Sinai and the Arabah Valley — at which Murphy was present.
The Arab side must concentrate on persuading and convincing the US that the Security Council in Manhattan would be a more appropriate place for negotiations than American plantations or summer retreats.The Madrid conference was an American idea which began successfully with full Arab attendance. This was the case even though Israel’s prime minister at that time, Shamir, a man they had no cause to love, was sitting across them at the table. Israel also must be convinced — which is more important than convincing Washington — that it will lose nothing as long as there are proper controls for negotiations.
Why do we assume that Washington would agree to abandon Camp David? Because things have changed — the persons as well as the circumstances.
There are indications that America could be entering a period of economic crisis. Faced with that, solving the problems of the national economy will be the biggest concern of the US president. He will have no time for issues and conflicts that seem to have no end — like those of the Middle East and Northern Ireland.
