Mideast Talks Never Had a Chance

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators agreed last Saturday that their latest round of meetings in Egypt had brought them closer than ever to resolving the major issues on which the fate of the peace process depends. Those issues are the borders of a future Palestinian state, security arrangements, Jerusalem’s status under a peace agreement and what becomes of Palestinians who fled or were driven out of Israel during its war of independence more than 50 years ago.

The optimistic mood lasted just a single day. On Sunday, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat unleashed a bellicose blast accusing Israel of “fascist military aggression” against Palestinians. As Arafat knew it would, the outburst canceled any chance that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak would meet with him this week to seal the progress made in Egypt.

Israel’s prime ministerial election next Tuesday is now expected to see Barak pushed aside by Ariel Sharon, the former defense minister and undeviating hard-liner who has renounced the Barak peace process. There was a possibility, perhaps slight, that if an Israeli-Palestinian deal could be struck before the election, it might tip the scales in Barak’s favor.

How seriously Arafat took the talks in Egypt has been questioned. Diplomats noted that Palestinian officials and the Palestinian media, which take orders from on high, paid them little attention, despite the considerable progress that was apparently made to bridge differences. So Arafat once again ducked an opportunity to prepare Palestinian public opinion for the concessions on which any agreement depends. Palestinians have been encouraged to believe that the maximum demands advanced by their leaders remain achievable. That is a delusion, as are the assertions by right-wing Israelis that the Palestinians will eventually be forced to accept a dictated settlement that will virtually preserve the post-1967-war status quo.

Barak is a realist who understood that peace could only be made on terms equitable to both sides. Unfortunately, he is also a terrible politician, a loner who could not put together a supportive and durable coalition or make his case to the Israeli public. Worst of all, he had the ill fortune to be stuck with a negotiating partner who lacked both the wisdom to see that no Israeli leader is likely ever to offer as much as Barak did and the courage to seize the moment to make peace.