Middle East: Ready, Set -- Crawl

By GEORGE J. CHURCH

A return to normal in the Middle East would be an unqualified disaster. Yet, as U.S. Secretary of State James Baker toured the area last week, signs multiplied that after the shock of the gulf war the region might already be slipping back into its usual catastrophic habits. Renewed violence claimed 12 lives -- six Israelis, six Arab guerrillas -- in the 24 hours prior to Baker's arrival in Jerusalem. Israeli legislators asserted that the government plans to build as many as 11,000 new apartments for Jewish settlers in occupied territories, continuing what looks like a de facto annexation of the West Bank and Gaza. And in Damascus, Baker and his hosts confirmed a sign of a new arms race: Syria had just received from North Korea a shipment of 24 Soviet-built Scud-C missiles, which have bigger warheads and are more accurate than Iraq's Scud-Bs.

It was precisely to get some momentum going toward a regional peace settlement before the area relapses totally into its old hatreds that Baker set out on his tour. In talks with officials from nine Arab nations and the leaders of Israel, the Secretary pressed on his hosts the necessity for new thinking and a quick start. Moreover, though he proclaimed himself to be mainly listening, Baker did put forward some ideas for a fresh approach.

A chicken-and-egg problem has long stymied Middle East diplomacy: Arab states refuse to recognize Israel until it deals with the Palestinians; Israel refuses to deal with the Palestinians until Arab states recognize its right to exist. To get around that, Baker advanced a two-track proposal: parallel contacts between Israel and Arab governments and between Israel and Palestinian representatives.

Further, he suggested that they start with small steps or "confidence- buildi ng measures." Israel, for example, could reopen West Bank universities that have been closed for three years and ease its harsh policies of arresting and deporting suspected Palestinian troublemakers. The Arabs, in return, could end their formal states of belligerency against Israel (Saudi Arabia, Syria and several other countries are officially still at war with what they term the "Zionist entity") and call off their boycott of foreign companies that do business with the Jewish state. The idea is that if each side could overcome its fear of going first and being snubbed, concessions might prompt reciprocal concessions and build some momentum toward peace.

There is just enough of a new atmosphere that this approach might at least be considered. In the wake of Iraq's defeat, the clout and credibility of the U.S. is at an all-time high, and it is no longer being offset by Soviet troublemaking; Moscow has neither the power nor the inclination to keep backing the most radical Arab elements. Saudi Arabia promises to come out of its shell and take a more active role in regional diplomacy, and Syria, a radical state now bidding for increased influence without its customary Soviet support, is talking about a new commitment to peace. Israel, needing massive aid from Washington to help resettle Soviet Jewish immigrants, is newly vulnerable to pressure. For all these reasons, nobody replied with a flat no to Baker's ideas. Neither side wants to take the onus of torpedoing a peace effort before it is properly launched.

But every time the talk got around to specifics, Baker's hosts retreated to their usual dug-in positions. For example, 10 Palestinian nationalist leaders from the occupied territories insisted to Baker that the Palestine Liberation Organization, which Israel spurns as a terrorist gang, must remain their sole representative. Said Faisal Husseini, the most prominent Palestinian leader in Jerusalem: "We told him we are here because ((P.L.O. Chairman)) Yasser Arafat told us to be here."

The biggest problem is that Israel shows no sign of yielding an inch of the West Bank, Gaza or the Golan Heights. The crippling of Israel's most formidable foe, Iraq, does not seem to have enhanced Jerusalem's sense of security; Israelis are still worried about turning over any territory to the Palestinians, who loudly cheered Saddam Hussein's Scud attacks on Tel Aviv. A new poll shows the public split right down the middle on the idea of trading land for peace: 49% for, 49% against. And no government is in sight that would even try to break the stalemate.

Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir cannot pay anything more than lip service even to his own 1989 plan for elections to choose Palestinian leaders, who would negotiate some form of limited autonomy. Otherwise his government might well be toppled by rightist members who want to annex the territories outright. The Labor Party, which accepts the idea of land for peace, has never had less popular support. So new elections might well return a government even further to the right than the present Likud-led coalition.

Baker thus was only being realistic when he asserted, "We are dealing with the most intractable problem, I think, that there is." He professed nonetheless to be encouraged even by the slight progress he made. Said the Secretary: "You have to crawl before you walk, and you have to walk before you run." But how much time will there be to crawl or walk before the Middle East returns to a normality spelled d-e-a-d-l-o-c-k -- if not w-a-r?

With reporting by Jon D. Hull/Jerusalem, Scott MacLeod/Damascus and Christopher Ogden with Baker