Following Israel and Syria's rejection of President Bush's compromise proposal to convene a regional peace conference, a reassessment of the U.S. Middle East strategy and role is critical at this juncture. To break the impasse, the U.S. must develop not only a new stategy but advance a dramatic and comprehensive peace plan of its own that meets the minimum national requirements of the conflicting parties.
A head-on collision between the United States and Israel is inevitable unless the two governments take a hard look at the source of the problem and adopt the necessary measures to restore the cooperative and trusting relationship vital to their national interests.
A basic lack of understanding exists between the Bush administration and the Shamir government regarding the provision in United Nations Resolution 242 requiring the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories" in exchange for "peace within secure and recognized boundaries." President Bush believes that the resolution requires Israel to surrender territories captured in the 1967 war on all fronts. The Shamir government rejects this on the grounds it would undermine Israel's security and usurp its historic right to settle Jews on their ancient homeland.
Unlike past US-Israeli discords which were readily patched up, there is a crisis of confidence brewing between the Bush administration and the Shamir government over Israel's request for a $10 billion loan guarantee. Ironically, the discord between the two governments has less to do with the loan itself than with what it represents.
When the Middle East peace conference finally convenes, there may not be a Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) representative at the negotiating table. It is not the finest hour in the PLO's long and turbulent history, but it is not a defeat either.
There is no issue in Israel as highly charged emotionally and politically as the future status of Jerusalem. By addressing the question of Jerusalem in the context of the peace process first, not last, the United States could help alleviate Israel's concerns regarding its most critical national requirement.
In announcing his acceptance of President Bush's compromise proposal to convene a Middle East conference, President Hafez Assad of Syria reaffirmed his country's position that notwithstanding the limited role of the United Nations, the peace negotiation will have to be based on UN Resolution 242. That is, the principle of trading peace for territory remains the centerpiece for any future settlement of the Israeli-Syrian conflict. The question is how Israel's security needs can be reconciled with Syria's claims of sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
The following is an editorial reptinted from our newspaper from exactly 10 years ago. In light of recent events, we are reminded how different the present could have been without the brave actions of the IDF. And we are also reminded how little support Israel has received from the International community for decades now.
A shortsighted and a premature cease-fire that preserved a brutal despot – Saddam Hussein – in power is behind the Kurdish tragedy today. Unfortunately, America stood idly watching with cruel indifference the destruction of the Kurdish people.