President Bush confirmed after his meetings last week with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that he does not plan to step out front with new proposals to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Instead, he appears to be following the position, advanced by former Secretary of State George Shultz, that the United States can be helpful only if Israel and the Arabs demonstrate a willingness to move the peace process forward.
If I felt that being immersed in it would help solve the problem of peace in the Middle East, I would do that,” Bush said in response to a question at a news conference Friday.
“But I would simply say it is not a time where a lot of high visibility missions” can be “helpful in the process,” he added.
That view was echoed Sunday by Brent Scowcroft, Bush’s national security adviser, who spoke on NBC-TV’s “Meet the Press” program.
“The United States can’t make peace in the Middle East,” but can “try to help the parties to bring about a dialogue,” Scowcroft said. “We have a conception, but it will depend on the parties themselves each making some compromises to make such a process work.”
The president appears to be following the cautious go-slow approach in the Middle East he has exhibited in other foreign policy areas since taking office. “In the Middle East, a little step sometimes can be — proved to be — fruitful,” he said.
The president’s endorsement of Shamir’s proposals for elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is in line with this approach.
NOT ‘WARMED-OVER CAMP DAVID’
The election would allow the Palestinians to select representatives for negotiations with Israel to bring about Palestinian self-rule in the territories. Once an interim period lasting several years demonstrated the ability of Israelis and Palestinians to live together, negotiations would be held on the final status of the territories.
“It is not just warmed-over Camp David,” Secretary of State James Baker said of the Shamir plan Sunday on ABC-TV’s “This Week with David Brinkley.”
“This is the most intractable foreign policy problem that many U.S. administrations faced, and we ought not to be dissatisfied with small steps. We think it has potential,” he said.
Both Bush and Shamir stressed that all options would be open for discussion in these negotiations, apparently including an independent Palestinian state.
But both leaders also stressed that their governments are opposed to such a state. “We do not support an independent Palestinian state, nor Israeli sovereignty over, nor permanent occupation of the West Bank and Gaza,” Bush said.
Shamir, who also appeared on the ABC program, did not seem concerned about Bush’s call for an end to Israeli occupation. He said all sides, including the United States, can bring their proposals to the negotiations for the final status of the territories.
A SOLUTION ACCEPTABLE TO ALL
“The Israeli representatives will propose Israeli sovereignty and the Arab representatives will propose Arab sovereignty,” he said. “The parties will have to continue their negotiations until they find a solution acceptable to both parties.”
Shamir added that he does not expect to be among the Israeli negotiators for the final status of the territories, perhaps hinting he will have retired before then.
Both Shamir and Baker indicated the next step is to reach an agreement on how the elections can be held. Mubarak told Bush that the Palestinians would never agree to elections under Israeli control, but later suggested that they could be held under United Nations auspices.
Shamir made clear again Sunday that the elections cannot be held as long as Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza attack Israel. “I cannot imagine that elections will be possible under the pressure of violence,” he said.
“It’s pretty tough to conduct fair and democratic elections in an atmosphere of violence,” Baker agreed.
But the secretary, who appeared on the program after Shamir, said he did not believe the premier was “saying that, as a requirement for negotiations with the Palestinians on how the elections will be conducted, that there somehow has to be an end to the intifada in advance. I don’t think that will work.”
Baker said an effort must be made “to find ways to improve the climate on the ground, improve the atmosphere.”
He said this includes the Palestinians outside the territories, where factions of the Palestine Liberation Organization have been trying to infiltrate Israel.
The administration has been urging the PLO to cease the infiltration attempts during its talks with the organization in Tunisia. On Monday, the U.S. ambassador there, Robert Pelletreau, had another informal meeting with a PLO representative, during an airport ceremony Monday for Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali.
HEDGES ON JERUSALEM’S STATUS
Baker also reiterated the U.S. position supporting “direct negotiations that will provide for Israeli security and Palestinian political rights.”
But he refused to say whether the United States considers Jerusalem the capital of Israel. “Jerusalem should remain undivided,” but its final status “can only be resolved through negotiations,” he said.
Shamir pointed out Sunday that the proposals he made to the Bush administration for moving the peace process forward do not only involve elections.
He said his plan calls for the Arab nations to end their state of war with Israel; for the partners in the Camp David accords — Israel, Egypt and the United States — to bring other Arab nations into the process; and for international aid to provide decent housing for the Palestinians living in refugee camps.
Shamir also maintained that the majority of American Jews, as well as Jews elsewhere, support his policies. And now that they have seen his peace proposals, he added, they are “enthusiastic.”
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
