The underlying problem is that the state of Israel, a responsible state that can be held accountable for what it is doing, is negotiating with a Palestinian movement which essentially cannot be held accountable. Periodically, in order to up the ante, Arafat’s colleagues engage in violence. Inevitably, a variety of voices declare that it is up to Israel to stop the violence by granting certain concessions to the Palestinians. The implicit acknowledgment is that there is not equal responsibility and equal accountability on both sides, which is why it becomes, by default, incumbent upon Israel to take the initiative and bear the burden.
On the one hand is a state, with all of the responsibilities of sovereign power. And on the other is an irresponsible movement that continues to manipulate the situation, including world perceptions, in such a way as to create capital for itself out of the violence that it inflicts on Israel. Unfortunately, there are always those – currently including the American Secretary of State – who are willing to allow this irresponsible process to take place.
Distracted by the mirage of a “peace process” between a nation state and the Palestinian faux political apparatus, America has frequently lost sight of the reasons that Israel is rightly considered our best friend and ally in the Middle East.
We need, and Israel is, a reliable partner in the Middle East. In the concrete challenges to our national interest that arise in the region, Israel can be counted on to work with us and support our interests. Israel represents for us a political and military asset both strategically and tactically.
Even more important is the moral and political affinity between the two states, in terms of self-government and the commitment to ideas of human rights and principles of political justice.
On both those grounds there is a strong tie between the United States and Israel, which we must take great care to preserve.
The strength of Israel’s democratic institutions, in a region of the world where such institutions are the exception to the rule, should make strong support of Israeli interests a presumptive position at the American State Department. But it doesn’t. The professionals at the State Department are too often driven by an obsession with process, by a concern with their own bureaucratic position, and not necessarily by our national principles and the need to represent them in our policy abroad. Sometimes they don’t even appear to consider the consistent embrace of those principles to be one of our essential interests.
But it must be part of the warp and woof of America’s presence in the world to try to stand with those who, like ourselves, are committed to human rights and the principles of self-government. It ought to be basic to our policy, because it is basic to our identity as a people. This does not mean that we should avoid relations with other states in the region, or fail to seek peace and friendship with them. But we must wish to do so in a way that does not compromise our national principles, and does not come at the expense of our principled relationship with Israel.
Our moral and strategic reasons for a preferential relationship with Israel also make it urgent that we think clearly about what policy can bring lasting peace to the region. For that, a fundamental revision in our official understanding of the situation is necessary. The crucial mistake in current policy is to regard Arafat and his authority as indispensable. American diplomats protect Arafat because they don’t see any other interlocutor. This, in turn, arises from the failure to look objectively at the history of the situation. The current partition scheme in the Middle East has failed. What should have been the self-governing state of Arab Palestinians was handed over to the Hashemite Kings of Jordan, who no longer even claim to represent the Palestinians, despite exercising political rule over almost all Arab Palestinians. Until we are willing to insist that the self determination of Jordanian Palestinians be acknowledged, and a true and sovereign Palestinian homeland be constituted that is not carved out of the center of Israel, we will mistakenly hold that Arafat is indispensable. This is largely because we don’t know who else Israel should talk to.
In the meantime, the PLO constantly plays with the perception that somehow their violent agitation constitutes their legitimate part in a political dispute, an issue of justice and nationalism. The appearance of a “peace process” with the Palestinians has covered over the truth that the Palestinian movement considers itself at war with Israel. The Israeli government of Ariel Sharon understands that the way out of war is not to give in to the violence of the other side. The world’s unwillingness to see that Israel is faced with a violent and irresponsible agitation, and not a responsible and sovereign negotiating partner, has merely entrenched the difficulty. The goal of American policy should be to begin to establish a foundation for state-to-state negotiations between a responsible Jewish-based state in Israel and a responsible Arab Palestinian state that could, in fact, be held accountable for agreements that are reached, and for whatever violence that is committed.
In the meantime, it should be part of the declared policy of the new American administration that we understand that Ariel Sharon must do what is necessary to establish peace and order within the sovereign territory of Israel. We have not declared such a policy because, under Secretary Powell, the historical myopia of the State Department bureaucrats continues. We need to make it clear that violence will not be rewarded. We must be absolutely clear that the United States will not participate in the distribution of political rewards in response to violence and the manipulation of violence for political purposes. Nor will we condemn Israel when they respond in ways that are necessary in order to secure the lives of their citizens. We need to take that stand strongly and unequivocally so there can be no misunderstanding.
The United States can contribute to peace in the Middle East by abandoning wishful thinking in favor of realistic analysis. Peace is possible only if we accept the discipline of speaking forthrightly and persistently the truth that there can be no “peace process” until Israel can negotiate with a truly sovereign and responsible Palestinian state that understands it cannot terrorize or propagandize its way to a just settlement.
(Dr. Keyes is founder and chairman of the Declaration Foundation, a communications center for founding principles.)
