A Plan Worth Supporting

Athough the sputtering "peace process" begun at Camp David may be heaving its last, a plan for joint Jordanian-Palestinian-Israeli administration of West Bank territory presently occupied by Israel offers some hope of revival. The proposal brings the possibility of negotiation between Israel, Jordan and moderate Palestinian Arabs in the territory--and merits America's firm support.

The most immediate obstacle to the plan's success is King Hussein's insistence that the Soviet Union attend an international conference at which negotiations would take place. Because the Soviet Union's agenda for the Middle East is suspect, Hussein's position has elicited strong opposition. Yet the position is understandable given Jordan's difficult relations with less-moderate Arab neighbors.

Unfortunately, Israeli Prime Minister Shamir doesn't understand this. His political opponent, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, does, as he made clear last week at the Kennedy School. He has received assurances that the Soviet Union will play no formal role at the bargaining table and that Israel can leave the conference at any time. The U.S. has promised to support Israel by joining it in walking away from the table if the Soviet Union tries to exert its influence toward a solution Israel does not like.

An obstacle more remote in time but potentially more significant is the plan's stance toward the Palestinean Liberation Organization. One million Palestinian Arabs living in territory captured by Israel in 1967 want autonomy. Israel does not want a(nother) hostile Arab state created in territory it now controls. Americans, clearly, would like to see each of these dreams fulfilled--but never will.

Both the Palestinian Arabs and the Israeli Jews are legitimate nations, culturally, historically and consciously aware of the differences between their neighbors and themselves. The time for bickering about who has the more believable claim passed long ago. Whether the Palestinians "deserve" something from Israel is equally moot--and equally irrelevant. Such considerations have little to do with political solutions. And that's what is needed 40 years after Isreal's founding, a solution.

The real stumbling block for any kind of progress in negotiation is finding a way to represent the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories. The only available evidence of the West Bankers' own preferences, a 14-month-old-poll, indicates 93 percent agreement with the statement: "The PLO is the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people." Despite indictments of the study, conducted by the British, Australian and Palistinean press, it is troubling in light of the figures to have to justify the total exclusion of the PLO from the negotiating process.

The moral requirement that representatives be chosen by those they represent is difficult to put aside. Yet this is exactly what the plan calls for. Israel quite correctly refuses to sit across a bargaining table from a terrorist organization.

Israel may be able to form an internal consensus to relinquish some authority over portions of Palestine now. This in a nut shell is the solution Peres discussed, and it would leave the Palestinians as partial partners in a state which, though not their own, would be more than they have now.

The peace process is stalled and may be dead even now. The Peres plan may offer the final chance to reach a pragmatic accord. Americans owe the Foreign Minister support in this difficult task.