A setback for peace

This week's visit to Washington by right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could have been a great opportunity for U.S. President Bill Clinton to use his influence and force Israel to return to the peace negotiations that were built up by the previous Israeli Labor government.

As it turned out, Clinton did not assert his leadership. He obviously had something else on his mind. With the U.S. presidential election only a few months away, winning the crucial Jewish vote is far more important to him than the peace process which he has personally helped put in motion.

What we saw in Washington instead was a glorious Netanyahu rejecting everything that was painfully agreed upon by the various players in the Middle East peace process since 1991. His remarks were virtually unchallenged and he even won a thunderous standing ovation after addressing a joint session of Congress.

Netanyahu ruled out dividing the city of Jerusalem, he did not rule out the opening up of new settlements and he made no firm promise to withdraw Israeli troops from the West Bank. He said he did not see any immediate need to meet with Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. He did promise to work towards peace but he set preconditions that virtually set the peace process back to square one.

These were the same promises he made during the Israeli election campaigns. They were the same political platforms that gave him victory, albeit a marginal one, over the incumbent prime minister Shimon Peres. There had been hopes earlier that once in power, Netanyahu would tone down some of his campaign rhetoric and resume the peace negotiations.

Certainly, Arab leaders and those concerned about peace in the Middle East were hoping that the United States, as the principal backer of the Jewish state, would pressure Israel to return to the negotiating table. Clinton's influence was almost their last hope, and it was dashed this week in Washington.

Domestic politics almost always prevail, and short term interests often dictate which way a political leader will go. This applies as much to Netanyahu as it does to Clinton.

It would take a great statesmen of strong vision to put short term personal interests aside and take the chance to bring peace for all, including their own people, in the longer term. The late Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, his successor Shimon Peres and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat were all men who had these qualities. Of these three, only Arafat is still center stage but now his credibility among the hard-line Palestinians who had supported him is in doubt because of the about-face made by the new Israeli government.

If other leaders in the Middle East play the same game -- that is, putting domestic interests first and satisfying their respective constituents simply to stay in power -- this could lead to a hardening of positions. And if this happens, the region will return to turmoil and violence.

It remains to be seen where the Middle East is heading, now that the last hope of resuming the peace negotiations has been dashed by a single person. What is certain is that the turn of events in the last few weeks, from the election of Netanyahu to Clinton's inability to influence the Israeli leader, has set the region back by a few years.