THE DISPUTED points have been debated to death, the conditions for compromise are known and many have been agreed upon. Even Netanyahu's government was aware of the need for a withdrawal from the Golan Heights in exchange for peace with Syria, and the need for territorial compromise and the establishment of a Palestinian state on most of the West Bank.
It is to be hoped that as soon as Barak returns from his successful trip to the States, he will appoint his negotiating teams and instruct them to arrive at a proper arrangement.
BARAK'S POLITICAL "love-in" with official Washington is a good sign in one sense: it seems to confirm the new Israeli Prime Minister's willingness to discard the venal rhetoric of his predecessor and get on with the business of reaching a comprehensive peace with his Arab neighbours. But, needless to say, Barak's instant chemistry with Clinton hardly makes for a guarantee that Lebanon's interests will be adequately addressed at the White House.
US BACKING and willingness to contribute to the peace process in the framework of an "enhanced US-Israeli relationship" are welcome. [But] a Clinton administration eager to cap its legacy with a major Middle East peace-brokering task must look past the euphoria and prepare for negotiations. There will be moments of crisis. Only if all parties involved understand this will the positive momentum and expectations generated by Barak's US visit be translated into real, implementable peace agreements.Reuse content