home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
070290
/
0702105.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
4KB
|
90 lines
<text id=90TT1715>
<title>
July 02, 1990: The Political Interest
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1990
July 02, 1990 Nelson Mandela:A Hero In America
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
NATION, Page 26
THE POLITICAL INTEREST
Getting Shamir's Attention
</hdr>
<body>
<p>By Michael Kramer
</p>
<p> "Call us when you're serious about peace. Here's our
number." Tough talk from the U.S. Secretary of State to the
Israeli Prime Minister a few weeks back. But just talk. Yitzhak
Shamir and his hard-line colleagues have shrugged off worse
from Washington before. So they sat tight, and last Wednesday
their arrogance was rewarded. Baker's studied pique was
undermined by Washington's suspension of its dialogue with
Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization. It would now
appear that the U.S. is talking to neither side in the
Arab-Israeli dispute, a stance that at best is dangerous:
history proves that the Middle East roils whenever prospects
for peace recede.
</p>
<p> This is not to say that Arafat did not deserve a slap. He
renounced terrorism in 1988, but has so far refused to condemn
specifically the foiled May 30 Palestinian attack on a Tel Aviv
beach. Yet Arafat's predicament is understandable. The P.L.O.
is a contentious collection of ideologically disparate
factions, but they are united in wondering what 18 months of
dialogue with the U.S. has bought. P.L.O. requests seem
reasonable enough: direct talks with Israel, a United Nations
team to investigate alleged Israeli abuses of Palestinian
human rights in the occupied territories, a chance for Arafat
to plead his case at the General Assembly in New York. What
they have got is nothing, and it was the U.S. that vetoed U.N.
inspection of the West Bank and Gaza.
</p>
<p> Shamir is the one who really needs a clubbing from
Washington. The policy guidelines of his right-wing government
enshrine the central obstacle to peace: Jerusalem's insistence
on the "eternal" claim of Israel to hold and settle the
occupied territories.
</p>
<p> So what does Bush do? Last week he sent Shamir a letter.
Tell me, Prime Minister, asked the President, are you "serious"
about peace? The answer, of course, is yes. As ever, Shamir is
serious about a Shamir-style peace, a nonstarter that assumes
Palestinian capitulation.
</p>
<p> It is time for a change. As long as the U.S. funnels $3
billion a year to Israel regardless of Jerusalem's actions,
Shamir will never move. A message stronger than a phone number
is required. If an aid cut is politically impossible--as was
made evident when Senator Robert Dole first suggested a modest
decrease last January--then several other measures might
capture Jerusalem's attention.
</p>
<p> For openers, Washington could treat Israel like virtually
every other recipient of U.S. aid. Israel receives its
assistance in a single check, rather than quarterly. Since
Jerusalem does not need all the money immediately, it invests
in U.S. Treasury bonds. A sweet deal: Israel lends back
America's own cash and earns an additional $76.7 million in
interest.
</p>
<p> If treating Israel like other nations is beyond Washington's
courage, then certainly the U.S. must insist that the extra
$400 million in congressionally approved housing loan
guarantees be withheld until Israel promises not to move Soviet
immigrants to the occupied territories.
</p>
<p> How dare you even think of attaching strings to your aid,
says Eliahu Ben-Elissar, an influential Shamir aide. "We are
not a colony." Ben-Elissar is right. Israel is not a colony--but neither is it an indigent client entitled to assistance as
a matter of right against American interests.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>