Mideast Talks Collapse Over Holy City Issue

The Israeli-Palestinian summit at Camp David collapsed Tuesday after more than two weeks of intense negotiations failed to resolve the future of Jerusalem and other disputes that have been festering for generations.

But Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat said they narrowed some historic differences, and they pledged to renew talks early next month when U.S. peace envoy Dennis B. Ross visits the Middle East.

The failure of the Camp David summit was a stinging defeat for President Clinton, who called the meeting at the presidential retreat in the Maryland mountains even though he was warned by aides that the disputes were intractable and unlikely to be settled at one high-level gathering.

“Though the differences that remain are deep, they have come a long way,” Clinton said. “Notwithstanding the failure to reach an agreement, they made real headway in the last two weeks.”

Clinton went out of his way to praise Barak, while barely mentioning Arafat.

“Prime Minister Barak showed particular courage, vision and an understanding of the historical importance of this moment,” the president said. “Chairman Arafat made it clear that he too remains committed to the path of peace.”

Clinton said later that he was not criticizing Arafat but that he believed Barak had been far readier to make the sort of compromises needed to reach agreement.

U.S. officials expressed hope that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators will take up where the summit left off, retaining areas of agreement while trying to resolve remaining disputes. But there is no certainty that they will do so. Barak insisted that nothing can be considered settled until everything is settled.

“We have done our best, out of a moral and personal and government responsibility, to do whatever we can to put an end to a conflict of 100 years,” Barak told a news conference. “But unfortunately, in spite of being ready to touch the most sensitive nerves, we have ended with no results.”

Saeb Erekat, a member of Arafat’s Cabinet and a key negotiator, said the summit set the stage for a final peace pact.

“The prospects for achieving an agreement after the Camp David summit is much more viable than at any time in the last nine years,” he said. “For the first time, there was serious engagement on issues like Jerusalem, borders, refugees, security. To us, and by us I mean Palestinians and Israelis, those issues represent our livelihood, our history, our religion, our present, our past, our future. And no one expected a comprehensive deal in just two weeks.”

In perhaps the most striking failure of the summit, Clinton did not succeed in persuading Arafat to withdraw his threat to issue a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood. Most Middle East experts believe that such a step would spark violence across the volatile region. Israel has vowed to annex Jewish settlements in retaliation for a unilateral declaration. Large tracts of the West Bank would be disputed, setting the stage for firefights between the Israeli army and the paramilitary Palestinian police.

Barak said Israel will use military means to advance its interests if negotiations fail to produce results. He pointedly remarked that, despite his government’s preference for peace, “we are deployed for any other possibility.”

In a communique issued after the summit, Israel and the Palestinians said they “understand the importance of avoiding unilateral actions that prejudge the outcome of negotiations.” But U.S. officials acknowledged that the “understanding” falls far short of a pledge. In diplomatic parlance, the communique’s injunction against unilateral actions applies not only to a Palestinian declaration of statehood but also to construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

All three delegations agreed that Jerusalem was the most difficult issue at the summit and the one that ultimately precipitated the breakdown. Both Israelis and Palestinians consider the holy city to be their capital.

Since it captured the walled Old City and the surrounding Arab neighborhoods from Jordan during the 1967 Middle East War, Israel has proclaimed Jerusalem to be its “undivided and eternal capital.” But Arafat came to Camp David seeking Palestinian sovereignty over the Arab parts of the city, including much of the Old City.

Barak said he offered Arafat full Palestinian sovereignty over some East Jerusalem neighborhoods in exchange for Israel’s annexation of several West Bank settlements adjacent to the city.

It was the first time that Israel has agreed to Arab sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem. Barak said the offer to the Palestinians covered “certain villages and small cities that were annexed shortly after 1967.” He was not more specific, but other Israeli sources said the Old City, which contains some of the most revered shrines of Judaism, Islam and Christianity, was not included.

Arafat was under pressure from Arab nations and the Palestinian public not to relinquish Arab “rights” in Jerusalem, even though Israel in effect controls the entire city. Despite the U.S. argument that gaining part of the city is better than nothing, which is what the Palestinians have now, Arafat turned down the deal shortly after midnight Monday, a step that convinced Clinton that the summit would never produce an agreement. He announced the failure a few hours later.

Clinton said Barak and Arafat “must be prepared to resolve profound questions of history, identity and national faith, as well as the future of sites that are holy to religious people all over the world.”

At his news conference Tuesday, Barak said the Israeli offer on Jerusalem was “null and void” because Arafat did not accept it.

“It’s painful to realize that the other side is not ripe for peace, but it’s always better to know the realities than to delude ourselves,” Barak said. “And I still hope that, when they will consider what are the real alternatives that await all of us down the stream, they will have an opportunity to make up their minds once again.”

But Erekat refused to place blame.

“I do not think it serves any purpose to assign blame because the peace process will continue,” Erekat said. “The negotiating positions of both parties came a long way. There was progress on every issue, but gaps remain . . . on Jerusalem and refugees.”

U.S. officials said the summit debate broke the Israeli taboo of never considering changes to Jerusalem’s status.

Clinton rushed back to the White House to report the outcome, appearing 15 minutes early in the media briefing room, before leaving almost immediately for a memorial service in Arkansas for a longtime friend.

The president, in a dark suit, white shirt and red tie, appeared to be near exhaustion, his eyes often narrowing to slits, his hands gripping the front of his lectern. But he managed several half-smiles and never, at least in public, did his demeanor suggest frustration as he sought to offer an optimistic account of the disheartening development.

Nevertheless, the failure of a summit that Clinton clearly hoped would solidify his legacy as Middle East peacemaker must have been a blow. Earlier this year, he was rebuffed by the late Syrian President Hafez Assad during a meeting in Geneva when Clinton appealed for a resumption of the Israeli-Syrian negotiations.

On Capitol Hill, reaction was subdued.

“You’re dealing with the very, very toughest part--the resettlement, the borders and how do you deal with Jerusalem,” said Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.). “Certainly it would have been better if an agreement could be reached, but I don’t think any criticism should be leveled at this point. I think it was a good effort, and I’m sure that there will be more efforts.”

Jewish and Arab leaders in the United States said Tuesday that they were dismayed at the collapse of the peace summit. But while the leaders said both sides had been hoping that the negotiations would end in accord, they also said that hope has been tempered with skepticism that the differences between the two camps could be resolved.

“It is a sad situation that they couldn’t come to agreement,” said Aly Abuzaakouk, executive director of the American Muslim Council. “It is an opportunity which passed by. But while there is a need for peace, it cannot be peace at any cost. It has to be a just peace that addresses the rights of the oppressed, who are the Palestinians.”

Not surprisingly, each side blamed the other for the summit’s failure:

“This was a golden opportunity. This was a rare opportunity,” said Ken Bricker, spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “Let’s put it this way: For Arafat, Barak is as good as it gets. It may not get as good again.”

Hasan Abdel-Rahman, the Palestine Liberation Organization representative in Washington, insisted that the summit flopped because of “the intransigence of Barak on all the issues, mainly Jerusalem. I hope that the Israeli position will change and that efforts will move forward to resume the negotiations.”

Matt Dorff of the American Jewish Congress said the summit had not been without its minor successes.

“Certainly there were many successes of these talks that the parties will build on from here. Palestinians and Israelis sat down face to face. It sounds trite after so many years, but the fact is that they were still coming together and they were still having these conversations.”

*

Times staff writers Jim Gerstenzang and Nick Anderson in Washington and Tracy Wilkinson in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

*

More Inside

* THE FINAL HOURS--Up to the end, U.S. negotiators thought they had a chance to seal a deal. A12

* SETTLERS RELIEVED--Jews in the West Bank and Gaza Strip rejoiced at the lack of an accord. A12