His Firmness Will Advance Peace

By Allan C. Brownfeld

The Bush administration's approach to the Middle East is still in the process of emerging and what its final form will be can only be prophesied.

There are, however, some hopeful signs, in particular the apparent realization that no lasting peace can be achieved until, through negotiation and compromise by both sides, a way is found to end the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

After his meeting with President Mubarak of Egypt, President Bush said that the US and Egypt agreed that Israel should end its "occupation" of Arab lands. For the first time as president, Mr. Bush provided an outline of his thinking on this subject. He said: "Egypt and the US share the goals of security for Israel, the end of the occupation, and achievement of Palestinian political rights. " Beyond this, Mr. Bush expressed the view that a properly arranged international conference could help bring peace to the region.

The Bush remarks have been interpreted by many to mean that the US is more prepared than previously to diverge openly from Israeli government positions in seeking a breakthrough in the region.

The Bush remarks have been interpreted by many to mean that the US is more prepared than previously to diverge openly from [the] Israeli government.

Israeli Prime Minister Shamir was told by the US, in effect, that it was essential for him to bring "new" ideas to Washington on his April visit. This he did, proposing that Palestinians in the occupied territories hold elections after they halt their uprising. Those Palestinians who would be elected would then enter into negotiations with Israel about a settlement. Secretary of State Baker called these proposals "very encouraging."

Clearly, Secretary Baker views the Israeli proposals as a starting point and his strategy, it seems, is to refine and develop this into practical arrangements which might work. Questions left unanswered, which US officials indicate are serious ones, concern who would supervise such elections and whether the elected Palestinian body would be able to negotiate only interim solutions or final status as well. Beyond this is the question of who would participate in such elections. If PLO supporters are excluded from the elections, in what sense would such an election be "free"?

An indication of how US policy is developing can be seen in the fact that Baker rejected a demand from Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Arens in March that the US stop suggesting that Israel should talk to the PLO. Indeed, in testimony to Congress, Baker hinted that the US may urge Israel to deal directly with the PLO rather than more "acceptable" West Bank Palestinians.

Perhaps, finally, Israel is coming to understand that it cannot count upon blind support for its policies from either the US government or American Jews. Mr. Shamir, for example, was greeted by an ad signed by prominent American Jews in The New York Times which declared, "No, Mr. Shamir, don't assume American Jews support your policies toward the Palestinians."

Mr. Shamir's position—that Israel should never relinquish sovereignty over the occupied territories—is at odds with the views of the Bush administration and most Americans, including Jewish Americans. Hopefully, President Bush will not retreat from his position and by remaining firm will advance a genuine peace process. If he continues along the path he now appears to be taking, we can conclude that his administration is indeed coming to grips with the Middle East in a responsible and judicious manner.

Allan C. Brownfeld is a nationally syndicated columnist and associate editor of the Lincoln Review and America's Future.