Negotiations: Which Israelis?

By Dennis J. Wamsted

Successive Israeli governments have stated repeatedly that Israel would gladly begin peace negotiations, if only an Arab leader would step forward. Former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat's dramatic journey to Jerusalem in 1977, which initiated the process that culminated in the 1979 signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, bolstered the Israeli argument. In fact, since the late 1970's, it has become an article of faith—both in Israel and in the United States—that when, or if, the Arab countries demonstrate a willingness to negotiate, Israel will respond positively.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy's recent trip to the Middle East clearly indicates that the current U.S. Administration also believes that the emergence of strong Arab leadership is essential to resolution of the Arab-Israeli dispute. Accordingly, Murphy spent much of his time attempting to constitute a mutually acceptable Jordanian-Palestinian delegation to begin direct negotiations with Israel. However, an important, unanswered question remains. With whom in Israel would this Arab delegation, or any Arab leader for that matter, negotiate?

The current national unity government? That unwieldy body is incapable of acting decisively on any issue, much less that of peace with the Palestinians. In fact, the current government—split almost evenly between Prime Minister Shimon Peres's Labor Party and Deputy Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's Likud Bloc—virtually collapsed in late April when Peres sought to dispatch Minister Without Portfolio Ezer Weizman to Cairo in an effort to improve Israel's cool relations with Egypt—the only Arab country with which Israel is at peace. The Cabinet, led by Shamir and his Likud colleagues, twice denied permission for Weizman to travel to Egypt. Ultimately, permission was granted by a fragile 13 to 12 margin on straight party-line voting. The is sue raises serious questions about the government's ability and, more importantly, its willingness to participate in any future peace negotiations.

Perhaps with an independent Labor-led government? Although it is the so-called moderate party in Israeli politics, Labor has demonstrated little more willingness to compromise over the occupied territories than has Likud. It was Labor which "reunified'' Jerusalem, and the party continues to insist that the city is not negotiable. It also was Labor that approved the first settlements on the West Bank soon after the 1967 June War. The economic, moral and military catastrophes that followed may have convinced many Labor supporters of the folly of trying to hold the West Bank indefinitely, but the leadership has yet to demonstrate this change of heart clearly and irrevocably. And, despite its supposed willingness to trade "land for peace" when the coalition agreement was signed last September, it was Labor which agreed to establish at least six new settlements by the end of 1985.

Perhaps with an independent Likud-led government? Unlike Labor, Likud openly admits that it is unwilling to negotiate. Its leader, Yitzhak Shamir, voted against the peace treaty with Egypt in 1979 and believes that Jews must be permitted to settle anywhere in a vaguely defined "Eretz Israel." Shamir's Likud colleague, former Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, is even more extreme. In a recent interview, Sharon confirmed that he will challenge Shamir for the leadership of the Herut Party—the dominant party in the Likud Bloc—before the next general elections in Israel. Sharon then added that he does not recognize Jordan and that he hopes Jews will be able to settle there someday. Specifically, he said: "I don't call Jordan, Jordan, but Transjordan... [and] I don't think for a minute that Transjordan is not part of Israel."

With whom, then, would this Arab delegation negotiate? It appears that, in the absence of U.S. political and economic pressures, the Israeli leadership either will remain committed to the status quo, meaning that no peace settlement is possible, or actively opposed to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute peacefully.

There is, however, still some reason for optimism. A recent poll indicated that over 50 percent of all Israelis favor halting settlement activity on the West Bank, up sharply from late 1981 when only about 30 percent of those polled favored such a halt. In addition, of the 114 current settlements, 80 percent have no more than 50 families, while 88 percent have fewer than 100 families. These numbers contradict the oft-stated argument that the West Bank, in effect, already has been annexed by Israel, thereby making future peace negotiations futile.

For peace talks to have any chance at all, the United States must eventually acknowledge that the formation of an Arab delegation to negotiate directly with Israel is, perhaps, the easiest part of the problem. Until the United States demonstrates that it is willing to exert pressure on the Israeli government to negotiate seriously, just as it has on the Palestinians and the Arab countries, a peaceful resolution of the Middle East conflict is impossible. The United States, having contributed so mightily to the establishment and security of the state of Israel, now has a moral responsibility to resolve the resulting Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A more even-handed and forthright approach toward the two sides would be a step in the right direction.

Dennis J. Wamsted, of Washington D.C., has lived and studied in the Middle East and writes frequently on it.