His CSIS Talk Indicates Yossi Beilin Still Dreams of Labor Comeback to Save Peace Accords

By Eugene Bird

Yossi Beilin is surely the Israeli who has been closest to the Oslo process and therefore closest to the hearts and minds of the American peace team at the Department of State. He is “Mr. Oslo,” speaking out forcefully in support of the Labor Party of Israel and calling for a full and rapid return to the process he largely invented.

Out of power now, the Labor Party is still the largest group in the Knesset, with 34 votes compared to Likud’s 32. When confidence motions or resolutions such as the one on July 28 calling for parliament to dissolve itself for new elections gained 60 votes, almost enough to send the Netanyahu government packing, Yossi Beilin, Labor dove, became more important to peace seekers in the Middle East.

New Date For Final Status: 2001

But he has gravitated while waiting in the wings to return to power, from a dovish Labor spokesperson to one calling upon the Palestinians to defer any announcement of a state, and to agree to delaying the end of final status talks from May 1999, as agreed in the Oslo accords, to Jan. 1, 2001.

From listening to Beilin, it seems the Labor Party believes that it lost the election partly by losing support in the U.S. Congress and in the United States as a whole. It is trying to repair the damage by upgrading its presence in Washington and around the country.

Beilin is the point man in the Labor Party effort. Recently he was in Washington, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), making his case to one of the key audiences in foreign policymaking.

Certainly the Department of State’s peace teams were also listening. They know that if Labor returns to power, Beilin will be the key man in future negotiations, and possibly the foreign minister. They would like that.

Everyone realizes that one vote to dissolve the Knesset, when it requires three such votes over a period of time, does not assure new elections will occur anytime soon in Israel. Many of the Knesset members voting against the prime minister were hard-core supporters giving the coalition notice that they had better not give in to the Americans or the Palestinians. They will switch back to abstaining or even voting against dissolution in the second and third rounds of consideration if such resolutions are allowed to occur in November.

But Beilin and his party are paying more attention to building a new base in America. And the message is strong:

On Lebanon

Israel, said Beilin, should get out of Lebanon now. Without conditions. He pointed out that UNIFIL, the 5,000-man observer force, is prepared to move south from its present positions in Lebanon to the Lebanese-Israeli border in cooperation with the Lebanese army. Hezbollah, he noted, has given clear notice that it will not interfere, and he claimed Syria had agreed not to oppose a move out of Lebanon by Israel.

He did suggest that there would be a cost attached to Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. But, he added, “there is nothing cheaper than money.” (Presumably he meant American money, which Congress apparently is prepared to supply Israel ad infinitum).

On Syria

Israel and Syria, Beilin said, should resume talks on the basis of “respecting” earlier negotiations. “There were many attempts at negotiations since 1967 and many offers of peace from both sides. We should take all of this into consideration and refer to them. However, they should not be binding.”

This is little different from the present Likud government’s position, but if Beilin were to be in charge, the Syrians just might accept re-starting the talks.

On Palestine

The United States, Beilin emphasized, should publish its (13 percent) plan as soon as possible. The Labor Party cannot accept a “secret plan.”

He believes that the Labor Party should continue to give the Likud a “safety net” so it will not face a no-confidence motion by the right wing.

Regarding “unilateral steps” by the Palestinians (read declaration of a Palestinian state), Beilin said, “We need to discuss the final status issues.” Israel should declare that at the end of the talks, with a new end date of Jan. 1, 2001, Israel “ will deliver” a demilitarized Palestinian state. The Palestinians should declare now that they will wait until that date.

Israel, in turn, should agree to a third withdrawal of 10 percent, after the 13 percent withdrawal, and this will leave Palestinians with (administrative) control of a full 50 percent of the West Bank as agreed to at Oslo.

Other questions and answers by Beilin included the following exchanges with his audience:

Q: How will you convince Likud to accept these ideas?

A: I do not know, but I think it is in their best interests. Netanyahu does not want a war, so it would be in his interest to hold off the declaration of a Palestinian state.

Q: What about the new Likud-U.S. relations?

A: Labor will send more people to the U.S. to make their relations better.

Q: What about Israel’s domestic problems?

A: Israel is not so unique in its domestic divisions. Every country has this.

Q: What about public opinion in the Arab world?

A: Israel should take it more seriously, but are the Arab governments molding public opinion or following it? It is easier to incite the public in hate than to influence them toward peace.

Q: How can [Syrian President] Assad trust that Israel will keep its promises after Netanyahu butchered Oslo?

A: Assad does not trust anyone.

Q: Is there any glimmer of hope that Israel will comply with U.N. Resolution 425 [calling for unconditional Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon]?

A: Yes.

Q: What about Jerusalem?

A: 180,000 Palestinian residents live there...The capital of Palestine should be outside the territorial borders of Jerusalem, within Palestine. East Jerusalem will remain disputed territory. We will negotiate on Jerusalem as long as it takes. There are no deadlines.

Q: What about the religious problems within Israel?

A: We should respect Jewish values within the state, but we need a free country. We don’t need an official declaration of church and state.

Q: How do you account for Netanyahu having a lead in public polls?

A: It is actually 50/50 in the public opinion polls. The country is divided into left and right; it is not about the candidates though. Sixty percent of Israelis support the Oslo accords.

Q: What should be done about the Jewish settlers in the West Bank?

A: Three or four percent of the West Bank, which encompasses most of the settlements, should go under Israeli sovereignty in exchange for three or four percent of Israeli territory near Gaza going to Palestine. The rest should be Israeli citizens with some security arrangements, but under Palestinian authority. The settlers won’t want to stay. The settlements are irritating, but they cannot prevent a permanent peace.

After Beilin’s CSIS talk, a Washington-based correspondent for a major Israeli daily expressed considerable skepticism: “The coalition government will hold. There will be no dissolution of the Knesset because they will not get a majority the second and third time the resolution is brought up under the rules.” As for any possibility of the Labor Party joining a national coalition government, he said it seemed unlikely to him. So what do Beilin’s opinions mean in terms of preserving the peace process? Unfortunately, it seems, not much.

Eugene Bird is president of the Council for the National Interest and diplomatic correspondent for the Washington Report.

SIDEBAR

Administration May Oppose Jerusalem Under Tel Aviv

An amendment has been submitted to the State-Justice-Commerce appropriations act ordering the president to place the Jerusalem consulate general under the authority of the ambassador to Israel. No funding will be available for the consulate general unless he does this.

The final bill is not expected to be before the two houses of Congress until about Sept. 15, and perhaps later.

The Administration is said to oppose the whole idea of changing the almost 100-year-old independence of the consulate general, which has always reported directly to the secretary of state.—E.B.