For Letting Him Get Away With It

By Jerome Segal

A Shamir "peace initiative" is coming. It will probably contain some surprises. There may be a willingness to negotiate under United Nations auspices; there may be deviations from Camp David timetables; or there may be a proposal for economic integration with Jordan.

Shamir refuses to deal with the PLO. Yet for the Palestinians and for most of the world, the PLO is the representative of the Palestinian people. Without the PLO there is no possibility of a settlement. The PLO is the other side.

Public posturing notwithstanding, Shamir's position on the PLO has little to do with terrorism. It is rooted in the core intransigence of Prime Minister Shamir. It is a matter of land. He has always been opposed to giving up the West Bank. Shamir knows that there is no possibility of achieving a settlement with the PLO unless a Palestinian state emerges as an outcome. Thus, he is committed to seeking alternative Palestinian leadership, stalling for time, and devising schemes to supress the intifadah and divide the Palestinians.

Moreover, Shamir is not merely opposed to a Palestinian state; he is also totally opposed to allowing the land to pass to Jordan, with provisions for a federated Jordanian-Palestinian entity. In short, Shamir has never really accepted resolution 242, which calls for Israel to withdraw from territories occupied in the 1967 war. Shamir's unique interpretation of 242 is that it was satisfied when Israel withdrew from the Sinai.

Is the US responsible for Shamir's intransigence? In one sense, the answer is no. Shamir's intransigence is a permanent part of his political identity. What the US is responsible for is the fact that Shamir gets away with it. The US for years contributed to the demonization of the PLO, thus helping to make Shamir's refusal politically acceptable. The US has been and remains limp with respect to Shamir's continuing efforts to build Israeli settlements in the West Bank. And the US has never forced the issue of 242. The US position opposes continued Israeli control of the West Bank, but we have never pressed Israel to accept the principle that it must withdraw from the West Bank if and when its security concerns are reasonably dealt with.

The US for years contributed to the demonization of the PLO, thus helping to make Shamir's refusal politically acceptable.

Our failure to have insisted on the principle of withdrawal has, over the last 22 years, contributed significantly to a political climate in which many Israelis not only believe that they do not have to withdraw, but also believe that the West Bank simply is a part of Israel.

The US cannot force Shamir to make peace with the Palestinians. On the basics, he will not change. Peace will require a new Israeli government. The US should be helping to transform the political atmosphere inside Israel. At the very least we should be giving the Israeli public the following message: a) Israel has no alternative other than negotiations with the PLO, b) Israel's security needs can be adequately safeguarded, c) it is not in Israel's interest to continue stalling on the basic issues, and d) Shamir represents a major obstacle to a full resolution of the conflict.

Unfortunately, what is more likely is that Shamir will come forth with a cleverly devised "peace initiative," gain widespread support in the American Jewish community and the Congress, and outfox and outflank our State Department, thus sacrificing Israeli, Palestinian, and American interests.

Jerome M. Segal is a Research Scholar at the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at the University of Maryland. He is the author of Creating the Palestinian State—A Strategy for Peace (Lawrence Hill Books), available through AET.