Baker Wins Fragile Peace Support Arabs, Israel Agree to Idea of Meeting, but Doubts Persist about Resolution of Enduring Disputes

Article excerpt

TWO years and one war later, the Bush administration is back where it started: cautiously peddling a Middle East peace plan that neither Arabs nor Israelis are willing to define or reject.

During his first year as secretary of state, James Baker III worked long hours to implement an Israeli plan calling for talks on the future of the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. The effort collapsed over a procedural dispute.

Last week, Mr. Baker was at it again. On a four-nation Middle East tour he won qualified backing for a plan to convene a regional conference to launch direct Arab-Israeli peace talks. But now, as before, intransigence reigns. Despite warm words of support for the conference idea from Israel and its Arab adversaries, Baker could fail again to get them past issues of format.

"We have the word `meeting' and that's all; it was hardly worth the jet fuel," says a US official summarizing the fruits of Baker's second trip to the region within a month. "We're dealing in nouns. But it's the adjectives - the qualifiers - that cause things to break down." Middle ground

The idea of a one-time regional conference, or meeting, to open negotiations is a compromise between Arab states, which have sought a full international conference, and Israel, which has favored direct negotiations to resolve Arab-Israeli disputes, including the Palestinian issue.

The plan was given a boost when Egyptian leaders told Baker in Cairo that they were prepared to settle for sponsorship by the US and Soviet Union in lieu of all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Syria also appears to have dropped its demand for a full international conference.

But even this bare definition of how to proceed is mired in controversy.

One disagreement concerns the structure of the negotiations.

Israel wants bilateral negotiations with the Arab states and Palestinian representatives, with the US-Soviet sponsored "conference," or umbrella, to be temporary and strictly ceremonial. The Arab states insist on negotiating with Israel collectively, with the conference to have permanent standing so that the superpowers can be on hand to help settle intractable disputes.

The two sides are also divided on a key issue of substance.

Arab states say two UN resolutions calling on Israel to exchange land for peace apply to all territory captured during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Israel says the resolutions apply only to the Sinai Peninsula, relinquished to Egypt under the 1979 Camp David peace treaty, and not to the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights.

Another major sticking point is the issue that triggered the collapse of US mediation efforts last year - namely, how Palestinians are to be represented at peace talks. The main issue here is Israel's rejection of Palestinians from East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed in 1967 but which Palestinians consider part of the occupied West Bank. …


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.