With an Israeli special election in the near future, the Mideast peace talks may have some effect on who gets elected and how the future peace process may evolve.

Talks in Washington this week will set the tone and pace of Mideast negotiations for many years to come. If Ehud Barak's representatives achieve a diplomatic breakthrough, the Israeli prime minister may survive February's special election and govern with a broad mandate. If not, bellicose conservative Ariel Sharon could capitalize on the violence and capture the office, which would almost surely frustrate the peace process.

Barak's perseverance in seeking a comprehensive agreement with the Palestinians is a testament to the long view that neighbors must coexist. Barak never recovered politically after his bold offer was rejected and peace talks collapsed earlier this year at Camp David. But renewed violence that has claimed hundreds of lives -- most of them Palestinian -- since September has given each side a new imperative to deal. The two sides are meeting separately this week with U.S. negotiators, and, if all goes well, direct talks may resume before the Israeli vote.

Israel's election will provide a referendum on how far the next premier can go in trading land for peace and resolving the outstanding disputes over water, refugees and the administration of Jerusalem. Barak and Sharon have vastly different styles and political agendas. Barak is a bold, impulsive figure who will promote a peace agreement with reasonable security terms. Sharon is a hawkish icon who paints himself as a pragmatist more capable of bargaining with Yasser Arafat and handling Palestinian extremists. But many Palestinians blame Sharon for sparking the current wave of violence with a purposely provocative visit to an Arab sector of Jerusalem.

The decision by former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was leading in the polls, to withdraw his candidacy leaves many Israelis with an unsatisfying choice. Barak called elections under a law permitting only current members of Parliament to run. While Parliament amended the law, opening the door for Netanyahu, the former leader claimed Parliament was too fractious for him to govern. For all his flaws, Netanyahu might have been a better choice to lead Likud than Sharon, who is viewed internationally as a symbol of Israeli aggression.

Whoever wins must bring Israel together if the nation is to bargain effectively with Arafat and the Arab states. Political changes in Washington could affect the process, too. President Clinton has played a crucial, perhaps irreplaceable, role in maneuvering Israeli and Palestinian leaders toward peace. President-elect George W. Bush and the foreign policy team he assembled this week should renew America's commitment to act as mediator. By remaining engaged, Bush would assert the continuity of U.S. foreign policy and protect Washington's broader strategic interests in the region. The last thing the peace process needs, especially amid an election between opposites, is ambivalence and instability.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page