Background Report Assessing Attitudes of Arab States

While politicians and diplomats strive to regain the fast-fading momentum toward peace in the Middle East, some of Israel’s leading political scientists believe their success depends on a correct assessment of the fundamental interests and attitudes of the Arab states.

In the opinion of Prof. Haim Shaked, head of Tel Aviv University’s Shiloah Center for Middle East and African Studies, Saudi Arabia, despite its sparse population, is fast becoming something of a giant in Middle East and world affairs. Its vast financial resources enable it to serve as banker for many of the Arab countries in severe economic straits. The American Administration wishes to provide it with the makings of a sophisticated air force which Israel fears would be aimed at itself.

Thus, the Saudis can play a decisive role in peace negotiations, Shaked believes. So far, he noted, they have adopted ambivalent and ambiguous positions from which they could turn toward the extremist or moderate Arab camp, depending on their perception of future developments.

The Saudi line toward Israel remains hard. They demand its return to its 1967 borders, the creation of a Palestinian state and an Arab Jerusalem. They continue to condemn the concept of Zionism and have declared their readiness to use their oil resources as a weapon. But the Saudis still could accept a more moderate position, Shaked believes.

EGYPT AND ISRAEL

Prof. Shimon Shamir, also of the Shiloah Center, sees Israel and Egypt sharing many interests in common but separated by certain sharply divergent conceptions. Both countries are wary of the potential threat of the Palestine Liberation Organization to Mideast peace and stability, both are acutely conscious of the terrible risks and dangers of war and are interested in keeping Soviet influence out of the region, Shamir said. Where they part is on the fundamental issue of Israel’s legitimacy.

From the Arab-Egyptian point of view, the establishment of Israel has no historic or moral justification and was a gross injustice imposed upon the Arab world. In that light, President Anwar Sadat’s willingness to recognize and accept Israel was the most significant concession he could have made and he is disappointed that Israel refuses to agree, in exchange, to withdraw from all occupied Arab territories and offer the Palestinians self-determination.

Israel considers its existence an established fact, recognized by most of the world and not dependent on the sanction of Egypt or any other country. Therefore, the Israelis do not regard Sadat’s offer a “gift” that warrants the kind of concessions he demands, Shamir said.

HUSSEIN CONSIDERED WEAK

He believes that King Hussein of Jordan is too weak to play a dominant role in determining the political fate of the Palestinians, much as he would like to, and cannot make any move without the prior approval of the other Arab states. In order to obtain such backing, he feels he must demand conditions for participating in the peace process that Israel would find difficult to accept.

Asher Susser, head of the Jordanian desk at the Shiloah Center, believes much of Hussein’s problem lies in the attitude of President Hafez Assad of Syria. Assad is a leading rejectionist and his position in the Arab world is improving because Sadat’s peace initiative is stalled.

Prof. Itzamar Rabinowitz believes, however, that Sadat is aiming for a separate agreement with Israel but is trying to cover himself by creating circumstances which present an image of failure despite maximum efforts to secure a comprehensive settlement. By acknowledging failure, Sadat will be free to reach a separate accord with Israel on the best terms Egypt can get, Rabinowitz said.