The change in American-Soviet relations, underscored at the recent Moscow summit, is having a dramatic impact in the Middle East.
Perhaps the most significant remark attributed to U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, in his latest wing through the region, was reported by journalists after Shultz’s long meeting Monday with Syrian President Hafez Assad in Damascus.
The secretary was quoted as saying it was astonishing that the parties involved in the Middle East conflict seem to have dug into their hard-line positions while the two superpowers were moving toward agreement.
By adversely contrasting the rigidity of the regional leaders with the newly found flexibility between the superpowers, Shultz was plainly referring to Israeli Premier Yitzhak Shamir, as well as to Assad.
His pointed characterization of his working session with Shamir Sunday as “frank,” as well as leaked reports of his cables to Washington, indicated the secretary was as angry and frustrated as ever with what he regards as stonewalling by Shamir.
Shultz’s exasperation seemed to be reflected in the wry remarks from White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater. He poured cold water on any upbeat speculation that Middle East peace prospects are any better than they have been for 2,000 years.
Significantly, Shultz allowed much of his displeasure with Shamir’s Likud half of the Israeli government to spill out in his public pronouncements.
LAND-FOR-PEACE
He made a point of stressing the land-for-peace equation as the basis of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, on both his arrivals in Israel and in Amman, Jordan.
At Ben-Gurion Airport Sunday, Shultz warned vigorously that “the continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the frustration of Palestinian rights is a dead-end street.”
Shultz stressed throughout his tour of the area that he had been encouraged, for the first time, by the Soviet attitude on Middle East issues, expressed during the summit meeting between President Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev.
He let it be known that contacts will continue between Washington and Moscow. There will be another meeting between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Richard Murphy and his Soviet counterpart, and possibly another session this summer devoted to the Middle East between Shultz and the Soviet foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze.
Shultz hinted that he himself might return to the region for yet another attempt to advance his peace initiative before the election campaigns here and in the United States begin in earnest.
All of this has astonished observers here. The secretary of state seems to be articulating for the first time an American policy that embraces the Soviet Union as a full partner in Mideast peace diplomacy. In the past, such a policy would be unheard of.
NARROWING THE GAP
The superpowers are in fact moving, albeit at a frustratingly slow pace, to narrow the gap between their respective views of the nature and meaning of an international conference for Middle East peace. When the gap is closed, they could conceivably move in concert to convene such a conference.
Shultz and other administration officials are realistic enough to acknowledge that this may not happen before the end of the year, which is also near the end of the Reagan administration’s term in office.
But Shultz is genuinely concerned over a potential slide toward war in the region in the absence of diplomatic progress. He says, bravely perhaps, that his current efforts will serve to pave the way for further advances under the next administration in Washington.
The Soviets, for their part, have also taken some unprecedented steps — they seem to be bringing pressure to bear on the Palestinians.
Just before the Moscow summit, Gorbachev, in a television appearance, urged the Palestine Liberation Organization to recognize Israel’s rights.
Moscow reportedly has been active in advance of the Arab summit meeting, which opened in Algiers on Tuesday, to make sure the Arab leaders do not adopt resolutions that would effectively reject the negotiating option.
INTERNAL POLITICS
Shultz meanwhile sailed perilously close to intervention in Israel’s election campaign and Likud politicians let him know their displeasure.
The ranking Likud member of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Eliahu Ben-Elissar, assailed Shultz during his session with the committee Sunday over American endorsement of “political rights” for the Palestinians.
He elicited from Shultz a restatement of America’s rejection of a Palestinian state.
But the secretary left no doubt in the minds of the committee that the Likud interpretation of the Camp David autonomy package is viewed in Washington as far too limiting and limited a proposal to put seriously on the negotiating table.
Shultz will have to tone down his public pronouncements from now on, because they go to the heart of split in Israel’s domestic politics.
Some would say he has gone as far as he possibly could to signal to the Israeli people his own and his government’s profound hope that they vote into office a government ready to compromise over land in order to win peace.
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.
