Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 1997, Pages 46, 96

Speaking Out

At Last, The Washington Post Takes a Stand

By Paul Findley

The Washington Post is America's most influential editorial voice. Its commentaries are combed immediately each morning by the entire Washington establishment, in and out of government. Great stacks of the newspaper are sold outside each major federal building, and other thousands are distributed to offices inside.

For many years its editorial pages have been guided by Meg Greenfield and her deputy, Stephen Rosenfeld, both Jewish. Although their commentaries on the Middle East have consistently displayed sympathy, to say the least, for Israel and its problems, it has occasionally rebuked Israel for excesses. Rosenfeld has written several commentaries over his signature that argue for balance in the policies of the United States and more consideration for the sensitivities of Palestinians.

But through those same years, until very recently, the Post has never once, even in an indirect way, suggested that the Palestinians in the occupied territories have the right to self-determination, or, said another way, the right to statehood.

The closest its editorial pages have come to endorsing self-determination —and it was not even a close call—occurred several years ago when it published an op-ed piece by Alfred (Roy) Atherton, the former assistant secretary of state for the Near East, in which the former ambassador to Egypt urged the U.S. government simply to declare self-determination for Palestinians a goal of U.S. policy.

Atherton wrote that self-determination has been America's declared universal goal for humankind through the years, and there is no valid reason to exclude Palestinians.

In short, he asserted, they are entitled to the same fundamental rights as other human beings. The Post's editorials ignored his recommendation and so did the government of the United States.

Now a new day has dawned. The Post has finally crossed the Rubicon: it wants the administration of Bill Clinton to press Israel for self-determination for the Palestinians in the occupied territories.

In two recent editorials it suggests a self-determination process that is limited; the future Palestinian state should not be permitted to have military forces, but at this stage that limitation is a small matter.

In my earliest meetings with Palestine Liberation Organization chairman Yasser Arafat in 1978, he waved off with a chuckle any need for a Palestinian army, navy or air force.

On Aug. 4, the Post noted in an editorial a recent opinion poll showing that "60 percent of Israelis support establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state, and more than half would grant Palestinians sole or joint sovereignty over parts of East Jerusalem."

The editorial continued, "A similar majority supports withdrawal from most of the Golan Heights, in exchange for a peace agreement with Syria and security guarantees from the United States."

The Post urged U.S. support for a demilitarized Palestinian state.

The Post then urged United States support for a demilitarized Palestinian statehood: "Given a Palestinian demonstration of seriousness in the struggle against terrorism, the Israeli public can be expected to return to its pre-suicide bombing readiness for a peace that would meet both Israel's quest for security and the Palestinians' for a state. For the United States to go this way would put it into tension with the [Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu government but would put it into step with most of the Israeli people."

Three days later the Post took another cautious but important step forward. It chastised Secretary of State Madeleine Albright for her failure to call for "a demilitarized Palestinian rump state."

Reviewing a speech by Albright in Washington to the National Press Club, the Post editorialized that this is the late 20th century, long past the time when anyone could pretend that Palestinians have no rightful claim to political self-determination. For the United States not to recognize this Palestinian claim is to encourage the Israeli government to stick to an annexationist, no-state position. The Post continued:

"An American expression of favor for a demilitarized Palestinian rump state in the West Bank and Gaza is the single new element that would most brighten the prospects of Mideast bargaining. That would leave to be negotiated the crucial conditions—borders, arms, capital, refugees, water, etc.—that would make the consummation of statehood not only minimally fair for Palestinians but as safe as possible for Israelis as well."

The Post, of course, should also lament that it, too, waited until the "late 20th century" to recognize the Palestinian right to self-determination. Thousands of lives might have been spared if thePost had been demanding this right in the years since the June 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

Previous Opportunities

In 1975, for example, a Post editorial campaign could have encouraged then- President Gerald R. Ford to persist in his determination to "reassess" the policy of the United States toward the Mideast. It did not.

Lacking any significant national support, President Ford instead reassessed his own declaration when 76 U.S. senators urged him to do so.

Strong endorsement from the Post, widely viewed as the nation's most influential voice for liberalism, might have inspired President Jimmy Carter to persist in his quest for Palestinian rights in 1980.

The endorsement did not come, although the Post published an article by Ambassador George W. Ball, in which the former undersecretary of state argued powerfully for United States leadership in settling the Arab-Israeli dispute.

The article was entitled, "How to Save Israel in Spite of Itself." In his first year as president, Carter called for self-government for Palestinians in a "homeland with secure borders" and wanted the Soviet Union as a partner in the peace process.

I was one of the few members of Congress to express support for Carter. The pro-Israel lobby mounted a scathing counterattack, and Carter backed down.

But better late than never. The Post's new editorial position is, I believe, a development of considerable promise.

Hopefully, it will inspire other influential periodicals to join in, and perhaps bestir former Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George Bush and other foreign- policy leaders to speak out.

So far, no president or former president has ever stated support for Palestinian self-determination.

In fact, despite his other courageous presidential initiatives, Bush clearly stated opposition to Palestinian statehood.

Given their long history dealing with the Arab-Israeli dispute and the Israeli government's United States lobby and their own religious heritage, it may be assumed that Greenfield and Rosenfeld have not come to their new editorial position lightly.

Indeed, the commentaries came almost immediately after the latest suicide bombings in Occupied Jerusalem, a time when anti-Arab passion would be expected to be the most intense.

Once taken, Post editorial positions are rarely changed. Hopefully, the Washington power structure will find in its morning reading material frequent pleas, at long last, for the United States government to take a firm stand for Palestinian self-determination.