Means Available But Will Lacking

By Abdul Salam Y. Massurueh

Although the answer to this question is yes, one has to address a second question as well: Can the US make Israel make peace? It is the extent of US resolve to solve problems—rather than prolonging them through the traditional capitulation and unwillingness to rein in Israel—which is questionable. This is what must change if the US is to bring Israel to its senses and force it to opt for peace with the Palestinians.

Israel owes its very existence and livelihood to the generosity of US taxpayers and the determination of successive US administrations to keep Israel strong, vital, and militarily superior to all of the armies of the Arab world. Therefore no amount of talk about US reluctance "to interfere" in Israeli internal affairs rings true. The US could convince Israel to compromise with the Palestinians and reach out with them for a settlement.

The past eight years, the Reagan years, witnessed a total capitulation of US foreign policy regarding Israel and the Middle East. The White House, the State Department, the National Security Council, and both houses of the US Congress acted as if there were no country or people in the world but Israel. The US mortgaged its national and international prestige and put it at the disposal of the Israelis who, in the manner of freeloaders, did not seem particularly appreciative.

Instead, the Israelis undertook brutal actions that elicited protests around the world. The US nevertheless stood up for Israel, right or wrong, a decision that angered and frustrated US allies.

George Shultz made the US government a "party to the crime" when he pledged the allegiance of the US to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, instead of the other way around. When there were rumblings and complaints, they were dismissed by pro-Israel fanatics who had assumed control at Foggy Bottom.

Only if it stops following such guidelines, can the US force Israel to make peace with the Palestinians.

If, for instance, the US threatened just to withhold, not cancel, one month's installment of economic and military aid, the Israeli leadership would complain vigorously. But if the US government stood fast, then Israel would soon be singing and dancing to Uncle Sam's tune.
The US can make Israel make peace if it will stop backing Israel in international organizations. Washington's blind support of Israel reached an extreme when the US threatened to withdraw from the UN if Israel was suspended because of its chronic violations of the UN charter.
If the US will stop allocating "free money" for Israel to squander building illegal settlements on stolen Palestinian property, then Israel will be forced to stop opening and enlarging settlements.
The US can influence Israel toward peace if it stops such hidden subsidies as a free trade zone, awards for SDI research, and allocations to support scandalously wasteful enterprises inside Israel.
The US can stop subsidies to Israel's collapsing economy. Then the US can attach conditions to its assistance that will prod Israel to accept the rights of the Palestinians to self-determination and statehood.
Finally, US leaders can make Israel make peace by making peace themselves with the Palestinian people. The "substantive dialogue" between the US and the PLO needs to be nurtured. Treating it as a nuisance or a burden will only encourage the Israelis to continue their hostility, rather than entering such a dialogue themselves.

Abdul Salam Y. Massarueh, a correspondent for Middle East newspapers, was 1986-87 president of the Foreign Correspondent's Association of Washington, D. C.

Yes, and It Must

By Muhammad Hallaj

Now that the US government has initiated a dialogue with the PLO, it needs to open a dialogue with Israel. So far, the US and Israel have engaged in a monologue in which Israel communicated its wishes and Washington complied. The time has come to change the US-Israeli monologue to a dialogue, in which Israel not only speaks but also listens.

The American-Israeli monologue has been the product of two myths: that Israel posed no obstacle to peace in the Middle East, and that the US had no leverage over Israel. The first implies that influencing Israeli policy is not necessary, and the second implies that it is not possible. For that reason, America's peacemaking role has been limited to extracting concessions from the Arabs on Israel's behalf.

In the past few years, it has become increasingly apparent that persuading Israel to change its policy—particularly on the Palestinian issue—is both necessary and possible. It is necessary because it has become obvious that it is not Arab refusal to settle the conflict with Israel, but Israel's refusal to come to terms with the Palestinians that fuels the Arab-Israeli conflict. The US concedes that Israel's policy of frustrating all expressions of Palestinian nationhood, through defacto annexation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, is detrimental to Arab-Israeli conciliation. But the US has refrained from seeking to dissuade Israel from pursuing that policy.

The notion of America's inability to influence Israeli policy is primarily the product of domestic American politics. Israel and its friends in this country have committed successive administrations to the view that "pressuring" Israel would be incompatible with the "special" US-Israeli relationship. Israel's conflict with the Arabs, it is argued, is a matter of survival for the Jewish state, and for that reason it is neither morally acceptable nor politically advisable to persuade Israel to adopt policies it perceives to be "suicidal."

This argument is not only used to keep the US from trying to influence Israel, but also to silence American Jews critical of Israel's practices. It is an argument, as Abba Eban put it, which has been used to propagate the view that it is the duty of American Jews to Israel "to keep their pockets open and mouths shut." The same is expected of the US government.

The major events of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the 1980s—including Israel's rejection of the Reagan plan of 1982 and the Shultz initiative of 1987, Israel's escapades in Lebanon and occupied Palestine, and the PLO's most recent peace offensive and Israeli reaction to it—have made it increasingly clear that Israel's continued conflict with its region is a self-inflicted condition. But the myth still persists that the US cannot influence Israel and must not try to do so.

The fact is that Israel's dependence on American patronage is so great and varied that it is virtually a client state. The US uses its military and economic clout routinely as an instrument of diplomacy in dealing with friend and foe alike.

The US government cannot continue to evade its responsibility in the Middle East under the pretext that it is only the parties directly involved in the conflict which can make peace. It has used the carrot and stick to induce changes in PLO policy. If the US is serious about its peacemaking responsibility, it needs to induce corresponding changes in Israeli policy. Only the United States can do this. It must do so if the present unique opportunity is not to become another lost opportunity.

Muhammed Hallaj is director of the Palestine Research and Education Center in Fairfax, VA, and editor of its magazine, Palestine Perspectives.