Stop harping on the past 

By Gerald M. Steinberg 

(December 24) - The goal of the Middle East peace
process is to bring a comprehensive end to the Arab-Israeli
conflict. This means not only a series of peace treaties
between Israel and each of her neighbors (including the
Palestinians), but, more importantly, an end to the historical
claims that have fueled decades of war and terrorism. 

The possibility of reaching agreements with Syria, Lebanon,
and the Palestinians appears to be increasing. Israel is
steadily returning to the narrow borders that resulted from
the 1948 war, in the expectation that the network of treaties
and mutual acceptance will replace territory and military
force as the basis for security. 

What are the chances of long-term stability, based on
broad acceptance of Israel's legitimacy as a Jewish state? Is
"land for peace" merely a slogan behind which the conflict
will resume once Israel is back to its pre-1967 boundaries?

Much will depend on the terms of the agreements and the
perceptions in the Arab and Islamic world. The evidence is
not encouraging. The Palestinians demand that Israel accept
"historic responsibility" for the plight of the refugees. Syria
blames Israeli policies for the escalating violence that led to
the capture of the Golan Heights in 1967. Egyptians argue
that the agreements and treaties with Israel are being
imposed on a "divided and weak" Arab world. 

On all fronts, it appears that preparations are being made
for resuming the conflict after Israel has given up all of its
assets. 

The Palestinian effort to get Israel to accept responsibility
for the 1948 war and the refugees is particularly dangerous.
In the name of "justice," Palestinians (supported by a few
Israeli academics) have linked the acceptance of pragmatic
formulae for refugee resettlement and compensation to an
Israeli admission of guilt. Under this recipe, the real causes
- the Arab rejection of the 1947 Partition Resolution and
the subsequent invasion - would disappear without a trace. 

As the permanent-status talks progress, Israel will be
pressed, as the stronger party, to make a "gesture" on the
refugee issue. 

We must resist accepting that responsibility as the last step
in the negotiations. Doing so would justify retroactively
decades of Arab wars and terrorism, and the Israeli
defensive responses would suddenly become illegitimate.
And it would be cited throughout the Arab world as the
basis for continuing the war and violence against the Jewish
state. 

Syria is following a similar path, rewriting history and
blaming Israel exclusively for the legacy of wars, terrorism,
and "occupied territory." 

Syrian officials and the media repeatedly emphasize the
demand that Israel return land captured by the Syrian army
in 1948 and occupied until 1967. 

Beyond the political benefits for Assad, this would justify
the Arab invasion and the terrorism that continued long
after. 

The violence that took so many lives would be sanctified as
legitimate responses to the "illegal" creation of Israel. 

In his opening statement in Washington marking the
resumption of negotiations, Syrian Foreign Minister Shara
repeated these myths, and Prime Minister Barak decided
not to respond. Under the circumstances, Barak's silence
was appropriate, but Israel must block further efforts to
rewrite history and incorporate it into agreements. 

The dangers of allowing the myths on the origins of the
Arab-Israeli conflict to go unchallenged are highlighted in
the case of Egypt. After two decades of formal peace, the
ideological war against Israel continues and has even
intensified. Most Egyptian academics, artists, journalists,
and politicians boycott Israel. The excuses vary from
"occupation of Arab territories" to our nuclear option. Israel
is still routinely described as "expansionist," while the
territorial withdrawal continues. 

The real reasons were stated clearly by Egyptian intellectual
Mohamed Sid Ahmed. He wrote that any formal
agreements signed with Israel while the Arab world is
"weak and divided" will not "eliminate all historical memory
throughout the region." 

This is a warning that the treaties lack legitimacy and will be
renounced when the balance of power changes. The Arab
myths will remain, and the conflict will continue. 

To address these central issues, the focus of the peace
process must be altered. The emphasis must shift from
justice and historical responsibility to mutual acceptance,
based on broad and unambiguous acknowledgement of
Israel's legitimacy as a Jewish state. Without this critical
step, what looks like "land for peace" will become the
prelude to more hatred and violence.