At the same time, both Mr. Yasser Arafat and Mr. Ehud Barak, the elected leaders of Israelis and Palestinians, are faced with growing opposition by significant segments of their own people. And with the U.S. campaign season in its long final stretch, both of the major presidential candidates are trying to best each other's pro-Israel credentials with scant regard for the negotiations or Israeli and Palestinian public opinion.

There has never been a more important time for advocates of a just, and therefore durable, peace to call upon the Secretary of State, and candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore, to exercise even-handedness and to ensure that parties fulfill commitments made in the course of negotiations.

U.S. Commitments The United States government provided a "letter of assurances" to the Palestinians to encourage their participation in the Madrid peace conference that launched direct negotiations with Israel. From Secretary of State James Baker, then serving under President George Bush, the letter of Oct. 18, 1991, should be considered a commitment of the U.S. government that cannot be dismissed by responsible candidates for the Presidency.

Regarding Jerusalem, the letter clearly states the long-held U.S. policy position. "It remains the firm position of the United States that Jerusalem must never again be a divided city and that its final status should be decided by negotiations. Thus, we do not recognize Israel's annexation of east Jerusalem or the extension of its municipal boundaries, and we encourage all sides to avoid unilateral acts that would exacerbate local tensions or make negotiations more difficult or preempt their final outcome."

Regarding Israel's building of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the letter reiterates U.S. objection to unilateral actions that seek to predetermine issues subject to negotiation. "In this regard the United States has opposed and will continue to oppose settlement activity in the territories occupied in 1967, which remain an obstacle to peace."

And finally, the Palestinians were given assurance that "the United States will act as an honest broker in trying to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict." It seems to many observers of the peace process that the U.S. has failed to live up to the commitments made in Mr. Baker's letter of assurances. (see www.cmep.org  or www.miftah.org for the document.)

Camp David Deja Vu: President Clinton is trying to transform his biggest liability "his lame duck status” into an asset. He has brought Israeli and Palestinian negotiators and their leaders Mr. Barak and Mr. Arafat to a summit at a location secluded from the daily pressures of their opposition and the relentless media. The reports of progress made between the senior Israeli and Palestinian officials in back-channel talks recently in Stockholm encouraged the Clinton/Albright team to kick the slow-moving talks into high gear.

Their preparatory meeting in Washington was overshadowed by the death of Syria's President Hafez Assad. With the U.S. placing a high priority on stability in the region, it is feasible that Mr. Clinton will want to provide the young Dr. Basher Assad with assurance that the United States can be the honest broker it has promised to be. The new president of Syria, as well as the new king of Jordan, need to gain the confidence of their citizens that U.S.-brokered peacemaking with Israel can bring about the significant Israeli compromises that are required for a comprehensive peace.

Principles for a Just Peace: Jerusalem's Sabeel Center, an ecumenical grassroots movement among Palestinian Christians, has prepared a document offering guidance for analysis of the negotiations ( see "Principles for a Just Peace in Palestine-Israel" at www.cmep.org or www.sabeel.org)

Sabeel's principles, based in theology, morality and international law, include: The Palestinians must have their own sovereign, independent, and democratic state established on the whole of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.  Jerusalem's sovereignty must be shared by the two states of Palestine and Israel. Any agreement must protect the sanctity of the holy places and guarantee the rights of the three religions.  The right of return must be guaranteed to Palestinian refugees according to international law. All refugees must be fully compensated. All the [Israeli Jewish] settlements built on Palestinian soil since 1967 must be part of Palestine.

Sabeel ominously warns that a peace formula that results in a semblance of a Palestinian state, divided by Jewish settlements and existing under the suzerainty of Israel "will be ultimately catastrophic for both parties."

The Settlements: Israel continues to insist that the settlements will remain under Israeli rule. If this is the case, Israel will maintain its military presence on the West Bank as well as the network of roads for settlers. With the settlements and the road network cutting the West Bank into unconnected enclaves, and with the irritant of Israeli checkpoints hampering the  internal mobility of Palestinians, there is bound to be trouble for both the emerging state of Palestine and Israel.

The Stockholm talks in late May produced news reports that Israel might agree to return over 90 percent of the West Bank, including those settlements in the Jordan River valley. In response, the Jewish settlers' movement took action with massive demonstrations.

One hard-lined settler leader, Shimon Riklin, threatened that Barak "will be assassinated" if he makes territorial concessions.  Mr. Barak, with his ruling coalition fractured, could consider his political needs more important than peacemaking. It will certainly require a strong push from the United States for Mr. Barak to convince the Israeli public that the generous concessions that are needed for a deal agreeable to the Palestinians must be
made.

Maintaining good relations with the United States, always a top priority for Israel, should become equated with Israel fulfilling its side of the "land for peace" formula that was agreed to in the 1993 Oslo Accords the Israeli withdrawal from lands occupied in 1967. The Palestinians rightly believe that their great compromise has already been given by their acceptance of Israel as a state within its 1967 borders.  Now they see it as Israel's obligation to carry out that withdrawal, and American politicians should also see that as Israel's obligation.

Politics at Home:  Even while knowing how necessary American pressure is for  Israel to make concessions, both of the major presidential candidates have denounced efforts to pressure Israel during peace negotiations, according to a May newsletter of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee).

The traditional pandering by political candidates for Jewish support by making rash promises about moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem is especially irresponsible this year when the future status of Jerusalem is being negotiated.  Candidate Bush told the AIPAC delegates at their May convention that "As soon as I take office, I will begin the process of moving the U.S. ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital." Candidate Gore, meeting in March with the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, said the question of Jerusalem should be decided in peace talks. However, he added that, "The outcome I think is hardly in doubt and my desires are the same as your desires."

Jerusalem is Paramount: No issue will make or break public acceptance of a negotiated agreement, by both Israelis and Palestinians, more than the status of Jerusalem. The Palestinians were not elated by the Israeli Knesset's vote in May to transfer Abu Dis and two other Jerusalem-area villages to Palestinian control. After all, Israel was supposed to withdraw from 28 villages in the Jerusalem area by last year under the Oslo peace agreement, Palestinians say. Just three is too little, too late.

Reports in the Israeli media have suggested that Mr. Barak has already offered to carve up Jerusalem into boroughs, with parts of East Jerusalem under Palestinian administration but keeping them under formal Israeli sovereignty.  The government has denied it, with Mr. Barak saying his negotiators thus far have been under strict orders not to discuss the matter of Jerusalem with their Palestinian counterparts.

Despite the denials, the June 2 headline of the American Jewish newspaper Forward was "Barak Said To Be Planning To Rend City of Gold." The New York Times, in a major article titled "Two Dreams of Jerusalem Converge in a Blur" on Sunday May 21, reported that Jerusalem was very much on the table in Stockholm. The article further reports that through his ministers, Mr. Barak has leaked some ideas including the notion of internationalizing the Old City.

Refugee Rights: Another thorny issue is the matter of the Palestinian refugees.  Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon has resulted in moving newspaper photos of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon kissing their Galilee relatives through the barbed wire border fence. What negotiators decide about the future of the refugees in Lebanon will have profound impact on any Israeli-Palestinian agreement as well as on the stability of Lebanon and the emerging Palestinian state.

The principle of the popularly-called "right of return" and compensation of Palestinian refugees was established by U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 194 in 1948. Every year since, the General Assembly has  affirmed the resolution which broadly addresses the situation in Palestine. In paragraph 11, it "resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so...and that compensation should be paid..."  Even if the principle is not able to be fully implemented now, 52 years after the war for Israel's independence created the refugees, acceptance of the principle by Israel is fundamental for reconciliation between the peoples and for resolution of the conflict.

The necessity of "achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem" is a lesser known part of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967, which is the frame of reference of the Oslo peace process.  The basis for this "just settlement" lies in the implementation of UNGA Resolution 194. Indeed, that resolution was voted for by Israel in 1949 and its implementation was a condition for Israel's admittance into the United Nations. Until 1994 the United States joined the reaffirmation vote. Now as the final negotiations go forward, the principle of the right of return should be endorsed by the United States as the basis for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.

Suggested actions:
The Clinton Administration has moved the Israeli-Palestinian talks to its front burner. You can expect that the negotiations, or lack of negotiations, will continue to be hot news throughout the hot summer and campaign season. It is now time for Israel to carry out the commitments already made in earlier agreements and for Prime Minister Barak to make the bold decisions that can bring  enduring peace between Israel and its neighboring Arab states including the emerging Palestine. Yet, an AIPAC newsletter reported that both Presidential candidates Bush and Gore said at their May convention that the "U.S. should not press Israel in peace talks."

Write the two candidates and the Secretary of State making these points in your letter.

• I am an advocate for Middle East peace. I believe that you share that goal also a peace between Israel and the Palestinians that will be embraced by their neighbors.
• The negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority need help from the United States if that goal is to be reached. It is not helpful for U.S. politicians in the election process to pledge that they will not press Israel to make the difficult decisions and compromises that are necessary for a durable peace agreement. Without encouragement, Prime Minister Barak will be forced to act alone and risk accusations of treason from hardliners in Israel and in the U.S.
• U.S. political candidates and the President should press Israel to fulfill its side of the "land for peace" formula that was agreed to in the Oslo accords - Israeli withdrawal from lands occupied in 1967.  The Palestinians rightly believe that their great compromise has already been given by their recognition of Israel as a state within its pre-war 1967 borders.
• Palestinian public opinion in support of the peace process has eroded dangerously. The highly visible growth of Israeli settlements and massive building of new roads for settlers in the West Bank causes Palestinians to think that their future state will be only isolated islands that are not viable -”socially, politically or economically.
• Candidates for the 2000 elections should respect the letter of assurance given the Palestinians from U.S. Secretary of State James Baker when they entered the 1991 Madrid peace conference. "[W]e do not recognize Israel's annexation of east Jerusalem or the extension of its mutual boundaries, and we encourage all sides to avoid unilateral acts that would exacerbate local tensions or make negotiations more difficult or preempt their final outcome."
   

G.W. Bush for President                                                                     Gore 2000
P.O. Box 1902                                                                                     2410 Charlotte Ave.
Austin, TX 78767                                                                                Nashville, TN 37203

Secretary Madeleine Albright
U.S. Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520