Cautious Hope in Mideast

The record of Middle East peacemaking efforts is so strewn with false starts and dashed hopes that the reflexive response to the latest hint of major change--the announcement that Israel and Syria will resume negotiations under U.S. auspices after a hiatus of 3 1/2 years--is prudently one of caution. That said, there’s a prospect that this time around things may well be different.

For one thing, all the leaders involved can see the calendar working against them. President Hafez Assad is ailing and eager to prepare his son Bashar to be Syria’s next leader, preferably unencumbered by the threat of conflict with Israel. Prime Minister Ehud Barak, on his part, wants to end Israel’s costly military occupation in southern Lebanon by mid-July. The chances for maintaining a peaceful border after that would be enormously enhanced if Syria, which has virtual hegemony in Lebanon, were no longer a sworn enemy. Finally, President Clinton has invested his hopes for a memorable foreign policy legacy on brokering a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement. Syria is the last key holdout. If it signs with Israel, then a settlement with Lebanon and certainly with the Palestinians will not be far behind.

To say that making peace is in everyone’s interest is simply to note what has always been true. The added element this time is an apparent readiness by Syria and Israel to bargain in good faith on hard territorial, security and political issues. Assad cannot settle for less than regaining sovereignty over the Golan Heights, lost to Israel in the 1967 war. Barak must have the full normalization of relations and the security guarantees, including demilitarized zones and listening posts, that would make quitting the Golan politically acceptable to most Israelis.

It may be, as many in Israel believe, that the broad outlines of an agreement have already been secretly agreed on, with the details now to be nailed down. If so, a large step will have been taken toward winning the battle for peace.