Bold U.S. Step in Mideast Should Raise Hard Issues Now

Washington has not been able to do much to further the Israeli-Palestinian peace process since last January, when it brokered an agreement for the withdrawal of most Israeli forces from the West Bank town of Hebron. The period since then has seen a sterile pause in negotiations and a profound darkening in the political climate under a storm of provocations, terrorist acts and recriminations. Fearing that the shaky Israeli-Palestinian partnership could be headed irrevocably toward collapse, the Clinton administration has signaled its readiness to mount a new initiative, one likely to make it more a mediator than simply a facilitator in the peace effort. It is a high-stakes gamble.

Special envoy Dennis Ross appears to have succeeded this week in restoring some measure of Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation, what Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has called “the sine qua non for progress” in the political arena. If that agreement holds, Albright says, she will make her first trip to the Middle East as secretary to try to shift the negotiating process to a new track.

The United States now believes that further time-consuming talks on interim measures should give way to taking up those issues that have been left for the permanent status talks: boundaries, refugees, resources, Jerusalem.

This is a bold undertaking given the political and emotional weight these issues carry, but especially so in light of the breakdown in trust and the bitter accusations of bad faith raised by both sides. Drawing final boundaries or resolving Palestinian claims to Jerusalem would be monumental challenges in the best of times. And these are light-years away from being the best of times.

Underpinning every successful negotiation is the implicit understanding that both sides must be prepared to settle for less than their maximum goals. There’s little question that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians remain ready to accept compromises to make peace. The problem is at the leadership level. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu leads a coalition whose most dogmatic factions oppose any substantive concessions. Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat lacks either the interest or the strength to impose his political will on the anti-peace extremists in his camp who see Israel’s very existence as an injustice to be erased.

The United States may bring some new proposals for compromises to the peace process. Whether it will find leaders with the courage to consider and accept them is something else.