It Is The President’s Call

The flurry of diplomatic activity involving Israel, the Palestinians, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the European Union in the search for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will soon compel the United States to take a more definitive stand. Whereas all players speak of the need to establish a Palestinian state, there is little agreement about the shape of such an agreement, the territory that will define the new state and the time frame for its creation. President Bush is under mounting pressure by the Europeans and the Arab states to provide a roadmap laying out a solution and the necessary steps to obtain it before the situation gets completely out of control.

Try as he may to avoid greater American involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian morass, the President has no choice except to play a direct role, not only in facilitating an agreement, but ensuring its full implementation over an extended period of time. I draw this conclusion not only because historically the United States has been involved in every interim and final agreement between Israel and the Arab states, but because, in this case, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are capable of concluding an agreement on their own and trust no other intermediary. Moreover, due to the intractability of the conflict and it's multi faceted economic and security issues, only the United States has the means to deal with the requirements for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. In addition, we have a strategic interest in the region, and other players — the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan–have strong bilateral relations with America and want us to be the guardian of any new agreement so that it safeguards their own power as well as their overall regional interests. Finally the United States is indispensable because it is the principal country that is fighting international terrorism, and the Middle East is integral part of that equation. Ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a sine-qua-non to ending international terror, which includes the ousting of Iraq's Saddam Hussein from power.

There are a number of principles on which a future agreement must be based and about which very limited room for compromise exists. The President and the Arab and Israeli leaders may not reach agreement on many of these issues in their meetings including Mr. Bush's sixth face-to-face meeting with Sharon this week. Mr. Bush, however, must make his position clear on these issues and eventually persuade both parties to accept the U.S. position. That is, to the extent that both the Israeli and Palestinian public can perceive an American plan as providing a fair and equitable solution with all the necessary safeguards, the people will exert their own pressure on their respective leaders to compromise for peace. Here is what the President must outline as his vision for peace:

First, the solution to the territorial dispute must be based on UN resolution 242, (1967) which calls for the exchange of territory for peace and secure borders. In that context, only minor territorial adjustments can be made. Specifically, there is nothing to indicate that the Palestinians and the Arab states will accept anything less than possession of the vast majority of the territory of West Bank and all of Gaza, allowing for a minor land swap to permit Israel to keep several blocks of settlements around Jerusalem.

Second, there will be no return of Palestinian refugees en mass to Israel proper. Those refugees who want to return to their homeland must settle in the West Bank and Gaza, while the remaining should receive compensation and resettlement in their current place of residence. For Israel this issue is of paramount importance because any major influx of Palestinian refugees could change the demographic composition of the country, obliterating Israel as a Jewish state.

Third, the president should not shy away from the sensitive issue of Jerusalem. Crown Prince Abdullah spoke of sharing Jerusalem as did former Prime Minister Barak. Whereas no walls should be erected to divide the city, the Palestinians must have sovereignty over the Muslim holy shrines and the Arab section of east Jerusalem with Israel retaining sovereignty over its holy places as well as the Israeli neighborhoods in the old city.

Fourth, as long as regional enemies like Iraq and Iran continue to threaten Israel's security, it must be able to retain a security belt along the Jordan River to prevent infiltrations of terrorists and military hardware to the West Bank. Such protection will be a critical factor in persuading many Israelis that peace and stability will hold.

Fifth, the newly established Palestinian state must remain demilitarized, with its leaders forbidden from entering into military alliances with any nation. Other than the necessary internal security forces, the new state needs no military to defend itself from potential enemies. Moreover, to build a military force of any consequence would require billions. The scarce funds that may become available should be spent on education, infrastructure, social services and democratic institutions.

Sixth, the new Palestinian state must be based on democratic principles that guarantee transparency, accountability, a fair judiciary system, free press, freedom and human rights. These rights must be constitutionally enshrined.

Seventh, several Palestinian factions, such as Hamas and Jihad remain bent on Israel's destruction and are seeking to achieve their goal in stages. Any new agreement between the parties should be final disavowing any future claims. Moreover, the main Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, must remain fully engaged in the negotiating process, supporting the eventual agreement and being signatories to it.

Finally, the President must avoid the establishment of an arbitrary timetable for the implementation of such a vision. Several phases must, however, be established, reciprocity must underlie the negotiation and indeed be the premise behind new interim agreements.

I realize there is nothing startlingly new about any of these points, except that if promoted by the United States they will carry the authority and the pressure desperately needed to provide a new direction, create a forward impetus and renewed hopes for the future. For the president to set himself in the center of new negotiation carries with it definite political risk especially in an election year. Nevertheless, Mr. Bush must act. But will he plunge in or err on the side of caution and possibly miss an historic opportunity to end one of the most intractable and violent conflicts of this century? It is the president's call.