Empty Chairs at Empty Tables

IN THE HIT MUSICAL "Les Miserables," Marius sings an emotional ballad titled "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables." The audience applauds the performance en route to an enjoyable night at the theater.

But the same subject matter receives a chillier reception in Washington D.C. Leaders who fail to take their pre-arranged seats on a pre-set date at the negotiating table are met with anything but applause.

There are some things that Broadway and international diplomacy just don't have in common. Israel's decision to leave her chair empty until December 9 at the newest round of the Mideast peace talks has been met with a chorus of condemnation.

Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa said, "Where to meet and issues like timing are only a cover for a lack of a desire by Israel to make peace." Accusations that Israel has abandoned any plans for peace with her Arab neighbors are not based on an accurate view of the ongoing situation.

Israel's critics choose to disregard the facts, and that leads them to blatantly misinterpret Israel's action.

Everyone seems to have forgotten what happened in the White House less than two weeks ago. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir traveled to the United States for a meeting with President Bush. Shamir planned to argue his case for locating the next round of peace talks at a site closer to the Middle East.

But, before he could get to the Oval Office, the issue was moot. Just a few hours before Bush was to meet with Shamir, the invitations were sent out. Date: December 4. Place: Washington D.C. Previous discussion with Israel: None.

To expect the Israeli leader not to be upset is unrealistic. He woke up to television interviews with Arab leaders already responding to the president's call. The Administration's action was an unwarranted slap in the face.

Notice also how no one is blaming the White House mailroom for sending off the envelopes too early. With all the disarray among the President's advisers, it's not inconceivable that former Chief of Staff John H. Sununu occasionally stamped postage on packages behind Bush's back. No, this was a concerted attempt to humiliate Shamir.

UNLIKE THE OTHER leaders participating in the peace talks, Shamir must answer to a voting constituency. Coming from the only democracy in the Middle East, the Israeli delegation represents not only the government, but also the larger population which elected it.

An insult to the prime minister is an insult to all Israelis. A weak response by Shamir would undermine the population's confidence in him as a strong leader able to defend Israel in the international arena.

Indeed, the U.S.'s brash behavior towards Israel could backfire. By emboldening the more radical elements of the Israeli government, U.S. impudency encourages opposition to Shamir's goal of reaching peace accords with neighboring Arab states.

Bush's behavior, representing what Israeli Health Minister Ehud Olmert called "an administration that doesn't try or pretend to show, even for appearances, some amount of friendship" to Israel, only serves to threaten the current peace talks.

ISRAEL'S DISAGREEMENT over procedural details, while portrayed by some as a quarrel over petty semantics, has much greater significance in terms of the negotiations' overall dynamics.

"We are now at the first stage, when the rules of the game are established," said Justice Minister Dan Meridor, a close adviser to Shamir. "Establishing the rules of the game is very important to us, because the balance of power is not so much in our favor."

With Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and the Palestinians lined around the table, Israel was counting on the United States to be, if not sympathetic to her longtime ally, at least an honest broker in the peace negotiations. The Bush administration response represents the first time in a while that Israel not only has to second guess American intentions, but also the president's fundamental support.

By refusing to compromise with Israel over the request for a five-day delay to prepare for the start of negotiations or clarify support for moving the talks to the Middle East in the near future, Bush suggests that the Israelis should prepare to be on the receiving end of greater pressure in the future.

If Israel hadn't stood up now to the administration's "bullying tactics," as one Israeli official called them, the Jewish state would find herself being forced to accept U.S.-imposed solutions on more substantive issues further down the road.

The U.S. agenda may seem pretty innocuous at the moment. After all, Bush is just trying to get the combatants sitting around the same table at the same time. But the administration has already begun to play an active role in the more significant portion of the talks by including compromise suggestions with the invitations mailed out last week.

By calling for negotiation of an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, Bush not only proposed action opposed by virtually the entire political spectrum in Israel, but also called into question policies that could greatly threaten Israel's existence.

The president and his advisers wouldn't have to live in the Golan valley, in constant fear of a Syrian artillery attack from above. The Israelis are the ones who must live with the consequences of the negotiations.

That is why Shamir had to say no to the U.S. now. Otherwise, Israel would be expected later on to simply accept imposed solutions with much graver consequences.

THE DEBATE OVER the site of negotiations itself is not a trivial matter. It makes sense for Israel to desire locations in the Middle East.

Not only would closer proximity to Jerusalem allow top Israeli officials to participate in the talks on a regular basis, but also travelling from Israeli to Arab towns would de facto signify recognition of Israel's right to exist.

One-on-one talks alternating between Egyptian and Israeli towns produced the Camp David Accords in 1979. It is the only existing peace treaty between the Jewish state and any of its Arab neighbors. The Israelis see no reason to abandon a framework that worked in the past.

Alternating between Arab and Israeli towns, says Israeli Consul-General for New England Yaakov Levy, would have a secondary effect of sensitizing indigenous populations to the new attitude of peace in the region.

"Citizens," Levy said of the Egyptian and Israeli populations in 1979, "gradually got the true sense that talks were going on. Egypt, like the other Arab states, does not allow freedom of the press. Seeing the motorcade pass through your village may be the only way a Syrian, Jordanian, or Lebanese knows that peace might exist with the Jewish neighbor."

The Arab states refuse to negotiate in Israeli towns lest it appear that Israel's right to exist had been accepted.

Bush should shift gears, turn his finger away from Israel and pressure the Arabs to show up on Israeli soil. It was Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's trip to Jerusalem in 1977 that sparked the Camp David Accords. A similar confidence-building measure from the Arabs now could really jumpstart the peace process.

WITH THE CONFERENCE already stacked in the Arabs' favor, Israel needs Bush to be an honest broker. It is Israel that is being asked to make substantive territorial concessions. The Arab nations are only expected to recognize Israel's right to exist.

Until now, Israel has been the one forced to compromise. The argument that this is justified since the U.S. will be tough on the Arab states in the multilateral round of the talks is ridiculous.

How can an Administration be expected to come down hard on a nation it rewards for terrorist activity?

The U.S.'s indictment of Libya in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland completely ignored significant evidence of Syrian involvement. Not only was Syria let off the hook, but Bush complained that Syria was getting a "bum rap" due to suspicion that it was involved in the mass murder.

Now Syria wants to be removed from the list of terrorist-sponsoring nations and the U.S. has proposed Israeli return of the Golan Heights.

No pressure is being placed on Syrian leader Hafez el-Assad, and why Bush wants the Golan to be in Assad's hands is a mystery. Is Assad going to plant Dutch tulips on the mountain's rolling slopes or would it be more along the lines of the 24 North Korean scud missiles Syria purchased in the wake of last year's Gulf War?

Bush should stop pressuring Israel. Not attending Wednesdays session was the least the Israelis could do to show they will not accept imposed solutions later. Bush doesn't know that living in the shadow of the Golan or anywhere in the Middle East is no Broadway show.

Israel should get some say in how it conducts its foreign policy.