In the second of a series of two articles, Mohamed El-Sayed Said of the Al-Ahram Centre for political and Strategic Studies continues his discussion of topics that will top the agenda of the Middle East multilateral talks, scheduled for next Tuesday in Moscow. He proposed ways forward that should be considered by the participants if they want the talks to succeed The forking of Middle East peace talks into two avenues -- bilateral and multilateral -- represents a deviation from a consistent and comprehensive approach to many of the contentious issues involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Paramount among these demographic dimension of the conflict. Whereas the issue of Palestinian refugees is included in the agenda of multilateral talks, the organically-linked issue of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is to be handled in the course of bilateral negotiations. Shamir's trick of two-track negotiations may work for a while, but it is hard to imagine how any definite commitment regarding the evacuation of existing Jewish settlements can be reached within the framework of negotiations that deal primarily with interim arrangements related to Palestinian autonomy. Equally, hypothetically at least, one could argue that the handling of the question of Palestinian refugees belongs on the agenda of a comprehensive peace agreement. Unfortunately, the demographic dimension of the conflict is being fragment in such a way that makes conceptualisation of the issue practically impossible. One central fact will always stand out as pivotal to the fate of the entire process of negotiations: the Arabs will never accept resolution of the conflict, or peace with Israel, without the Jewish state recognising the inevitability of evacuating the West Bank and Gaza. This evacuation will involve both troops and settlers, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 242. Such a demographic approach to solving the conflict is unavoidable, and the only framework acceptable for any progress regarding this approach is the "two-state" solution envisaged by the General Assembly Resolution 181, of 1947. No amount of squabbling can alter the fundamental truth or wisdom of this fact. After recognising the need for grated approach to both sides of the demographic dimension can successfully be applied -- provided the tools for implementing this are used early enough. For Example, a certain number of Palestinian refugees can be admitted to existing (Jewish) settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, after their evacuation, in fulfillment of their reparation rights for loss of property within the 1948 sector of Mandate Palestine. In return, a certain Amount of Arab and international aid can be arranged to help Israel accommodate areas inside Israel. In the broader framework, such a population swap should be administered in the context of a developmental and cooperative perspective. Let us then attempt to provide a general outline of the path of progress for multilateral talks. The aim of the multilateral talks is to translate the meaning of peace, as implied in the "land- for-peace" formula, into a concrete framework of regional cooperation involving Israel as an equal partner. The integration of Israel in a network of cooperative regional interaction is the final aim of such a framework. The pertinent question that immediately comes to any Arab mind concerns the amount of regional integration to be granted to Israel. It would be useful in this context to try and read into a tacit debate between advocates of two scenarios or positions; minimalist and maximalist. The logic of the minimalist position can be summed up as follows. Israeli society is expansionist and militaristic. Consequently, it will never accede to the need for a comprehensive and durable peace in the region. Israel will continue doing everything possible to jeopardise the peace negotiations, and maintain its strategic supremacy over the Arabs. Accordingly, Israel should be granted benefits of peace proportional to its willingness to accommodate Arab rights. The maximalist position, on the other hand, advocates the following. Arabs should be ready to grant Israel maximum integration into the region in return for maximum evacuation of occupied territories and accommodation of Palestinian rights. If Israel shows willingness to reconciliation by means of what has been called a historical compromise, it should be allowed to reap the benefits of peace as swiftly and decisively as it delivers concrete signs of this willingness. The minimalist position rests on three assumptions. First the maximum benefits of peace to Israel will not by necessity alter the profound militaristic nature of Israeli society. It may even enhance this nature as concessions may be perceived as sign of bowing to Israeli military supremacy. Second the economic benefits of peace will help Israel expand its capacity to absorb more migrants, thus posing even greater demographic pressure. Last, as Israel is the most qualified technological power in the region, that regional network of cooperation will work for the sole benefit of Israel, who will be able to penetrate the whole region and impose its hegemony over the Arabs. The maximalist position also bases its logic on three assumptions. First, the militaristic characters of Israel society cannot be reduced without the integration of Israel into peaceful cooperative network and the promotion of a concrete social interest in peace within Israeli society. Second, an economic and functional integration of Israel into means to check the tendency to Israeli domination over the economies of its all small neighbors; mainly; Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine. Finally, in the longer run, a maximalist position argues, integration will reduce the rigidity of Israeli society and may eventually encourage a more liberal interpretation of Zionism, rendering obsolete the stress on the importance of physical settlement in the Promised Land, replacing this nation with that of a "spiritual and cultural homeland", thus reducing the demographic pressure of immigration. The Egyptian position is certainly much closer to the maximalist position. This can be detected from the fact that Egypt favours the policy of "peace as an incentive", and not just a bartering technique. The validity of the Egyptian perspective depends on many qualifying factors. First, the maximum integration of Israel into the region should be freely accepted by the Arabs as a response to a positive interpretation of peace on both sides. Within such an interpretation, there is no place for Israeli strategic supremacy or blackmail. The whole region must be freed from all major weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons. The Egyptian initiative on the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction and establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East should constitute a prime target for multilateral teaks. Secondly, a positive outlook to peace in the Middle East will lead to substantial reduction in levels of military spending. It would facilitate arms control negotiations whose success depends upon the attainment of a state of strategic equilibrium. Thirdly, this more positive outlook would allow the region's countries to shift emphasis from security through deterrence to security through economic welfare and cultural efflorescence. A creative restructuring of the region's economies may provide a key to success in this endeavour, particularly if in the course of such restructuring the potential of economies cooperation came to be realised. Of course, it would be essential to prevent any economic interactions developing into a new source of conflict in the area. A balanced approach to economic and functional cooperation is demanded. The peoples of the region would be unwilling to see military imperialism replaced by economic imperialism. In order to prevent the possibility of any skewed structure of economic interaction coming to the fore, a number of notions prevalent in Israeli thinking, and which imply the pursuit of a form of economic imperialism, have to be addressed. For any approach to economic cooperation has to be done in a manner stressing mutual interests, equal opportunities and parity. It would not be a question o Israel exporting, technical know how in exchange for raw materials and unskilled labour. Fourthly, a balanced approach across the entire range of regional issues will, in the end be in Israel's best interests. It is in fact the only realistic opinion for Israel to pursue within the unfolding configurations of international relations. The fact of the matter is that, in the post Cold War era, the strategic value of Israel to the West, and to the United States in particular, has been drastically reduced. The declining economic power of the US, combined with increasing isolationist pressures domestically will eventually restrict the ability of the US to provide economic and strategic aid to Israel. The only way Israel can prevent itself from becoming increasingly isolated within the international community is for Israel to entrench itself within the region. To do this, Israel needs to be accepted by its neighbours. A constructive contribution to peace, economic and cultural reconstruction on the part of Israel would go along way in gaining Arab acceptance. The maximum integration of Israel into the region is an important card in the hands of the Arabs, allowing them to stimulate a smooth process of reorientation with Israel. The absorption of Israel into the Middle East will entail progress on three levels of cooperation: the regional, functional and institutional. On the regional level, a comprehensive peace agreement would terminate the Arab boycott of Israel. Once terminated, Arab countries could then be invited to participate in cooperation schemes involving Israel. This would maximise the potential benefits of peace of Israel. On the functional level, various fields of cooperation will be gradually opened. Of course priorities will have to be set, nevertheless Israel may be engaged in a whole set of cooperation schemes from the very start. On the institutional level, Israel will gain the right to voice its opinion on issues of cooperation on a permanent basis. This would be effected through institutional arrangements of two types; broad multi-purpose for a, and more specialised functional bodies. A number of proposals were suggested for the establishment of board institutions of regional cooperation. A most welcomed proposal relates to the establishment of an institution similar to the European Conference on Security and Cooperation. The maximalist position supports the widest possible membership of such institutions. The inclusive nature of such institutions, embracing the Middle East, the Horn of Africa as well as Arab North Africa, would mean that Israel would not be the only non- Arab participant in any such institution. Meanwhile the Arab world could maintain its independent identity as manifested in the Arab League. Functional bodies, on the other hand, constitute the most delicate and creative responds to the formidable challenges of peace and cooperation in the Middle East. The ultimate purpose of these bodies is to administer cooperation projects in specific functional fields according to agreements and conventions, embodying specific formula based on an equilibrium of interests. A first order of priorities would include water, arms control, transport (including aviation), antipollution and ecological refreshment bodies, Membership of such, or of the agencies or institutions administering these bodies, must be based on location, interests, and the potential for positive contribution. Israel would be a natural candidate for membership of most of these bodies. In conclusion, the maximalist position as outlined faces formidable problems. Israel has yet to show its willingness to come to terms with the necessity of peace with the Arab world. Israel continues to be obsessed with security and deterrence, with the claims of its ultra-right supremacists that the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights are integral parts of "Eretz Israel". From an Arab perspective, Israel appears bent on continued domination of occupied Arab territories. Within this context, the maximalist position could have a chance to be implemented only when Israel has exhibited a clear commitment to relinquish control over occupied Arab territories. From the Egyptian perspective, the commitment to the maximum absorption of Israel into the region is an incentive for peace. But it will never be shown as a reward for continued aggression. Issue 48 - 23 January 1992
