A glimmer of hope?

Press, 3 November 1981, Page 16

A glimmer of hope?

The rejection of the Saudi peace plan for the Middle East by the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Begin, was to be expected at this stage. There may still be no compromise in the future by the Israelis because the peace plan envisages the formation of a Palestinian State and Israel sees this as a threat to its existence. A Palestinian State would leave Israel with a narrow waist of territory which, it believes, would pose a danger to its integrity should there be another Middle East war.

Israel has long sought defensible borders which include what is known as “strategic depth” — enough territory to keep attacking forces from the heartland of Israel while Israel’s defence forces prepare their response to an attack. The insecurity felt by the Israelis is real enough, but the “strategic, depth” argument is not as sound as it sometimes appears. As weapons develop, more and more territory is needed to give the strategic depth. Whatever the present Israeli response to the plan, events in the Middle East offer a glimmer of hope that has not been seen for many months. This has come about not through any single factor, but through the convergence of a number of interests and compromises. Whether by design or by accident, the Americans appear to be showing interest in the Saudi peace plan in return for tacit acceptance by the Saudis of a Sinai peace-keeping force. No doubt the Saudi Government was encouraged to consent to the force because of the sale of advance-warning radar aircraft to Saudi Arabia. The European Economic Community, for reasons not yet clear, has agreed to contribute to the Sinai peacekeeping force, and the Egyptians, who see a possibility of better relations with other Arab countries, are showing an interest in the Saudi peace plan.

The entry of the West Europeans into the Sinai peace-keeping force probably comes about from a variety of motives. They may have been persuaded that putting the Camp David Accords to work is

the only initiative in the Middle East with any momentum. They may have wanted to please the United States to make up for differences over trade and other defence issues. They might simply argue that the Camp David Accords mean that the Sinai Peninsula is being returned to Egypt, and that by contributing to a peace-keeping force there they are assisting in the return of captured territory to its former owner. The entry of the West Europeans is likely to mean an expansion of the American approach to solving the Middle East problem. A compromise has emerged in which the Europeans accept the Camp David Accords for what they are accomplishing, and join the Sinai peacekeeping force; in return, the United States will broaden its approach to the problem. ' President Mubarak of Egypt is quietly seeking reconciliation’.with the rest of the Arab world. He wants acceptance by other Arab states that the Camp David Accords include desirable features. The result of the recent developments is that Western Europe, Egypt, and to some extent the United States, have all shown interest in backing the latest Saudi proposals. Saudi Arabia may also rely on the support of many of the Gulf sheikhdoms. In all, there are reasonable grounds for hope that views are less rigid than they were. But will Israel accept the opportunity to come to terms? Until now, unhappily, Israel has treated the peace treaty with Egypt as a means to secure its southern border while it remains ready for war on other borders. If Israel, too, can be persuaded to take a broader view then there is real hope. From New Zealand’s point of view, the inclusion of some European countries in the Sinai peace-keeping force has meant that there is less risk of New Zealand harming its interest by joining the force. Providing' units for Sinai remains an unwise things to do — the global interests of New Zealand’s ally, the United States, do not always tally with New Zealand’s interests — but at least it is less risky than it was.