US Inconsistencies, Israeli Negativism: Obstacles to Peace

By Frank Collins

The unexpected American reversal in initiating talks with the PLO gives the first real hope for a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in many years. The Israelis, who were not consulted in advance, are of course furious. In spite of American assurances of undying friendship, the rebuff ranks with President Eisenhower's order to the British, French, and Israelis to withdraw from the Sinai in 1956. Arafat's statements in the Geneva UN meeting were more forthright in language but differed little in substance from those he had been making to leaders of several countries for the past year and a half. Whatever the speculations that have been floated as to the reasons for the American about-face, it is the ability of the Palestinians to continue their uprising against one of the best armies in the world that will eventually force the US to reconsider its monolithic support of the Jewish state.

The US-PLO talks are a mere beginning, a crack in America's "made in-Jerusalem" Middle East policy, and formidable obstacles lie ahead. If the US continues to reject the recognition of an independent state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza, US-PLO talks could drag on for a very long time, as did Israeli-Egyptian talks over the trivial case of Taba.

There is a vagueness and serious inconsistency in the American stance. What is the alternative to an independent Palestinian state? Does the United States want an indefinite continuation of the brutal occupation? Or does the United States still dream of a Jordanian condominium, even though this has been rejected by both the Palestinians and King Hussein?

An even greater obstacle to settling the conflict is the seemingly unalterable position of Israel itself: the stone-wall refusal to talk to the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and the rigid rejection of an international conference. No matter what is agreed upon by the United States, the Palestinians, and the rest of the world, can Israel be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the international conference table?

The answer to that question depends on whether a strong consensus develops among the Israelis opposing the government's rejectionism. This is only a fair possibility, although the latest poll shows that 54 percent of the Israeli public favors talks with the PLO and Peace Now assembled the largest demonstration since 1982 in support of such talks. The question remains, talk about what? There would be little gained by talks about autonomy or the Allon plan to fragment the West Bank.

There is no present indication that the new/old government coalition and the Israeli public have any inclination other than to intensify the violent repression of the Palestinians in the hope of completely crushing the uprising.

Reprinted by permission: Tribune Media Services

The Israeli public knows about the cruel methods that the army is using against the Palestinians in the occupied territories. The details are published daily in the Israeli press and viewed on TV. Yet there are few public demonstrations of horror or other visible evidence of public revulsion. The sole conclusion that can be reached is that of widespread Israeli public acceptance of an Israeli war against the whole Palestinian people.

Most disturbing is the very fact of a coalition government embracing at least 80 percent of the Knesset members and with few divergences in this government on fundamental policy toward the Palestinians. When carefully examined, there is very little practical difference between the proposals of Likud and Labor for the future of the occupied territories. Both call for the forceful crushing of the intifadah and the complete submission of the Palestinians to Israeli authority in one form or another. Then, as to what happens after their wished-for crushing of the intifadah, Likud and Labor are both advocating essentially the same end result when the verbiage is stripped away.

Likud is talking about "autonomy," that is, limited self-government under Israeli rule without independence and sovereignty. To implement autonomy, they are calling for elections to be held in the areas of the West Bank and Gaza inhabited only by Palestinians. Thus the areas of local autonomy would be gerrymandered cells separated from each other in an Israeli matrix. The autonomous areas obviously would have no economic or political unity and, least of all, any possibility of Palestinian equality with the citizens of Israel. Of course, with the unity that has been forged in the intifadah, there is no chance that more than an insignificant number of Palestinians would participate in an election to establish autonomy.

The Labor position differs little from the Likud program. It is based on the Allon plan for the fragmentation of the occupied territories. Under either a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation, now out of the question, or under Labor's so-called Palestinian "independence," the Palestinians would likewise be broken down into an aggregation of separated cells in an Israeli matrix, powerless both economically and politically, and completely under the domination of Israel. It is obvious that the Palestinian people would not give up the intifadah under conditions that amount to surrender and a bogus independence.

All of the above must be viewed in the light of a chilling possibility. "Transfer," the removal of the Palestinian population into adjoining Arab states, voluntarily if possible or violently if need be. The idea of transfer is supported by a near-majority of the Israeli public according to polls taken a few months ago. The present behavior of the army in the occupied territories is consistent with the implementation of such a policy: to make life so miserable for the Palestinians that they will "voluntarily" depart. The expulsion of 13 Palestinians in the first week of 1989 could be the forerunner of an escalation into the expulsion of thousands.

In spite of the mighty step forward that has been taken by the United States in commencing talks with the PLO, much remains to be done before the state of Palestine is finally secured.

Frank Collins is an American free-lance writer who divides his time between Jerusalem and Washington, DC.