U.S. peace role in the Middle East

As (Egyptian) President Mubarak's Washington visit draws to an end, all parties agree that negotiations must resume quickly -- that no miraculous breakthroughs are expected soon, especially along the Syrian-Israeli track, and the United States will not exert significant pressure on (Israeli) Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu prior to the November presidential election.

In short, it has been agreed that peace is the desired goal and instability, an unwelcome visitor to the Middle East political area.

For peace to become more than a distant dream, concrete steps must be taken on the part of all involved, including the United States.

Mubarak made this abundantly clear in Washington. And with the time for talk long-since elapsed, what is required now is action, not words.

If (U.S.) President Bill Clinton is indeed sincere about giving peace a push in the right direction, then he must be willing to remain true to his convictions, even if they fly in the face of the Jewish-American lobby.

The U.S. Middle East envoy last week stated, "Ultimately, it is not for the United States to decide on peace. It is the parties, themselves." Yet, this was not the view endorsed by Clinton as he sought to finalize the Dayton accords (on the former Yugoslav republic of Bosnia).

What is needed now is more of this conviction. But the question remains -- will Clinton be willing to put valuable votes on the line, leave himself open for attacks from Dole and other isolationist-endorsing Americans, in order to finish what he committed himself in Madrid and at (former Prime Minister Yitzhak) Rabin's funeral?

-- al-Ahram Weekly, Cairo