A joint U.S.-Soviet pledge to vigorously “promote Arab-Israeli peace” in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf crisis initially raised concern that the Bush administration might be abandoning its steadfast opposition to linkage between the two conflicts.
But Israeli officials, American Jewish leaders and Middle East analysts now seem to be persuaded by the administration’s contention that the joint statement issued Tuesday night by Secretary of State James Baker and Soviet Foreign Minister Alexander Bessmertnykh represents no change in U.S. policy.
The statement is being seen more as a means of keeping the Soviet Union behind the allied campaign against Iraq than designing a new path for the Middle East peace process.
In Jerusalem, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was initially reported to be irritated by the joint statement, which was issued at the end of talks at the State Department between Baker and his new Soviet counterpart.
But Shamir appeared to be annoyed more by the fact that Israel was not consulted in advance about a statement that “concerns us directly” than by its content.
Foreign Minister David Levy, on the other hand, said “there is nothing in the statement which needs to worry us.”
And in New York, Shoshana Cardin, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said Wednesday that the communique represents “no change in American policy and breaks no new ground.”
Cardin said she had been “told emphatically” by administration officials that “there would be no unilateral steps taken by the administration affecting Israel without prior consultation with Jerusalem.”
BUSH NOT INFORMED TILL LATER
In fact, President Bush and his senior White House staff did not learn of the communique until after it was issued, just prior to the president’s State of the Union address to Congress, according to White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater.
Fitzwater said Wednesday that it was nothing unusual for Baker to issue a statement after meeting a visiting foreign minister without consulting the White House.
State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler said Israeli Ambassador Zalman Shoval was read the statement over the telephone shortly after it was issued.
Fitzwater and Tutwiler stressed that there is nothing in the statement that has not been said before about seeking a Middle East peace settlement once the Gulf crisis is resolved.
“Our policy has not changed,” Fitzwater said.
“We did not, in all candor, view this as a big deal,” said Tutwiler.
The purpose of the statement was to show there is “no gap between the United States and the Soviet Union concerning the Gulf,” she said.
The statement says it is a “high priority” of the United States and the Soviet Union to bring peace and stability to the region once the Gulf war is over.
“Dealing with the causes of instability and the sources of conflict, including the Arab-Israeli conflict, will be especially important,” the statement says.
“Indeed, both ministers agreed that without a meaningful peace process — one which promotes a just peace, security and a real reconciliation for Israel, Arab states and Palestinians — it will not be possible to deal with the sources of conflict and stability in the region.
“Both ministers, therefore, agreed that in the aftermath of the crisis in the Persian Gulf, mutual U.S.-Soviet efforts to promote Arab-Israeli peace and regional stability, in consultation with other parties in the region, will be greatly facilitated and enhanced.
“The two ministers are confident that the United States and the Soviet Union, as demonstrated in various other regional conflicts, can make a substantial contribution to the achievement of a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East.”
NO INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
Levy in Jerusalem noted that the statement did not mention an international peace conference, to which Israel remains adamantly opposed, and therefore represents no change.
A leading pro-Israel analyst in Washington agreed.
“The question for supporters of Israel is not whether there will be a peace process after the war — there will be one,” said Martin Indyk, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
“The question is whether this process can be constructed in such a way that it takes Israel’s concerns into account.”
Indyk said that by not mentioning an international conference and instead suggesting that the United States and the Soviet Union hold regional talks, a mechanism is being offered “that Israel and its supporters should feel more comfortable with.”
He added that “the emphasis on a meaningful peace process that provides for real conciliation for Israel and the Arab states, as well as the Palestinians, is precisely the kind of language that should be welcomed by supporters of Israel.”
But Indyk stressed that “what is needed now is close consultations between the United States and Israel on what kind of peace process might be pursued in the aftermath of this war.”
He said it is “essential” that the United States and Israel agree on the process.
The joint statement appears to have been pursued more by the Soviet Union than by the United States. Baker did not accompany Bessmertnykh down to the State Department lobby when the Soviet minister read part of it in Russian.
The Soviets are apparently worried they are losing prestige in the Middle East. Before leaving Moscow, Bessmertnykh expressed Soviet concern that the U.S-led bombardment of Iraq was killing too many civilians and destroying Iraq’s infrastructure.
In his State of the Union address, Bush said that while Iraq’s capacity to wage war is being destroyed, “we do not seek the destruction of Iraq, its culture or its people.”
The joint statement said “a cessation of hostilities would be possible if Iraq would make an unequivocal commitment to withdraw from Kuwait.”
But it said this commitment “must be backed by immediate, concrete steps leading to full compliance with the (U.N.) Security Council resolutions.”
Both Fitzwater and Tutwiler stressed that this represents no change from the U.S. position that Iraq must withdraw without any conditions.
In his State of the Union address, Bush mentioned Israel briefly when he said Saddam Hussein’s tactics will not gain him anything.
“If he thinks that by targeting innocent civilians in Israel and Saudi Arabia that he will gain an advantage, he is dead wrong,” the president said.
In the official Democratic response, Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-Maine) said that while other U.S. allies are not doing enough, “one nation, Israel, has done much by its brave refusal to be provoked. This crisis gives us powerful new proof of the importance of Israel’s friendship.”
(JTA correspondent David Landau in Jerusalem contributed to this report.)
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.
