SPECIAL REPORT

# Turning a Fairy Tale Into Reality

BY HENRY A. KISSINGER

FOR VETERANS OF WHAT GOES BY THE name of the Middle East peace process, the ceremony at the White House had the aura of a fairy tale. It seems only yesterday that I walked the streets of Tel Aviv with my valued and trusted friend Yitzhak Rabin after the '67 war, when he was the hero of conquests. Now he was seeking to become an instrument of conciliation. And next to me sat the serene and beautiful Mrs. Sadat, suspended between hope and regret that it took nearly twenty years for Yasir Arafat, the leader who had vilified her husband, to embrace Sadat's noble path. In my last conversation with Sadat a few weeks before his assassination, he spoke of his dream of building a mosque, a church, and a synagogue on top of Mount Sinai to symbolize the hope for peace and reconciliation. Would it now be Arafat who at last fulfills that vision?

It was one of those rare occasions on which hope suspends all doubt. Neither I nor anyone else present will ever forget the anguish and hope in the nearly Biblical remarks of Prime Minister Rabin. Nor could one fail to be affected by the culmination of Arafat's tortuous journey, which had finally brought him acceptance as a world leader on a level with the other protagonists. President Clinton's dignified chairmanship of the ceremony and the Russian foreign minister's minimal role also testified to the unchallenged global leadership that is now America's.

Only the most churlish or fanatical would refuse to join the almost palpable hope expressed at that historic ceremony. On the other hand, statesmen who base their policy on the expectation of recurrent miracles usually suffer shipwreck. In the years ahead, the idyll on the White House lawn can only be fulfilled if all the parties concerned apply its spirit to resolving the nagging questions which remain. For example, what exactly was being recognized by each party? Was it premature (however unavoidable) to invest Arafat with the aura of a head of state three years after his support of Iraq in the gulf war, and on the basis of "granting" Israel a status that is the automatic prerogative of nearly every other nation? Was the euphoria in which we all shared a spur to the process? Or will it prove an obstacle if it leads to disillusionment after the inevitable deadlocks appear?

Whether the agreement leads to greater flexibility or greater tension will depend crucially on the United States. Until now, every Arab-Israeli agreement has been brokered by the United States, and many of the formulae leading to solutions were designed in Washington. Yet in the phase that is now beginning America must not assume responsibility for breaking all the deadlocks, lest it give each party an incentive to shift the diffi-

cult choices to us. After the signing ceremony, one of the PLO negotiators said to me that the PLO had learned that American pressure on Israel for specific concessions usually backfired and that a settlement could be sold best to the Palestinians if it was freely negotiated.

On this occasion, the United States allowed just that—staying on the sidelines at crucial junctures and even allowing itself to remain uninformed. Even now, America is not needed on a daily basis, hard as this may be for some of our more missionary experts to accept. But what America should do—and is the only country in a position to accomplish—is to use the confidence of both sides to create the conceptual framework for progress. America alone has the ability to reconcile the clashing notions of sovereignty, and

perhaps even to create areas of mixed sovereignty where the populations are particularly intermingled. It should hold the line against outside intervention, making clear to traditional friends, especially to Israel, that the peace process strengthens America's commitment to their future, and making clear to traditional adversaries that continued moderation is the only road to progress.

The ceremony at the White House was

made possible, paradoxically, by exhaustion: material exhaustion on the part of the PLO; psychological exhaustion on the part of Israel. This is why all the truly contentious issues have been set aside—borders, settlements, refugees, and Jerusalem. Even the mutual recognition on which the agreement is based is ambiguous. Israel has recognized the PLO but seems to believe that it has not recognized a Palestinian state and that it can choose the representatives with whom it is prepared to deal. This is surely an illusion. I have in the past expressed grave reservations about the consequences of creating a Palestinian state. But after Arafat has been received at the White House on an equal footing with Rabin and elections are held in the occupied territories, a Palestinian state is inevitable

sooner or later. And its leaders will emerge from the elections.

At the same time, Arafat, with the best will in the world, will be unable to endow his recognition with the nearly mystical significance given to it by many Israelis. Any political leader depends on his constituency. And in the past, the PLO has been an umbrella organization including terrorists, rejectionists, and radicals, many of whom have condemned the agreement and are unlikely to ever be converted to views contrary to those of a lifetime. Even granting Arafat's unreserved commitment to peace, the pressures he faces will make him an increasingly complicated partner. If he pursues a PLO or radical consensus, he will be forced to be ambiguous; if he goes beyond his constitution, he may be removed or become irrelevant.

When the Palestinians recognized Israel, did they mean that they have become genuinely reconciled to its existence? Or was it with the same attitude that France renounced Alsace-Lorraine to Germany in 1871, as a stage in a continuing struggle? I asked this question of a PLO representative after the signing. He answered: "I consider

PAUL KERN—SYGMA

Israelis in Jerusalem celebrating the handshake last week

## Will the euphoria prove an obstacle if it leads to disillusionment after the deadlocks appear?

32 NEWSWEEK SEPTEMBER 27, 1993