Creative Ambiguity on Jerusalem

The calendar creeps toward Sept. 13, when Yasser Arafat has proposed to unilaterally declare Palestinian statehood if a peace agreement with Israel has not been reached. That step would trigger Israeli responses likely to nullify much of what arduous negotiations have so far achieved. But the calendar also is moving toward the likelihood of early elections in Israel, in which victory by factions hostile to the peace process is possible. U.S. officials believe only a few weeks may be left to try to resolve the deep differences dividing Israel and the Palestinians. In New York next week, President Clinton will meet with Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to assess whether those differences can be bridged.

Arafat recently toured 23 countries to gauge support for his plan to declare statehood. The consensus was that he defer any proclamation, advice it appears he will take. Meanwhile, Barak was advised this week by a majority of Israel’s parliament, meeting in special session, that he has no moral authority to sign a peace deal with the Palestinians because defections have left him with only a minority government. Barak can be expected to ignore that advice, though he can’t ignore the political reality behind it. When the Knesset reconvenes at the end of October, the prime minister faces a confidence vote that he will probably lose. That would bring on early elections, which he intends to use as a referendum on his conduct of the peace process.

Barak’s electoral chances will be far better if he can present Israelis with the text of a peace agreement. Considerable progress toward resolving major points of contention was made at the Camp David summit in July. Of the major issues remaining, sovereignty over Jerusalem is the most intractable. Israel, which unilaterally annexed East Jerusalem after the 1967 war, holds that an undivided Jerusalem is its eternal capital. The Palestinians, with support from the Muslim world, insist East Jerusalem must be their future capital and that their sovereignty over the Temple Mount area--what Muslims call Haram al Sharif--must be recognized. Religious beliefs defy compromise. But political claims can be finessed.

This week, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported a U.S. proposal to skirt the Jerusalem sovereignty issue by dividing the Temple Mount area with its Muslim and Jewish holy sites into four sections, in each of which Israel and the Palestinians would have a different mix of powers. Clinton’s meetings with Barak and Arafat could reveal whether this creatively ambiguous notion or something like it has a chance of being accepted. A peace agreement might still be possible even if the Jerusalem issue could be deferred. Far better, though, to get it resolved now, as part of a total package most Israelis and Palestinians could support.