WASHINGTON — The Arab League summit meeting held in Beirut, Lebanon, March 27-28 was buried in the news as a result of Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s descent into savagery with his horrendous assault on Palestinians. Nevertheless, the summit was an extraordinary development, and will go down as one of the turning points of Middle East history.
The fact that all 22 members of the Arab League agreed to back the Saudi peace initiative without reservation was an historical landmark. For anyone who has followed Arab summit meetings, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah’s mastery was nothing short of a miracle. Even more astonishing was the manner in which the summit attendees dealt with other problems. The long-standing dispute between Iraq and Kuwait, which goes back to the Ottoman Empire, has been solved, with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the rulers of Kuwait having adjudicated their differences and signed a treaty.
The peace initiative’s main points were resolved by the end of the second day, with the Arab League agreeing that, in return for rolling back to the 1967 lines, the League would recognize Israel with no reservations. Time and again, Crown Prince Abdullah reassured the doubters: In return for complete Israeli withdrawal there would be no ifs, ands or buts. In effect, if both sides agree, the Arab-Israeli wars that began in 1948 are over.
The crown prince’s moves were quite extraordinary. Instead of embarking on a long, drawn-out negotiation, conceding one point at a time, Prince Abdullah cut to the chase and opened with his final offer: recognizing the existence of Israel in return for the birth of a Palestinian state. This was relatively simple, because all that was needed was to take the 1967 borders and make them permanent. In short, the niggling over aquifers, rivers or water rights became details which, in the absence of good will or other problems, could be adjudicated by an honest broker agreeable to both sides and guaranteed by the entire international community.
Although there will of course be other details to work out, both the Palestinians and the Israelis can adapt if the settlement is generous. The “right of return,” long the sticking point, can be finessed. At this point tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees, particularly in Lebanon and Syria, will have the chance to resettle in other countries if they so choose. In fact, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians already have left to find new opportunities. Palestinian communities as far away as Chile and Canada may prefer to remain there if given generous settlements.
And what about the details that have proved to be stumbling blocks before? Clearly the holy places sacrosanct to Jews, Christians and Muslims can be dealt with. Again, if necessary, impartial arbitrators can be called upon. Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi signed on to Prince Abdullah’s plan without demurral, presumably in the common interest. Nor are these obligations to be taken lightly: the summit decision has the force of law for all participants.
In short, Crown Prince Abdullah has done all the work for the Arab participants. It is now up to the Israeli government to reciprocate. Israeli governments, however, whether Labor or Likud, historically have been unwilling to give back almost anything they have taken by force.
There are, of course, exceptions. In 1956 US President Dwight D. Eisenhower forced the Israelis to relinquish the Sinai — but they took it back again in 1967. Israel finally agreed to give up its claims to the peninsula in return for ironclad guarantees from the United States.
While Israelis should be jubilant at the opportunity finally to make a lasting peace with all the Arab states, it is not going to be as easy as it sounds. Although the Israeli government makes it impossible to ascertain how many of its citizens actually have left, Israelis have been quietly departing Israel in huge numbers. In addition to Americans who have returned to the US, many others who took Israeli citizenship now are returning to such unlikely countries as Germany, France, and England, as well as to South America. Unless a peace agreement finally is signed, it is unlikely that any of these emigrants will return to Israel. American friends of Israel, meanwhile, are doing their best to create new diversions. These include such highly placed Bush administration officials as Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Chairman of the Pentagon’s Advisory Defense Policy Board Richard Perle, and Douglas J. Feith, under secretary of defense for policy.
In an almost frantic move to ignore the raging fire in Palestine, Vice President Richard Cheney was sent off on a fool’s errand. All 11 countries visited by the vice president were forewarned — and all said the same thing. First, deal with the Palestine problem and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s attempt to subjugate the Palestinians. Only then deal with the dispute between the US and Iraq.
Cheney returned chastened. Wolfowitz, Perle, and Feith’s “war lobby” then propounded the fatuous theory that Arab leaders spoke differently about Iraq in private than in their public speeches. Even Cheney had to concede that this was a falsehood.
The contest for the soul of George W. Bush apparently still is being waged. The president’s instinct is to keep giving Sharon “one more chance.” But the “butcher of Beirut” knows only force, and has nothing else to offer Bush. Wrote Alan Sipress in The New York Times, “Bush officials have shown every sign of being daunted by this challenge.” For example, on March 13, Bush publicly rebuked Sharon. Three days later, however, he reversed course and again blamed Yasser Arafat instead of Sharon.
At some point Bush must turn away from the violence and toward serious negotiations. Thanks to Crown Prince Abdullah’s initiative, moreover, never before has this been so simple to do. Unfortunately, however, President Bush has an almost irrational fear of the Israel lobby. His father’s attempt to try to blunt the lobby’s impact brought the 41st president only grief.
Nor is his son immune from fear of the religious right, with its electronic preachers such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Their message is Armageddon, and that there is no hope for all but the “chosen” few who follow their teachings. In fact, George W. Bush fears these members of the religious right even more than he fears the Israel lobby and its astonishing ability to raise money. Right now, for instance, thousands of dollars are being spent on television and newspaper ads condemning Palestinian violence and expressing concern for Israelis who fear going out to eat. For the informed, the message makes little sense. But the Israel lobby hopes to repeat it so incessantly that it will turn fiction into truth.
On the other side, Vice President Richard Cheney apparently has misgivings about Chairman Arafat, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld seems to be at least a passive ally of the Israel lobby. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, while a 100 percent Bush loyalist, appears to have little initiative to speak up on her own. Even though veteran State Department officials with vast experience must have deep misgivings over the reckless and heedless Sharon policies, it is hard to find out what the State Department loyalists are saying in private.
This leaves the star of the Bush administration, Secretary of State Colin Powell, putting forth a confusing message. Powell did precisely the right thing, for example, when every member of the UN Security Council called on Sharon to stop the bloodshed and withdraw from the occupied territory. Most Americans who follow events carefully thought Powell finally had spoken up. Almost immediately, however, Powell called upon Yasser Arafat to try harder for peace. By that time, however, Arafat was sitting in intermittent darkness with shells falling just yards away.
It is unclear how long President Bush can continue in his state of indecision. This writer believes that, having done three-quarters of the work to bring about a just solution to the Middle East problem, there still may be work to do.
It may be necessary for Arab League members to continue their efforts, and even to institute an effective and carefully targeted boycott. The Bush administration then would find itself virtually blinded and unable to do anything about it. By such drastic means the Arabs can force Bush to pay attention. However, everyone loses by such measures.
America’s loss, however, will be more painful than the Arabs’. It is a sad fact that the Bush administration, and before that the Clinton administration, have refused to bite the bullet. How simple it would be to cut off aid to Israel entirely until it gives back the lands it stole and accepts Prince Abdullah’s offer to make peace.
(Richard H. Curtiss is the executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs magazine)
