Much Riding on Mideast Summit for All 3 Leaders

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat join President Clinton today for a rare three-way peace summit, each buffeted by troubles at home and each very much wanting a deal, but for very different reasons.

All three leaders face restive oppositions that are watching their moves closely. And all three could undoubtedly use success in the talks--however success is defined--to build domestic political advantage.

The summit opens five years and one month after the historic Oslo accords formally ended hostilities between Israelis and Palestinians and set in motion a laborious peace process aimed at protecting Israelis from terrorism and establishing limited Palestinian self-rule.

With the peace process stalemated for more than 18 months, however, and acrimony and mistrust deepening, the meeting at Maryland’s Wye Plantation is seen by many as a crucial last chance to prevent renewed full-scale, open conflict.

The U.S.-drafted compromise before Netanyahu and Arafat requires the Israelis to withdraw from an additional 13% of West Bank territory in exchange for concrete steps by the Palestinians to halt anti-Israeli terrorism. This interim accord would clear the way to so-called final-status talks that would tackle the most difficult issues in Israeli-Palestinian relations.

“This is the moment when we’ll find out if the two parties are ready to make the hard political decisions they’ve avoided for the past 18 months and get serious about coming to closure,” a senior Clinton administration official said. “If we don’t get this, or [the] underpinnings of a process, we are heading toward a train wreck.”

Arafat has repeatedly threatened to unilaterally declare an independent Palestinian state in May if the final-status talks envisioned in Oslo are not completed by then. That, U.S. and Middle East experts warn, could trigger a chain of disastrous events, including armed conflict between Israeli troops seeking to retake territory and Palestinian police seeking to keep it.

Arafat needs an agreement at the secluded Wye Plantation--sequestering Middle East leaders is a strategy that has worked before--to give his people something to reaffirm their sagging confidence in his leadership--although the sort of deal that the Palestinian masses would applaud seems out of the question.

Failure in the talks may mean that the ailing Arafat, who dedicated his life to the cause of Palestinian nationalism, will not live to see the outcome of his life’s work.

Stalled Peace Process a Boon to Militants

The stagnation of the peace process has cost Arafat and his mainstream Fatah party a large amount of support, sending many followers into the arms of the fast-growing militant Islamic Hamas movement. Palestinians are increasingly disillusioned by the failure of peace to bring them the land and prosperity they expected.

“We hope to arrive to a conclusion, something concrete, not only talks, talks, talks,” Arafat told reporters this week in Amman, Jordan’s capital, where he had traveled to brief Crown Prince Hassan.

“This could be the end of the road,” added Arafat’s spokesman, Nabil abu Rudaineh. “Either we will have a breakthrough and progress in the peace process, or we will reach a dangerous, blocked road.”

The Israelis are demanding that Arafat agree to a detailed program to dismantle Hamas’ armed wing and other extremist groups blamed for terrorist attacks that have claimed scores of Israeli lives in recent years. It is a risky move for Arafat because such a crackdown would target precisely those seen as heroes by many Palestinians. Arafat’s negotiators note that they earlier agreed to a broad security memorandum, but the Israelis want to bind the Palestinians to a step-by-step plan on which they would condition a phased release of land.

Netanyahu Pressured by Extremists, Settlers

Netanyahu is also under pressure from Israeli extremists, settlers and his own right-wing supporters. The prime minister spent the days before the U.S. trip courting senior right-wing officials and religious leaders. Several on the right have threatened to oust Netanyahu if he signs away more land to the Palestinians, and they have begun floating the names of alternative candidates for prime minister to underscore the point.

They want guarantees that Jewish settlements in the West Bank will retain territorial contiguity; extradition of Palestinian murder suspects; and amendment of the Palestinian charter to remove language calling for the destruction of Israel (the Palestinians say they have already annulled the clauses in question).

“We told Netanyahu, in no uncertain terms, that if his stand on any of these issues is eroded by American pressure, then we will withdraw our support from his government,” said Shaul Yahalom, the transportation minister from the National Religious Party, an important member of Netanyahu’s coalition. “He will then be left without a government. We stressed that this is no bluff.”

It remains unclear just how much irreversible damage the right can do to Netanyahu’s government, and the prime minister last week apparently bought a measure of relief by naming hawkish Infrastructure Minister Ariel Sharon to the post of foreign minister. The recent appointment of Sharon, whom Netanyahu placed in charge of final-status negotiations, appeases the right and brings one of Netanyahu’s harshest critics more firmly into the fold, where he will not be able to attack government policies with the same ferocity.

Sharon’s presence also may make it easier for Netanyahu to strike an interim deal because Sharon has sufficient credibility with the right to pull it off.

Sharon, a legendary military figure, is also remembered as the official who bulldozed the Jewish settlement of Yamit in the Sinai in 1982 as part of an agreement to return the land to the Egyptians.

A Deal Would Solidify Premier’s Position

If Netanyahu can secure a deal that does not alienate the right, he could easily solidify his position going into the next Israeli election campaign.

His aides say their polling indicates that being able to claim credit for a peace pact would make Netanyahu “unbeatable.” The elections are scheduled for 2000, but they could be moved up if the prime minister’s rightist coalition falls apart. Clinching an agreement may even enable Netanyahu to peel away some support from the opposition Labor Party, itself weakened by internal squabbling.

As Netanyahu and Arafat boarded flights headed for the United States on Wednesday, it was abundantly clear that the two sides remain far apart on fundamental issues.

“There’s no way you could say an agreement is a sure thing at this point, given the political risks to both leaders,” David Makovsky, diplomatic correspondent for the Israeli daily Haaretz, said.

“The reason it’s so difficult is that the terms of any deal involve the irreducible core issues of the conflict: land and security,” Makovsky said. “For the leaders, making a deal also means putting themselves on a collision course with the most hard-core elements of each side. It will require significant political will for them to take those risks.”

For Clinton, the summit affords a glittering opportunity to demonstrate to the public that he is not immobilized by the scandal over his sexual liaisons with former intern Monica S. Lewinsky. Conversely, failure could convince Congress and the public that the scandal has so sapped Clinton’s effectiveness that resignation or impeachment may be the only remaining options.

Clinton enters the summit with a far weaker hand than then-President Jimmy Carter held in 1978 when he brought Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to Camp David and forged a landmark peace treaty. Such a breakthrough is not expected now, after almost two years of deadlock and with the differences between the Israelis and Palestinians so great.

Still, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright insists that the looming deadline of Arafat’s declaration of a Palestinian state will concentrate the minds of the Israelis and Palestinians. During meetings last week in Israel, she said, she perceived that both sides realize that they must act soon.

“It would be a major embarrassment for Clinton if these guys all showed up and nothing happened,” said Richard Haass, director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “If this were to unravel, it would be a major setback for Clinton. . . . If the summit succeeds, then it will provide a modest but short-lived boost for the president.”

There is clearly a limit, however, to what Clinton can do to make the summit a success. He has never shown much inclination to pressure the Israelis for concessions. And now, he is unlikely to risk alienating his supporters in the American Jewish community.

The president will open negotiations at the White House this morning and join Arafat and Netanyahu at Wye Plantation for afternoon sessions and dinner. Clinton then goes back to Washington and is not scheduled to return to Maryland unless it becomes clear that his presence would help produce a deal.

Even if the talks are successful, U.S. officials caution that future negotiations will only get tougher.

“This is the easy part of what’s left to be done,” said the Clinton administration official. Next come “the truly existential issues,” he said, that go to the very nature of the state of Israel and the form that the Palestinian entity will take.

Wilkinson reported from Jerusalem and Kempster from Washington. Times staff writers Rebecca Trounson in Jerusalem and Robin Wright in Washington contributed to this report.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

The Summit Issues

LAND

The Israelis had argued that relinquishing more than an additional 9% of the West Bank would jeopardize Jewish settlements. The Palestinians ultimately want more than 90% of the West Bank restored to their control. The U.S.-drafted compromise calls for Israel to cede land over a three-month period in exchange for Palestinian steps against terrorism.

* Under the compromise, the Israelis would withdraw from an additional 13% of West Bank territory, adding to the slightly more than 26% over which the Palestinians already have some measure of control.

* Of the 13%, which is roughly 200 square miles, 3% would form a nature reserve. The Israelis want to place the reserve east of the city of Hebron, ban new construction there and retain security control.

* 1% would be transferred from complete Israeli control to complete Palestinian control.

* 9% would be removed from complete Israeli control and given to joint Israeli-Palestinian control.

* In addition to the 13%, another 14.2% of West Bank territory currently under joint Israeli-Palestinian control would pass to full Palestinian control, in theory limiting access of Israeli troops unless in hot pursuit.

* The Palestinians want a freeze on new Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

****

SECURITY

Under the guidance of CIA Director George J. Tenet, the two sides have been debating a program for fighting anti-Israeli terrorism, although no accord has been reported. Among the steps, the Palestinians would be required to:

* Dismantle Islamic militant infrastructures that the Israelis believe are used as launching pads for terrorist attacks. These include weapons factories and charities that the Israelis charge raise funds for Hamas militants.

* Arrest alleged terrorists and keep suspects in prison.

* Transfer to Israeli custody Palestinians accused of murdering Israelis.

* Disarm extremists and confiscate illegal weapons.

* Reduce Palestinian police force from 36,000 to 24,000.

* “Full security cooperation” between Israeli and Palestinian authorities, including the exchange of intelligence.

The Palestinians insist that if they are to fulfill these commitments, the Israelis should also disarm Jewish extremists and prosecute more fully Israelis who kill Palestinians.

Separately, the Israelis are demanding that the Palestinians rescind articles in their national charter that call for the destruction of Israel. The Palestinians say they have already annulled the clauses in question.

****

OTHER TOPICS

* Israel wants a guarantee that Arafat will not unilaterally declare an independent Palestinian state, and is seeking the right to determine the scope of a third, promised withdrawal from West Bank land. Some Israeli officials have said they will refuse to release more than 1% of West Bank land in the third phase.

* The Israelis also are seeking to move directly to so-called final status talks with the Palestinians, including the negotiation of final borders, status of Jerusalem and nature of the Palestinian entity.

The Palestinians want safe passage, in private vehicles, between their West Bank and Gaza Strip enclaves. They also want to open an airport at Rafah, although this has been stalled over Israeli security fears.

Source: TRACY WILKINSON / Los Angeles Times