Peace-making future bleak in case Mideast summit fails

By Jeff Abramowitz

JERUSALEM (DPA): Even before the Camp David Middle East peace summit began, Israeli analysts were warning that failure could lead to a new round of violence in the Middle East.

The view was that if Palestinian President Yassir Arafat returned home without an agreement fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, Palestinian frustration at the peace process would spill over into bloody conflict.

Writing before the summit began, Israeli commentator Eitan Haber noted that if the summit ended without an Israeli- Palestinian peace agreement, "it is almost certain that the lid will fly off the seething Palestinian pot. Violence will break out, and there will be bloodshed."

Whether this prophecy comes to pass, it is clear that with the failure of the summit Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts would have suffered a set back which would make it extremely difficult, if not highly improbable, to achieve a peace agreement by the due date of Sept. 13.

Arafat has said he will declare an independent Palestinian state this year, agreement with Israel or no.

Israel has said that if Arafat goes ahead with a unilateral declaration of independence, it will react with steps of its own, including possibly annexing the those parts of the occupied West Bank containing Israeli settlement blocks.

Such moves could well spell the end of the current Israeli- Palestinian attempts at reconciliation, and the peace makers would have, in effect, to start from the beginning.

Both Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yassir Arafat are mindful of the dangers inherent in letting their conflict linger without agreement before Sept. 13.

The problems are made worse by the fact that neither side fully trusts the other and this lack of trust is likely to be exacerbated by the failure of the summit.

In addition, the sides seem so far apart in their basic positions that any agreement will involve compromises neither leader can fully afford to make, since any compromise could see any agreement rejected by the Israelis and Palestinians.

Israel is deeply divided over the future of the peace process, with many thinking the Jewish state has gone as far as it can in giving in to Palestinian demands.

Although pre-summit polls indicated Barak had a slight majority in favor of his peace moves, such is the emotional attachment to Jerusalem, for example, that any compromise over the holy city could see Barak losing the peace referendum he has said he would hold.

Arafat, for his part, cannot abandon what the Palestinians see as their historic rights -- a Palestinian state in all the territories occupied by Israel, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the return of the Palestinian refugees.

In addition, Palestinians regard Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as illegal, and it is doubtful that any agreement which allows Israeli settlements to remain in "settlement blocks" -- as Barak wants -- will be accepted by the majority of Palestinians.

Both leaders also face political opposition. Barak is politically emasculated, deserted by some of his former coalition partners and heading a minority government.

He might be able to persuade some of his hard-line former coalition allies to return to government if he returns without an agreement, but this re-marriage will be only temporary, and the next separation will come once, or if, the peace process gets moving again.

Arafat too faces opposition -- a poll released this week by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center shows that his popularity in the West Bank and Gaza is continuing to plummet.

Just a fraction more than 50 percent of Palestinian respondents said they have confidence in Arafat and his Camp David colleagues.

The leader of the militant Hamas Islamic resistance organization has called on the Palestinian President to return to "the armed struggle" against Israel.

While Arafat, mindful of international, and especially American backing, may not wish to do so, many Palestinians would have no such scruples, such is their disappointment at the lack of tangible results from the seven-year peace process.