Issues at Heart of Stalled Talks

What is at the core of the current controversy in the U.S.-brokered Middle East peace talks? Here are some of the important questions and answers, as detailed by Times staff writer Norman Kempster in Washington:

Question: The controversy between Israel and the Palestinians seems to center on some percentages--13%, 11%, 9%. What does all that mean?

Answer: Those percentages represent the amount of additional West Bank territory that Israel would turn over to the Palestinian Authority in advance of negotiations on a final peace agreement between the historic enemies. The Israelis are offering 9%; the United States has proposed 13%, a figure the Palestinians have reluctantly accepted. There is talk of an 11% compromise.

*

Q: The difference between 9% and 13% doesn’t seem like much. How important can it be?

A: Israeli officials say that 9% of the territory can be ceded to the Palestinians without having much effect on Jewish settlements in the West Bank. But at 13%, Israelis say some settlements would be isolated.

*

Q: Which settlements would be affected?

A: Impossible to say at this time. The Israelis have drawn hundreds of maps showing how various percentages could be handled. Different settlements are affected by different maps. So far, there is no official map.

*

Q: Why would the Israelis turn over any additional territory to the Palestinians?

A: Under the 1993 Israeli-Palestinian peace accords negotiated in Oslo and signed on the White House lawn, Israel initially gave the newly created Palestinian Authority, headed by Yasser Arafat, control over cities and major Arab population centers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The accord also called for Israel to withdraw from additional territory in three stages. It is that further withdrawal that is at the heart of the present controversy.

*

Q: Why are the Israelis drawing the maps and deciding what land they will turn over? Don’t the Palestinians have their own proposed maps?

A: Israeli officials insist that the Oslo agreement and last year’s Hebron accord permit Israel to decide on its own about what territory to cede. The United States agrees that the accord makes Israel the sole judge of the redeployment. But Washington maintains that the Israelis are required to be reasonable about it. The Palestinians say the withdrawal should be negotiated, but neither Israel nor the United States accepts that interpretation.

*

Q: Do the Palestinians agree that 13% is a reasonable figure for the next withdrawal?

A: Not really. The Palestinians want all or at least most of the West Bank, well over 90%. However, Arafat recently agreed to accept the U.S. proposal withdrawal from an additional 13%.

*

Q: Why would he do that?

A: He had little choice. As long as the deadlock remains, the Palestinian Authority is getting nothing more than it already controls. Besides, Arafat would like to have warmer relations with the Clinton administration, and accepting the U.S. proposal seems to be a step in that direction.

*

Q: Why is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu so reluctant to accept the U.S. plan?

A: The haggling is over land that Israel now controls. Besides, Netanyahu’s narrow majority in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, depends on the votes of right-wing parties. His government could fall if he agrees to give up more land.

*

Q: Could President Clinton impose a settlement on the Israelis and Palestinians?

A: Probably, but he says he won’t. In the final analysis, the Israeli public wants its government to have good relations with Washington. An Israeli prime minister who seems unable to manage the relationship with the United States can find himself in deep political trouble. Clinton could exert substantial pressure on Netanyahu by threatening to end the U.S. role of Mideast peace broker and blame the Israelis for the breakdown.

*

Q: Didn’t Secretary of State Madeleine Albright threaten to do just that when she met Netanyahu and Arafat in London this week?

A: It certainly seemed that way. But Clinton softened Albright’s ultimatum, leaving it unclear just what will happen if the Israelis and the Palestinians fail to agree on a redeployment percentage.

*

Q: What happens if the Israelis and the Palestinians do agree on a redeployment plan?

A: Clinton has invited both Netanyahu and Arafat to Washington next week to start negotiations over the final status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The withdrawals that are at the center of the current controversy are part of a five-year interim arrangement intended to build confidence on both sides.

*

Q: Build confidence? It doesn’t seem to be doing that.

A: No, it doesn’t. But that was the idea.

*

Q: What sort of issues will be involved in the final talks?

A: Just about everything: Palestinian statehood, the status of Jerusalem, borders, the return of Palestinian refugees and other contentious matters. The issues in the final talks make the current argument about percentages look trivial. It is far from certain that the Israelis and Palestinians can agree to a final settlement when they are stalemated over far less serious issues. But starting the final talks may be the only way to break the current stalemate.