Tough Struggle for Reality Begins

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s meeting with President Clinton today will be critical in determining the future course of the Arab-Israeli peace process. Barak characterized this process during the Israeli election campaign as a “tough struggle for reality.”

This characterization is an accurate reflection of Barak and the way he thinks. He has a sharp and analytical mind as evidenced by his brilliant military career. He understands the core political and security dimensions of “final status” negotiations on the Palestinian track, and he is keenly aware of the strategic and geopolitical dimensions of the Syrian and Lebanese negotiations.

Further, Barak now has the unique opportunity to evolve into the role of the soldier-statesman in the tradition of his mentor, Yitzhak Rabin. Accordingly, there is strong reason to believe that Barak will make every effort to lead Israel into sustained and serious negotiations with the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Lebanese, allowing each track to proceed at its own pace and not at the expense of the other.

However, Barak’s success in the peace process will depend on three major factors:

* the broadest possible political support from within Israel;

* Syrian President Hafez Assad and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, who must demonstrate strong political will to make the negotiations succeed;

* the United States, which must take a leading role in the process of establishing peace with Syria and Lebanon and a less direct but equally important role as facilitator in dealing with the Palestinians.

Concerning Israeli domestic support, Barak has reached out to put together a diverse coalition. Shas, the ultra-orthodox Sephardic party that has now become the third-largest party in Israel, is part of that coalition. Rabin also tried to include Shas in his government, especially with an eye toward the negotiations with Syria over the Golan, since the spiritual leader of Shas, the Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, preached the sanctity of life over the sanctity of land.

Concerning the Arab negotiating partners in the peace process, there is in place a long negotiating history since the Madrid peace conference was launched in 1991 to build on all fronts. Arafat has stated his readiness to proceed quickly on implementation of the Wye Plantation agreements and to initiate “final status” negotiations. Barak has indicated he may want to put his own stamp on how these negotiations proceed. Nevertheless, there is a pressing need to move the Israeli-Palestinian track forward at a sustained and deliberate pace to engage in the “final status” negotiations involving Israeli settlements, refugee return, borders and Jerusalem.

On the key issue of a Palestinian state, during the election campaign, Barak said only that he supports separation between the Israelis and the Palestinians and that in any final settlement, most Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza would remain under Israeli control. His position on what he perceives to be Israel’s security requirements in the West Bank will also be a major factor in the evolution of his government’s negotiating position on “final status” issues and the powers and obligations of any future Palestinian entity.

There is an important “legacy” of past progress on the Israeli-Syrian negotiating track that has remained dormant since the beginning of 1996. President Assad stated to former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and me in a meeting in Damascus in June that with Barak’s election, the climate is good for forward movement in the peace process and that Syria is prepared to engage.

Barak, during his election campaign, said he would end Israel’s 17-year military presence in south Lebanon within a year, but he has not specified how he intends to accomplish this. Nevertheless, the opportunity presents itself to address the Syrian and Lebanese issues in a more comprehensive manner. There can be little doubt that if progress is made on the Israeli-Syrian track, parallel progress on the Lebanese track will be made on a very timely basis. Barak, a military man, appreciates the strategic importance of a peace settlement between Israel and Syria. It would not only facilitate an Israeli-Lebanese final settlement and stabilize Israel’s northern border, but also lead to Israel’s opening up to the rest of the Arab world through diplomatic, economic and commercial relations.

Finally, the United States should play its unique role in the Arab-Israeli peace process by being an interlocutor between the parties and exerting a strong leadership role when the going gets tough, as it inevitably will. This will mean, at the appropriate times, not just playing the role of a facilitator but that of a mediator. In this respect, important opportunities have been missed since Madrid.

Because the parties in the Middle East are negotiating issues of war or peace and issues of national survival, the Israelis and the Arabs need to know that the United States is engaged at the very highest level. This is what Presidents Nixon, Carter and Bush did and this is what Clinton must do in order to ensure the success of “final status” negotiations on all fronts.