A Times Editorial

Breaking the taboos

The Middle East summit broke down without an agreement, but negotiators began a necessary dialogue over the future of Jerusalem.

© St. Petersburg Times, published July 27, 2000

Peace between Israel and the Palestinians will never come according to Washington's timetable, because even the strongest and most secure Israeli and Palestinian leaders cannot take their people where they aren't prepared to go. In the end, even President Clinton's considerable diplomatic skills weren't enough to shepherd Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat -- neither of whom was working from a position of strength -- across the final threshold.

Still, this U.S.-manufactured summit will not be remembered as a failure if the formerly taboo subjects finally put on the table at Camp David become part of the political dialogue in the Middle East. The complex and emotional issue of the political division of Jerusalem had never been seriously broached before, so it was unrealistic to expect Barak and Arafat to resolve it in a fortnight. But now the issue is out there, and it no longer seems so insoluble. Barak in particular deserves great credit for having offered historic concessions, including Palestinian sovereignty over much of East Jerusalem and Jewish areas of the Old City.

Arafat was in no position to accept even the most tempting compromise, because he had no assurance that Arab governments in the region, along with the Palestinian hardliners he nominally represents, would follow him. In that treacherous part of the world, leaders can lose their lives over such miscalculations. On the other side, Barak's governing coalition collapsed over his decision to go to Camp David, even before the prime minister starting partitioning maps of Jerusalem.

Both sides have set a Sept. 13 deadline for a final agreement, and Arafat has vowed to unilaterally proclaim a Palestinian state if no settlement is reached by then. Any hope of meeting that deadline rests on Arafat's and Barak's ability to muster the explicit support they need to make the concessions that peace requires.

For Arafat, that means bringing Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other Arab governments on board. Palestinian extremists will accept nothing short of Israel's disappearance from the map, but they can be marginalized by Israel's more realistic neighbors.

For Barak, it means establishing a solid domestic consensus for his Camp David agenda. His coalition is in tatters, but polls consistently show that a majority of Israelis are prepared to accept the kind of compromises Barak has offered in exchange for a secure peace. The nuttiest Israeli settlers, like the nuttiest Palestinians, will accept no compromises, and Likud demagogues such as Ariel Sharon will continue to raise unrealistic expectations. Still, Barak has a chance to demonstrate that most Israelis are with him.

That is the optimistic view. The reality is that the breakdown of the Camp David summit and the looming Sept. 13 deadline could precipitate a new wave of violence, which in turn could cause Arafat and Barak to pull back even from the positions they put on the table in recent days. Barak already has said that all his Camp David concessions are now moot. President Clinton will be tempted to try to intervene one last time, but any further progress must come from the parties themselves. The president should understand by now that even the most persuasive bribes, threats and personal entreaties can't save the Israelis and Palestinians from themselves.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.