 |
News Analysis: A Summit to Make Hard Decisions
Early next week at Camp David, Maryland, President Bill Clinton will sit down with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to make hard decisions necessary for a final peace settlement.
The high-stakes summit, though long-anticipated, is by no means a well-prepared rendezvous.
As Barak and Arafat accepted the invitations extended by Clinton on Wednesday, the two sides remains wide apart on all major final status issues, including the status of Jerusalem, borders, the future of Jewish settlers and the fate of Palestinian refugees.
In their communications with Clinton last weekend, neither Barak nor Arafat were committed to make or face historic concessions if a summit is convened. All they have agreed is that it is up to Clinton to decide if or when there should be a summit.
When Israeli and Palestinian negotiators opened their third round of final status talks in Washington on June 13, the White House had wished that the talks could pave the way for a three-way summit to hammer out details of a framework agreement pending the September 13 deadline for a final peace settlement.
The week-long negotiations, however, ended in a deadlock.
During her trip to the Middle East in late June, the third in the month, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made fresh efforts aiming to narrow the differences between the Israelis and Palestinians and tried to sell the idea of a David Camp style summit, but only returned empty handed. So why this summit, and why now?
Firstly, after crystallizing issues and defining gaps, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have actually reached an impasse, that is, they can take the talks no further at their level.
The issues involved in the talks are so complex and so sensitive that movement now depends on historic decisions that only leaders of the two sides can make.
Secondly, as the stalemate sustains, bitterness between the two sides grows and threatens to derail the peace process.
On July 3, the Palestinian side declared that it will proclaim an independent state on September 13, with or without a deal with Israel.
Barak warned that Israel can respond with "unilateral" measures of its own -- presumably including annexation of large chunks of the West Bank still under Israeli control.
In fact, the peace process has come to a juncture where it is simply no longer an option to delay a summit or to leave the process remain stalled.
As proved in the past, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict knows no status quo. It can move forward toward real peace, or it can slide back into turmoil. It will not stand still.
Announcing his decision on the summit in Camp David, where President Jimmy Carter hosted 12 days of talks in 1978 that led to Israel's historic peace accord with Egypt, Clinton said it is "the best way" and "the only way" to move forward.
"Of course, action does have its perils, but so too does inaction," said Clinton, who hopes to make a Middle East peace agreement part of his presidential legacy.
But he also noted: "There are no easy answers, and certainly no painless ones; and therefore, there is clearly no guarantee for success."
Briefing reporters of Clinton's decision on the summit, a senior administration official has described the peace process as like riding a bicycle. "Once you stop the bike, you fall off. You have to keep peddling and keep going forward," he said.
There is a risk that the summit may fail, the official said, but it is the risk of a failed summit that may press the Israeli and Palestinian leaders into making hard decisions.
In This Section
|