Egypt is probably the nation in the Middle East that has been most active, in recent years, in seeking some kind of concord with Israel. Egypt has manifested some degree of flexibility. The Egyptians have sided with the Palestinians during the Lebanese war. Thus, an Israeli proposal for a Palestinian state could lead to extraordinary improvement in Israeli-Egyptian relations. Such a move would clearly have positive implications for the overall Middle East conflict.
Given the oil-political structure of the Middle East, given the American stabilization efforts in the area, given the Carter administration's expected attention to the Palestinian question, and given the growing dependency of Israel on U.S. aid, a more spontaneous proposal on the Palestinian issue could provide Israel with a better record from a U.S. standpoint. An improvement in relations between Israel and the U.S. should be particularly valuable to Israel, now at a time when her economic and military needs are greater than ever.
World opinion has not had a direct impact on Israel, but the psychological and political effects of being diplomatically isolated could be eased somewhat by a possible response to the proposal from countries otherwise neutral or hostile. A change in international perception concerning Israel's lack of flexibility could help the country enormously.
As mentioned above, the task ahead of Israeli leaders is formidable. It will be difficult to create the proper context for a pro-Palestinian proposal. The populace must be agreeable, and the opposition of specific groups must be overcome. The Israelis are also concerned about the other participants in the negotiations. To date, they have refused to deal with the PLO. But recently, new, young radical leaders--radical by Israeli standards--have risen in the West Bank region and have commanded some respect. They could provide a stronger link between Israel and the PLO leadership.
The countries and parties involved in the Middle East would have to tackle many additional problems after such a proposal is formulated. Issues such as the nature of the Palestinian state, territorial concessions, superpower assurances, mutual distrust, pervasive superpower penetration, and arms proliferation seem sufficient barriers to have discouraged leaders in the past from making a move in this direction.
But the benefits that would be enjoyed by the parties involved are substantial. From an Israeli perspective, even if such an initiative were to lead to a stalemate, the political gains would have made the move worthwhile. And if it did not lead to an impasse, the Palestinians could for the first time look forward to some kind of constructivee solution, and a new dynamic element could provide the momentum for a more stable Middle East. Thus it seems to me that an Israeli initiative is worth attempting. The timing could hardly be better.
Dani Kaufmann is a graduate student in economics at Harvard. He emigrated to Israel from Chile in 1970. His home is in Nethanya, north of Tel Aviv.