Middle East Peace In Jeopardy

Note to Creators.com readers: We are offering Benazir Bhutto's complete collection of syndicated columns for the interest of our readers. Please visit our news page for a complete chronological list, or you may browse our archives by month with the drop down menu on this page.

You can find current Creators Syndicate content dealing with Ms. Bhutto's career and assassination by visiting our news item.

When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was elected, some of us hoped that his blustery campaign rhetoric would give way to cool-headed leadership. We were bitterly disappointed.

Netanyahu's election has cast a dark shadow on prospects of peace in the Middle East — and the hopes of an entire region hang in the balance.

Systematically, the new Israeli government has set about rejecting the fundamental principles underlying the peace process. Its repudiation of one international obligation after another has destroyed the mutual trust so essential to the success of any negotiations. From the redeployment of forces in Hebron to the question of settlements, the status of Jerusalem to the future of autonomous territories, Israel's policy of retrenchment is all too clear.

Moderate elements on both sides of the process had pinned their hopes on the remarkable pre-election developments in Arab-Israeli relations. This peace brought recognition of Israel by several Muslim countries and economic summits in Casablanca and Amman, Jordan, ending Israel's political isolation in the Middle East and beyond.

President Yasser Arafat demonstrated to his people that peace brought greater autonomy and perceptible moves toward statehood, as well as economic benefits flowing from Arab-Israeli cooperation.

And now, turning the clock back to not-so-cold war in the region has disappointed all peace-loving people, including Israel's neighbors to the north.

From what I learned during my visit to Syria earlier this year, it is clear that the Damascus leadership is keen to see a breakthrough in the peace process, but it remains determined not to compromise on vital issues.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres had accepted the legitimacy of the Syrian claim on the Golan Heights and was willing to return to negotiations after the election and work out details of a phased Israeli withdrawal from the region in exchange for security guarantees.

Although the new Israeli prime minister affirmed that he was willing to resume talks with Syria on issues other than the Golan Heights, this signifies a perfunctory approach to peace. If there are any points of disagreement, they can be dealt with within the peace process — but Israel's actions renounce the peace itself and threaten to undermine everything.

All this turmoil was developing even before the present crisis, which arose from Israeli attempts to open a new exit for the tunnel along the Masjid-e-Al Aqsa and led to a Palestinian uprising.

If Netanyahu's reason for these actions was to test the resolve of the Palestinians and the Arabs in general, the ploy has failed. If the idea was to frustrate Arabs into making a mistake, Israel has miscalculated. If Israel intended to try and gain leverage to squeeze further concessions from Arafat and President Assad, it was a vain hope. The Arab world has shown remarkable unity in standing together in defense of the peace process.

Can the United States allow Israel to abandon its commitment to peace, which was guaranteed by two successive American presidents? I believe not. If the peace process flounders, then new dangers will arise in the region and beyond. Fanatics and extremists on both sides of the divide will get yet another opportunity to whip up a frenzy — one this world can ill afford.

And so, I continue to mourn the death of Yitzhak Rabin and the changes that have taken place since his death. But despite the difficulties we face, the peace process is too precious to be allowed to fail because of an assassin's bullet.

COPYRIGHT 1996, CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.