 |
Washington Report, November 4, 1985, Page 3 An Open Letter U.S. Leaders Call for Reagan Middle East Peace InitiativeMore than 50 former U.S. civilian and military leaders in the foreign affairs field have called upon President Reagan to undertake a U.S. initiative for Middle East peace. In an open letter forwarded by the American Educational Trust to the President and printed on Page 3 of this issue of The Washington Report, the former U.S. policymakers call upon the President to exercise his "responsibility and power to act for the United States wherever world peace is threatened." Calling the Middle East "the single most likely flashpoint for nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union," the letter implores the President to "bring peace to an area tortured by decades of intermittent bloodshed." The former U.S. officials assert that with acceptance by PLO Chairman Yassir Arafat of the condition in the Reagan Middle East peace plan calling for Palestinian self-determination "in confederation" with Jordan, and Arafat's authorization of King Hussein "to lead a delegation of Jordanians and Palestinians to negotiate a permanent peace" based upon UN Security Council Resolution 242's "land for peace" formula, "our friends among the Arabs have met the conditions we imposed. It is time for the U.S. to act." Signatories to the letter include former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer, Former Undersecretary of State George Ball, Former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Porter, Former Assistant Secretary of Agriculture and UNRWA High Commissioner John Davis, Former President of the U.S. Defense University Vice Admiral Marmaduke Bayne, Former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, Former U.S. Representative Paul Findley, 11 retired U.S. Ambassadors, and other former officials of the Department of State, the Army, Navy, CIA, U.S. Information Agency and Agency for International Development. Among the retired U.S. Ambassadors who signed the letter are Lucius
D. Battle, William Dale, G. McMurtrie Godley, Andrew I. Killgore,
Geoffrey W. Lewis, E. Alan Lightner, Sheldon T. Mills, James Moose,
Jr., Edward Mulcahy, Joseph Palmer II, and Talcott W. Seelye. An Open Letter to President ReaganDear President Reagan: We are former Members of Congress, diplomats, military officers and civil servants who are proud of careers spent in the service of our country. We are deeply concerned, however, at the gulf that has opened between the United States on the one hand and our friends in Europe, Japan, the Middle East and, indeed, virtually everywhere in the world as a direct result of U.S. disregard of Israeli violations of international law. President George Washington, in his farewell address to his countrymen, warned that a "passionate attachment" of one nation for another can "facilitate the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists." That clearly describes our relationship with Israel. Its passionate supporters in the media depict imaginary benefits to the U.S. from that relationship that defy reality. They describe Israel as our "only friend" in an area where, in fact, we had no enemies until we sponsored Israel's creation. They regularly demand that members of Congress, and your administration, support actions by Israeli extremists that are contrary to American interests and traditions as any rational American perceives them. We believe that actions to consolidate Israel's hold on territories seized in 1967—in total disregard of the basic principle of international law barring the acquisition of territory by force—are neither in the interest of the U.S. nor of Israel. More than 40 per cent of the Israeli electorate and many thoughtful American Jews are on record to this effect. Our concern, however, is with America's role and responsibility in the world. Our commitments to democratic principles, self-determination, human rights, reconciliation and fair play underlie all of our own domestic and foreign policies. If, as you and we believe, America really has been for much of humanity a "shining city on the hill," it has been because of our historic adherence to those principles, not just as a matter of convenience, but as a sacred covenant with ourselves. Although Americans may reasonably differ among ourselves as to how each of those principles applies in specific regions of the world, the Middle East is no longer such a region. Our policy there must be based upon unambiguous and steadfast support for those ready to conclude a just peace based upon Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation, and steadfast opposition to those who are not. That is the only policy consistent with our real interests, our historic role in the area, and with a sincere desire for peace. The U.S., the Western European nations, the USSR, the Israeli government of Golda Meir, and all of the Arab states bordering upon Israel have, at one time or another, agreed to the blueprint for such a peace contained in UN Security Resolution 242 of Nov. 22, 1967. That resolution called for return to the Arabs of lands seized by Israel in 1967 in return for acknowledgement by the Arabs of Israel's right to exist within secure and recognized borders. In the years since then some impediments to peace have been removed. For example, Resolution 242 was ambiguous concerning whether Israel was being called upon to withdraw from all or only some of the lands seized in 1967. In 1969 the Nixon administration addressed that ambiguity by clearly saying that deviations from the pre-1967 boundaries should be "insubstantial." During the same administration the U.S. and USSR together drafted what became UN Security Council Resolution 338 of October 22, 1973 calling for peace negotiations "between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices." Your own peace plan in September, 1982, specified that the self-determination to be exercised by Palestinians in the lands returned to them must be in the context of a confederation with Jordan. At a summit meeting in 1982 the Arab nations found no conflict between your peace plan and theirs. This year PLO Chairman Yassir Arafat has accepted your condition and authorized King Hussein to lead a delegation of Jordanians and Palestinians to negotiate a permanent peace based upon Resolution 242. Chairman Arafat has also said he is prepared to recognize the Government of Israel when Israel defines its boundaries and recognizes the PLO as the Government of the Palestinians within defined boundaries. By any objective estimate he speaks for between 80 and 90 percent of the four million Palestinians. Few western leaders and no single Israeli leader can claim such a high level of support from the people they represent. We cannot in good faith, therefore, question the credentials of Palestinians who enjoy Arafat's confidence to negotiate for their people. During his recent visit to Washington, King Hussein publicly stated his recognition of Israel's right to exist and his willingness to enter into direct peace negotiations based upon Resolution 242 with Israel. In short, our friends among the Arabs have met the conditions we imposed. It is time for the U.S. to act. Former Undersecretary of State George Ball, who is one of the signatories of this letter, has written that the 1967 Arab-Israeli war was "one of the most tragic events of modern history. Not only did it produce a second Palestinian diaspora, but it inflamed Israel's imperialistic ambitions and left the Israelis holding substantial territories taken by force. It also marked the beginning of America's progressive abandonment of principle in dealing with Israel, and the first stage of our nation's descent to the current low level of cynical and ineffective foreign policy." As Americans who have held policy making positions in our diplomatic and military services or in Congress, we agree with every word of that assessment. Further, we believe that conducting a Middle East policy obviously based more upon domestic electoral goals than upon true national interests has eroded the dedication of many patriotic Americans still serving our country. The rapidly-increasing perception among informed Americans that in the Middle East our nation is being betrayed by its own institutions has been recorded in opinion Polls. Its significance is masked only by the fact that the Israel lobby is deeply entrenched in the national media. Many, though fortunately not all, normally patriotic and articulate members of Congress therefore do not speak out, fearing that they will be "targeted" by a lobby that openly rewards those who place Israeli before American interests, and that boasts it can punish those who do not. Again to quote Former Undersecretary Ball, "the price we have paid for our uncritical support of Israel cannot be measured in terms of the $30 billion we have so far provided in loans and grants to only 3.5 million people; even more costly has been the erosion of our political principles and our loss of authority as a world leader. In automatically defending Israel's violations of the U.N. Charter, the United States has persistently shown a lack of 'decent respect for the opinions of mankind."' We believe you are well aware of the situation we describe, but that domestic political advisers have told you that if you seek too many accomplishments during your final term, you may achieve none. We submit that no accomplishment could be more important than achieving a reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. It would bring peace to an areatortured by decades of intermittent bloodshed. It would remove the single most likely flashpoint for nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union. It would restore to the U.S. a role of moral leadership and a great measure of confidence and respect among all of the peoples of the world. With all due respect, we submit that you have the responsibility and the power to act for the United States wherever world peace is threatened. That clearly includes the Middle East. If you choose to exercise that responsibility, with your demonstrated power to explain your actions and goals convincingly to the American people and to their representatives in Congress, we believe you will receive their unreserved support. This letter is our pledge that you will also receive ours. Signed: The Hon. James Abourezk |