After the symbolism

As far as symbolism goes, President Clinton's West Asia tour went exceedingly well. In Israel he attended Hanukah ceremonies when candles...

As far as symbolism goes, President Clinton8217;s West Asia tour went exceedingly well. In Israel he attended Hanukah ceremonies when candles were lighted to inaugurate new beginnings. In Gaza against a backdrop of olive branches, he witnessed members of the Palestinian National Council and legislative assembly raising their hands to strike out clauses in the Palestinian charter on the destruction of Israel.

And in this Christmas season, there was the visit with his wife and daughter to Bethlehem. Clinton was careful and evenhanded, chiding both the Israelis and the Palestinians for not making good progress on the Wye river accords even as he acknowledged the political constraints on Yasser Arafat and Binyamin Netanyahu. All that and the emphasis on little children was as far as he could go to save the American-managed Wye accords.

If it was possible to shut out reality and to ignore the distant thunder in Washington and Jerusalem, it was not for long. As is obvious already, the fate of the Wye agreementswill be decided not by the necessity to make peace but by impeachment proceedings which are rumbling on in the US Congress and by the no-confidence vote against Netanyahu which is gathering momentum.

From being mediators the Americans have become guarantors of the peace process with Clinton himself closely involved and placing his authority on the line. However, several months of uncertainty in the US administration are foretold by the present course of domestic politics. In that situation, West Asia along with the rest of foreign affairs, will inevitably get low priority in the White House.

With the American effort to restart the peace process peaking with Wye and the Clinton visit, another stalemate is likely to ensue. It could be broken either by precipitate Palestinian action such as Arafat declaring a Palestinian state before completion of final status talks with the Israelis. Or, a fresh impetus to the peace process could occur as a result of political changes in Israel.

Netanyahu is in a cleftstick. On the one side there is American pressure on him to carry out commitments on schedule. On the other are hardliners in his coalition of religious, immigrant and nationalist parties who will not allow him to move forward. Even assuming the inscrutable Netanyahu did recognise that the majority of Israelis want peace and he fully intended to abide by the agreements, his hands are tied by his partners. With only one of three promised troop withdrawals carried out, the far right has already pushed his government to the brink. No signals of accommodation from the Palestinians 8212; charter amendments or avoidance of setting a deadline for statehood 8212; have made things easier for the Israeli prime minister.

The opposition Labour party was prepared to support him only so long as he went ahead with handing over territory. But he pursues an ambiguous course without winning friends on the right or left in Israel or the confidence of Palestinians. A mid-term election looms ahead. It is certain to be bitterlyfought. Opinion polls favour pro-Oslo parties and on that outcome essentially rest Palestinian hopes of further progress in the peace process.