PERSPECTIVES ON THE MIDDLE EAST : . . . by Twisting Arabs’ Arms : The conference is a U.S. creation made possible by a power vacuum; without international guarantees, it’s worthless.

Brave words will almost certainly define the Arabs’ posture in Madrid. But the linguistic richness of Arabic cannot hide the stark realities of this peace conference: The Arab parties have entered it bearing white flags. The outcome, if there is one, will be Israel’s confirmation as the nuclear power of the Middle East.

As sponsor of the Madrid peace conference, the United States accommodated all of Israel’s demands while diminishing the stature and bargaining position of the Arabs. The Arabs have arrived in Madrid as unequal parties, having conceded to Israel, a priori, at least the following symbolic and substantive points:

The United Nations has been excluded from the peace conference. It was indeed an odd time for Washington to shut out the world body, which played a central role in legitimizing and internationalizing the United States’ intervention in the Persian Gulf. President Bush repeatedly cited the reinvigoration of the United Nations as a central premise of his “new world order.” Yet the United Nations has been excluded from the Arab-Israeli peace process, even while it is being used to destroy Iraq’s nuclear research facilities. Why?

The answer is that as a participant, the United Nations would have wanted the peace agreement to conform to the U.N. Charter and meet the requirements of Security Council resolutions. The charter forbids the acquisition of territory by conquest. And the relevant Security Council resolutions--242, 338 and 425--enjoin Israel to withdraw from territories conquered in the wars of 1967 and 1982, while affirming Israel’s right to security within internationally recognized boundaries.

These are precisely the terms that Israel rejects for peace. American and Arab acquiescence to this position, which is what the exclusion of the United Nations implies, has turned Israel’s defiance of the United Nations and international laws into a negotiable proposition.

A principal party to the conflict, the Palestinians, have been denied full representation and free choice of delegates. In a development rare in the annals of peacemaking, one of the two main antagonists has had to come into the peace conference as part of another delegation (Jordanian), and its adversary exercised veto power over the selection of delegates. The Israeli government, by contrast, has provocatively brought to the peace conference hard-line advocates of colonizing the occupied lands.

The Arabs of Jerusalem, a city whose occupation by Israel is regarded as illegal by the United Nations, the United States and other governments, have been pointedly denied the right to representation. Israel will undoubtedly argue that those who agreed to this exclusion have accepted as legitimate Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem.

This is not an international peace conference. Even the Western powers, including Britain and France, which have long been involved in Middle Eastern affairs, are excluded, again on Israel’s demand. It took Secretary of State James A. Baker III much effort to obtain the attendance of a European Community representative in the first, strictly ceremonial, session.

It is not even a regional peace conference. Israel will deal separately with its adversaries as it defines them--Syria, Lebanon and Jordan--and then with other parties in the region. Thus, Israel’s long-held goal of face-to-face bilateral talks with Arab governments has been fulfilled. The Arabs’ equally long dream of dealing with regional issues collectively has been frustrated--partially at Camp David, largely in the Gulf crisis and now decisively.

While the Arabs made all the compromises on the way to this peace conference, Israel made none. To the contrary, Israel’s posture hardened as Arabs bowed to American pressures. Arab conditions collapsed into a single demand: a halt to Zionist settlements in the occupied territories. Since the settlements policy is a clear violation of international laws, the United States and the international community supported their demand. Israel responded by accelerating the pace of colonization. It has, nevertheless, been rewarded with a peace conference that meets all of its terms.

This peace conference dramatizes a reality that has gradually become noticeable since 1979, when Anwar Sadat made a separate peace with Israel at the highest cost to the Palestinians: The Arab world is fragmented, without a center, morally bankrupt and politically demoralized. Isolated from and distrustful of the people, its leaders are hopelessly dependant on external powers. Since Moscow has opted out of the world power game, the sole focus of the Arabs’ dependence is Washington.

It is Washington that has cajoled them to this peace conference on such unfavorable terms. But the United States is unlikely to play the benevolent patron the Arabs so ardently seek. Washington’s conduct suggests a keen grasp of Arab weaknesses and a deep contempt for Middle Eastern interests and anxieties.

The focus of U.S. policy is on manipulating Middle Eastern realities, not on ensuring a just peace. Its aim is to promote a settlement that would end belligerency between Israel and Arab states, shelve the issues of Palestinian statehood and Israeli occupation, and ensure Israel’s status as the sole nuclear and regional power in the Middle East.

If the Arabs balk at this blueprint, this conference will fail--early. If they submit with twisted arms, a dictated peace of sorts will result. Such a peace is likely to be as lasting, and as historic, as the peace of Versailles.