                     MEDIATOR OR ANTAGONIST?
                      By Gary M. Cooperberg
                         July 18, 1991
                                
       President Bush has, once again, demonstrated his bias against the Jewish State.  In
spite of the fact that Israel was the first to respond positively to the President's peace initiative,
her good will was given no recognition.  Yet when Syria, perhaps the most vicious of Israel's
enemies, after at first ignoring the US peace initiative, finally, if reluctantly, submitted a long
and confusing response, the US President immediately hailed it as a "breakthrough"!
       "Now," crowed the President, "we will see if Israel really wants peace."
       Until now, I had always thought that the President of the United States knew that
Israel had sought peace.  Can it be that he truly considers the possibility that we don't?  Or,
more likely, he is continuing to create conditions which equate peace with Israeli self-destruction.    
       While Mr. Bush may claim to merely be encouraging the peace process, can it be
that he has overlooked the fact that Israel's continued quest for peace is still met with brutal
Arab terror?  Is it possible that the President of the United States really believes that he can
create a peace process by adopting the Arab position which seeks the destruction of the Jewish
State?
       While most Israeli politicians, rightfully, insist upon direct negotiations with their
Arab enemies, that demand has, in contradiction to all normal standards of international
relations, taken the form of a "condition", which, if met, would require a reciprocal
"condition" or "compromise" by Israel.  This is an outright distortion of logic.  No one, in any
compromise situation, gets any points merely for agreeing to sit down and talk.  No
compromise can ever be formulated unless the parties first agree to sit down and talk.  That is
an obvious primary obligation of all parties involved.  Yet here, in an historical world
precedent, the tiny State of Israel is to be considered as if she won a concession if and when
her enemies simply agree to sit down and talk with her!!
       As attorney, Harry V. Lerner, of Bethesda Maryland, in an article printed in the
April 22, 1991 issue of the Wall Street Journal, defined the meaning of UN resolution 242:
       "According to the original understanding of Resolution 242, Israel has no obligation
to withdraw from any of the territories taken in 1967. . ."  
       Unfortunately the American administration has gone beyond that resolution by
insisting that their prejudicial suggestion, that Israel make territorial concessions, be a virtual
pre-condition for holding peace talks!  This, of course, is the Arab position.  By advancing it,
the American president has, in fact, nullified his position as an impartial mediator.


       Professor Chaim Simons, of the Nanson Research Institute, goes one step further. 
He actually accuses Mr. Bush of violating international law by declaring Jewish settlement in
Judea and Samaria to be illegal.  Dr. Simons quotes former under Secretary of State, Eugene
Rostow: 
       "Since the Palestine Mandate conferred the right to settle in the West Bank on the
Jews, that right has not been extinguished, and, under article 80 of the (UN) charter, cannot be
extinguished unilaterally."  
       The American president, disregarding legal precedents, has declared illegal the
fundamental right of Jews to settle in their homeland!  Again he has entered into the very
conflict and offered a prejudicial view which advances the Arab position and jeopardizes the
Jewish one!  If he had any mercy, the President would just drop a bomb on Israel and be done
with it.  It is far crueler to destroy us in stages under the guise of a "peace process".
       Mr. President, there is no need to shuttle all over the Middle East in search of
peace.  If you were honest in your approach to a legitimate quest for real peace, you would
simply invite all parties to come to Camp David, without preconditions, and just sit down and
negotiate?  You know that Israel would be the first one to come.  Could it be that you are
afraid that, unless she first appeases her enemies by making suicidal concessions, she would be
the only one to come?  
       If there is one side whose desire for peace is in question it is not that of the Jewish
State.  Mr. President, you are well aware of the fact that, since 1948, Israel's continued
outstretched hand for peace has been consistently rejected by her Arab neighbors.  Your
statement that Syria's letter should serve as a test of our true intentions is nothing short of an
insult to the State of Israel.  By making such inflammatory remarks as well as by actively
advocating the Arab position on issues which can only be resolved at the negotiation table,
you, Mr. President, have lost all credibility as an impartial mediator. 