Islamic World’s Nod Seen as Key to Peace Deal

President Clinton’s hopes of reviving the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks now focus on something that was largely overlooked during negotiations last month at Camp David--the attitude of key Islamic countries regarding a compromise on Jerusalem.

Clinton will meet separately in New York on Sept. 6 with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat. If those sessions go well, U.S. officials say, full-scale peace talks could resume before the end of September.

But the dispute over the status of Jerusalem appears even more complex to U.S. officials than it did before the issue deadlocked the Camp David summit in Maryland. They now acknowledge that Arafat cannot compromise on the ancient city, which is claimed by both Israelis and Palestinians as their capital, without securing the support of much of the Islamic world, particularly Saudi Arabia.

Jerusalem--a city sacred to Jews, Muslims and Christians--stirs emotions far beyond the borders of Israel and the West Bank. Within a few blocks of one another in the walled Old City are the Western Wall, the holiest shrine in Judaism; the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the most sacred ground in Christianity; and the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa mosques, together the third holiest site in Islam.

Pope John Paul II has suggested international control for Jerusalem. Most Christian denominations have not claimed sovereignty in the city, assured by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority that the autonomy of churches will be respected no matter which side ends up with political dominion.

But most Muslims view sovereignty over the holy sites as crucial to their religious observances. And for Jews, Israel’s claim to all of Jerusalem as its “eternal and undivided capital” has both political and religious significance.

Israel, of course, is a direct participant in the peace negotiations and is widely recognized as a guardian of Jewish interests. Though he is Muslim, Arafat is the political leader of the Palestinians; he does not speak for Islam.

“If we can reach an agreement, that agreement is going to have to be broadly acceptable in the Islamic community around the world,” a senior State Department official acknowledged Thursday. “Otherwise, you’re going to have a very serious problem.”

But there are limits to inclusiveness, the official added: “We’re not talking about a negotiation between 60-some-odd [Islamic] countries, and we’re not talking about referenda.”

The official spoke on condition of anonymity, as is frequently done under State Department procedures designed to preserve sensitive diplomatic relationships.

Nevertheless, Middle East experts outside of government say Washington will have to change its negotiating strategy if it hopes to broker a deal before Clinton--and perhaps even Barak, whose grip on power is increasingly shaky--leaves office.

In the past, the United States has tried to enlist Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other countries in support of any agreement hammered out by Israeli, Palestinian and American negotiators. Now, these experts say, Islamic states, especially Saudi Arabia, must be brought on board at the start and allowed to pursue their own independent objectives on Jerusalem to produce a stable agreement.

“The United States will have to negotiate some details with some key states other than the Palestinians, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt,” said Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat professor of peace and development at the University of Maryland. “The Saudis are critical. They have been the leader in the Arab world on religious issues.”

If King Fahd of Saudi Arabia supports an Israeli-Palestinian deal, he said, it would be difficult for any other Islamic government to oppose it on strictly religious grounds. But if the Saudis remain aloof, he added, “it would give a chance to a lot of opponents to say that Arafat sold out. It would embolden his opposition.”

The Saudis have been a very thin reed in the past. In 1978, President Carter thought that he had secured Saudi backing for the Egypt-Israel agreement hammered out at the first Camp David summit. But the Saudis declined to support the pact once they had a chance to study it.

Telhami agreed that it is not easy to persuade the Saudis to take action. But he said, “They do not want to see failure. Failure is costly. It means violence and events they cannot control.”

So far, the administration has focused on winning the support of Egypt, generally considered the political leader of the Arab world but a country with less religious influence.

On Friday, Clinton announced that he will stop Monday in Cairo on his way home from a weekend trip to Africa and will confer with President Hosni Mubarak on the Middle East peace process. Mubarak does not plan to attend the United Nations Millennium Summit next month, the setting for Clinton’s talks with Barak and Arafat.

Mubarak has held dozens of meetings during the last two weeks at his summer palace in Alexandria with Arafat, Israeli leaders and others interested in Middle East peacemaking. But he has not yet indicated how he will react if Barak and Arafat reach agreement on Jerusalem.

Edward Walker, the State Department’s ranking Middle East specialist, visited 16 Arab capitals during a three-week trip that ended Aug. 18.

“Every Arab leader expressed a deep commitment to peace and to taking advantage of this historic opportunity to reach an agreement,” Walker told reporters on his return.

But some experts say that a deep commitment to peace may not be enough--that to obtain backing from the Saudis, Clinton must employ higher-ranking emissaries than Walker, an assistant secretary of State.

“Clearly, the royal family makes the decisions,” Telhami said. “To get to them, you don’t use subordinates. In order to persuade the Saudi princes, you need presidential involvement, or at a minimum, a direct envoy who would go directly from the president.”