No, The Israeli Voters Ax

By Sol Schindler

No, the United States is not responsible for Yitzhak Shamir's actions or inactions. It is true that this country can influence Israel greatly, not only through the manipulation of economic aid, which some may suggest, but also through moral persuasion. The close ties of both governments, based on friendship and common goals, added to American Jewish interest, makes Israel sensitive to American opinion. But in the final analysis it is Shamir and the people who elected him who are responsible for any action or inaction.

What the editors of this magazine really mean, I believe, since they posed the question, is why doesn't the US force Israel to accede to PLO demands, whatever they are, set up a Palestinian state, provide reparations, etc. The answer is quite simple. The US can't, and even if it could, it doesn't want to.

The US cannot force Israel or any other country to do things which that country considers threatening to its survival. The days of big powers maneuvering small powers into suicidal positions ended with the second world war. The sellout of a country like Czechoslovakia for "peace in our time" simply isn't going to be repeated.

The US cannot force Israel or any other country to do things which that country considers threatening to its survival.

But to shift from the abstract to the specific, what is so reprehensible about Shamir's (in)actions? Certainly his proposals could be spelled out in greater detail so we could have a better understanding of what is entailed. But the understanding I have is that he is suggesting pretty much what the Camp David agreements specify: elections to choose residents of the occupied territories capable of negotiating with Israeli officials for a degree of self-government, or autonomy if you will. Shamir has said that he will not negotiate with the PLO. However, I presume those people elected from the territories will be, if not actually PLO members, sympathetic to the PLO. Yasser Arafat must presume this also since he has said that he is content if the negotiators come from the territories rather than the Tunis-based cadre. There is always the possibility, of course, that the elections may not turn out as predicted and some non-PLO Arabs will be elected (the PLO is not universally popular in the Arab world—ask a resident of Damascus or Amman). If that actually occurs there will be the usual cries of fraud that one shouts when one's candidate does not win. To protect itself from this, the Israeli government has said it would welcome foreign observers who could then report on the fairness and honesty of the proceedings. If the elections do come to pass, possibly this publication could have an observer on the spot. It would be edifying.

The real crux of the matter, however, is Israel's unwillingness to set up a sovereign Palestinian state with all that that implies—army, navy, foreign ministry, etc. There is a very long list of reasons why Israel is unwilling, too long to enumerate in this short column. Briefly, however, they are historical—few Arabs even suggested it until about two years ago; and political—an independent state was not envisioned in the Camp David accords nor would such a state be welcomed by neighboring Arab states; and economic—it could not exist without regular infusions of foreign aid. The issue is a complex one that deserves more than a few off-hand remarks. Possibly, a later full column could be devoted to it.

Sol Schindler is a retired Foreign Service officer who writes and lectures on international affairs.