News News Analysis: Scandal, Iraq may scuttle U.S. intervention in Mideast Facebook Twitter Email SMS WhatsApp Share By J. Correspondent | January 30, 1998 Sign up for Weekday J and get the latest on what's happening in the Jewish Bay Area. WASHINGTON — President Clinton's decision to bring the Middle East peace process into the Oval Office has set the stage for dramatic U.S. intervention. But even before the high-stakes presidential plan fully emerges, unrelated events are threatening to scuttle the initiative. Topping the list are the sex scandal that has rocked the White House and the increasing probability of an American military strike against Iraq. Both have raised questions about the administration's ability to sustain a high-level diplomatic initiative. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is still planning to bring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat together before the end of February to follow up on last week's separate sessions with Clinton. Albright, who has scheduled separate meetings on Sunday with Netanyahu and Arafat, spoke at a press conference Wednesday before leaving for Europe and the Middle East. Although she's expected to spend much of the trip focusing on the escalating Iraq crisis, she will also work on the peace process. In the press conference, Albright dismissed Arafat's rejection of a U.S. peace plan that would link further Israeli redeployments to specific Palestinian actions to combat terror, saying he should "maintain some flexibility." At some point, probably after a visit by U.S. special Middle East coordinator Dennis Ross, Albright plans to present a detailed American proposal to Netanyahu and Arafat in an effort to bridge the wide gaps that continue to divide the two sides. But only sustained pressure from the administration is likely to revive a dying process. For Israel, the key question is whether the pressure is off, as many in Israel seem to believe, or whether the administration will continue to press Netanyahu to accept a proposal that he feels less than comfortable with. Clinton friends say that given his embattled presidency, he is likely to work even harder on the issues of the day. But they believe that a weaker president does not have the political capital to pressure Netanyahu in particular to accept the U.S. plan. "The whole American political system will be hard-pressed to deal with the peace process with a clear head," said Itamar Rabinovich, Israel's former ambassador to the United States. "Washington is a one-crisis town," said Rabinovich, who currently is a senior fellow at Tel Aviv University's Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies. Still, U.S. officials say they will continue to push the parties to reach a new agreement. For the first time since the Palestinians and Israelis signed the Oslo Accords in 1993, the United States will present its own detailed plan that would lead to further Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. U.S. negotiators actively participated in crafting the Hebron Agreement, which led to the transfer of most of the West Bank town to the Palestinians a year ago. But this time, Albright will present a formal document, according to U.S. officials, outlining what the United States believes is a reasonable compromise. "The fact that the president is directly engaged, the fact that he has put his own ideas on the table, is something which marks a new stage," said Martin Indyk, assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. "I believe that both Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu are very conscious of the significance of this intensive presidential involvement," added Indyk, the top U.S. official on the Middle East. Still, whatever respect Arafat may have had for Clinton's involvement, it didn't prevent him from criticizing Netanyahu's most recent redeployment offer as being "peanuts" and saying that it "cannot be accepted." Under Israeli Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, Clinton had the luxury of watching the Israelis and Palestinians move the peace process forward with only occasional prodding from lower-level U.S. officials. While both Netanyahu and Arafat appear to accept the framework of an American proposal, the specifics are the subject of heated debate. For Netanyahu, the stakes of the new level of U.S. involvement are high. If he disagrees with the U.S. proposal, which he is almost certain to do, he faces the uncomfortable prospect of rejecting a formal U.S. presidential request for specific moves in the peace process. With the United States so intimately involved in the negotiations and the monitoring of Palestinian compliance, there are many areas for "potential confrontations with the United States," said Rabinovich, who served as ambassador under Rabin and Peres and sat in on many of their sessions with Clinton. Israel's relationship with the United States will fluctuate with the "ups and downs of Israel's relationship with the Palestinians," he said, adding that if the Israelis reject the American initiative, it "sets up a very dramatic failure." However, "this does not mean that Israel has to accept every American proposal to maintain good relations with the United States," he said. A Palestinian rejection would also carry consequences, but the United States has been more critical of the Israeli stance. And the Israeli government's position on those issues has come to overshadow all other areas of the U.S.-Israeli relationship. While Netanyahu received sympathy for his concerns about the Palestinians' lax battle against terrorists, it came at a price. Arafat left his meetings with some movement in U.S. policy toward recognizing the Palestinian dream of statehood. Clinton told Arafat he recognizes that one of the principles of the peace process is that the Palestinians "realize their aspirations to live as a free people." But Albright, asked whether a change in U.S. policy is imminent, said, "What you hear and what you see is what it means. And we're not going to go beyond that. "I think what the president wanted…to show Chairman Arafat was his understanding of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people…to be able to live in this region." Under the emerging American plan, according to U.S., Israeli and Palestinian sources: *Israel would turn over West Bank land to the Palestinians in three or four phases during the next six months; the actual extent of the proposed withdrawal has not yet been determined. *Each redeployment would be linked to a specific Palestinian action to fulfill outstanding promises to Israel in the security arena. *Israel would agree to a "time-out" on new settlement construction and other actions that Palestinians say prejudge the final-status talks. *Final-status talks would begin before the last of the phased turnovers. Those talks would focus on issues such as settlements, Jerusalem, borders and refugees. *Israel would recommit itself to one more withdrawal before the summer. *The CIA would play a greater role in monitoring Palestinian compliance with security arrangements with Israel. The plan would require "hard choices" by both sides, U.S. officials are fond of saying. But will it succeed? Since the initiative began last week, U.S., Israeli and Palestinian officials have shifted from cautious optimism to pessimism and back. "We don't see any real problem developing after the president laid out this conceptual idea, but that doesn't mean we're any closer to getting the job done," said James Rubin, a State Department spokesman. From the Israeli government's perspective, the bottom line is security. "People here think the constraints are only political but really the constraints" have to do with security, said a senior Israeli official, referring to threats by members of the Knesset to bring down the Netanyahu government if he turns over more West Bank territory to the Palestinians. As a result, this official said, "the prime minister is on very sure footing" when he argues against certain concessions to the Palestinians. But in this analysis, there is still wiggle room for Netanyahu. If Arafat moves against terrorists, then Netanyahu will have "more flexibility" when considering specific withdrawal proposal. Indeed, Netanyahu hinted at such flexibility when Clinton delivered a brief presidential lecture on the history of Middle East peacemaking after their second meeting last week. Standing in his private residence, Clinton pointed to the desk that Israel used to sign peace agreements with Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinians. Clinton's message — that the desk is available for future peace signings — was not lost on Netanyahu, who likely saw mementos from his immediate predecessors that decorate the room. Netanyahu told Clinton that he wants the desk to be used again "very soon." But in a sign that there is still a long way to go, Clinton later told a television interviewer that it "could be" that neither Netanyahu nor Arafat really want to reach a peace accord. Nonetheless, Clinton vowed that his administration would stay the course. J. Correspondent Also On J. Bay Area Israeli professors at UC Berkeley reflect on a tumultuous year Books ‘The Scream’ exposes Israeli pain through poetry, art, prose Local Voice One year after Oct. 7, how do we maintain Zionist unity? Art Local tattoo artists offer Oct. 7 survivors ‘healing ink’ Subscribe to our Newsletter I would like to receive the following newsletters: Weekday J From Our Sponsors (helps fund our journalism) Your Sunday J Holiday Bytes