Borders for Peace

Lutfi Al-Abed

Although there is increasing discussion by the superpowers of an international peace conference on the Middle East as the only way to end the present state of no-war no-peace in the area, each of the concerned parties has its own prerequisites for this conference.

The Western powers have put forward pre-conditions tantamount to liquidating the conference's agenda items even before the various parties get together. Acceptance by the major Western powers of the very idea of an international conference is conditioned on recognition by the PLO of the State of Israel, acceptance by the PLO of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, and PLO representation only through participation by PLO-approved Palestinians as members of the Jordanian delegation to the conference.

There has also been talk in the West of Palestinian extremist organizations and splinter groups that might oppose any settlement reached. Opposition, however, is normal in revolutionary movements as well as in states.

Prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, the Jewish Agency, the Jewish counterpart then of the Palestinian PLO now, included similar extremist groups. These have continued in existence until the present, and the leaders of two of them, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, have become Prime Ministers of the State of Israel. In vying to be the first to recognize the newly-born State of Israel in 1948, however, both superpowers managed to ignore the presence of extremists in the newly-created state. So, why is it not possible to do the same in the case of the PLO now?

Palestinians are entitled to ask whether PLO recognition of Israel and acceptance of Resolution 242 will elicit recognition by Israel and the West, in turn, of the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinians. It seems doubtful in view of the insistence of the Western powers that the Palestinian representatives should be a part of a Jordanian delegation. Palestinians maintain that Israel is unwilling to accept separate Palestinian representation because this would imply Israeli acknowledgment that the land Israel occupied in 1948 and the territories it annexed after that belong to the Palestinians. The Palestinians believe that the Israelis seek as a pre-condition to any negotiations an explicit and written Palestinian recognition of Israel as a legitimate state. If this pledge were given, however, there would be no point in holding an international conference, as the Palestinians concerned would have given up their rights to the land and accepted the status of international refugees.

For its part, the US has supported Israel's insistence that its diplomatic relations with the USSR should be resumed as a pre-condition for Soviet participation in the proposed conference. In fact, this is a legitimate request. So also is the Arab insistence that the Western powers recognize the PLO. It would be inconceivable for either the USSR or the US to participate in the conference as a mediator or even as an observer if either superpower refused to recognize or talk directly with one of the participating delegations.

The PLO has more than once declared that it accepts all UN resolutions, including Security Council Resolution 242, regarding Palestine. The PLO maintains, however, that accepting 242 as the only basis for settling the Palestine issue would mean that the Palestinians accept permanent status as international refugees, to be absorbed by the countries in which they are now living, since Resolution 242 does not include even a reference to Palestinians in its text. This resolution, Palestinians maintain, must be amended to recognize the inalienable rights of the Palestinians in Palestine. Concerning the other proposed pre-condition, relating to the recognition by the PLO of Israel as a State, that could take place at the conference itself. It should involve mutual recognition of each other by both conflicting parties. This could be in the form of an international declaration signed by the PLO and Israel in the presence of the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

If such a proposition for mutual recognition at the opening of an international conference does not meet the wishes of the Israelis or the supporting Western powers, the PLO might ask those powers to request Israel to meet one legitimate pre-condition: Israel is the only UN member-state with no clearly defined borders. Since the Western powers have asked the Palestinians and Russians to meet certain pre-conditions in order to convene the international conference, it seems reasonable to ask Israel to meet that one pre-condition.

In fact, however, Israel is unlikely to agree to an action it has avoided for the more than 38 years of its existence as a state. In addition to the land it was granted in the 1947 UN partition resolution, it occupied much more in fighting in 1948 and subsequently in 1967, without ever indicating where it might stop. There has been much Israeli talk about secure and defensible borders, but never any indication from the Israeli government of their demarcation.

The Western powers should, first and foremost, get a clear answer from Israel regarding its envisaged borders. Once these become clear, negotiations can proceed. Would such borders be in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947, the pre-1967 borders, or the present borders, which include the Golan Heights and the so-called "security belt" in southern Lebanon? It seems that nobody wants to know.

If an international conference represents the best way out of the present maze, defining Israeli borders and recognizing the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians are the necessary preludes to peaceful accommodation between two peoples who must share one land.

Lutfi Al-Abed, a Palestinian-born resident of Lebanon, is a consultant on Arab political affairs.