Mideast Peace Process: No Turning Back for Israel

With his agreement to turn over most of the West Bank town of Hebron to Palestinian control, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has committed himself tangibly to the peace process begun by his predecessors, not just in theory but where it counts most, on the ground.

From this point on, however arduous and painful the journey toward the goal set by the Oslo accords proves to be--and it is sure to be both--no turning back seems possible. Within days, Israeli soldiers are to withdraw from more than 80% of Hebron, with Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority assuming basic civil responsibility for the town’s 100,000 Arabs. Israel is committed to carry out further staged military redeployments on the West Bank before the middle of next year and negotiate on the area’s final status. None of this marks a new departure. Rather, the Hebron agreement and, even more significantly, the U.S. “memo for the record” that accompanies it basically reaffirm earlier undertakings. The added element is a precise restatement of obligations on both sides that should greatly narrow opportunities for dissimulation, equivocation or uniquely perceived interpretations of what the fundamental Oslo accords mean.

The middle-of-the-night sealing of the deal by Netanyahu and Arafat was, as usual, no love fest. Between the two leaders there is neither trust nor liking, and though personal relations have become somewhat easier after a series of meetings, most notably at the White House last year, they remain uncomfortable in each other’s company. No matter.

They have reached this stage in their relationship because necessity has driven them to it, at the same time it has drawn them still further away from their political origins. Netanyahu comes from a segment of the Zionist movement that asserts an ideological claim to the whole of the West Bank, and as recently as his election campaign last year he was promising never to trade territory for peace. Arafat heads a movement whose charter--yet to be amended--defines Israel as an illegal entity whose existence is “null and void,” and among those who are under the authority he heads are zealots who have resisted the peace process every step of the way. Both men must now contend with their domestic opponents.

It’s once again clear that the Hebron agreement probably could not have been achieved without U.S. prodding and encouragement. Particular credit must go to special envoy Dennis Ross, who in the Clinton administration as in earlier ones has proven to be indispensable as a creative and trusted mediator. Credit must also go to Jordan’s King Hussein, whose timely meetings with Arafat and Netanyahu last Sunday proved to be crucial in nudging the Hebron talks to a conclusion. As always, nothing can be taken for granted in the Middle East. One exception is that the good offices of the United States and King Hussein will no doubt be needed again as the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations continue to unfold.