Based on Yasser Arafat’s history of saying or doing the wrong thing at the worst place or time, it was a relief this week to hear him suggest that the Palestinians postpone their call for statehood.
The Palestinian National Council was still meeting at press time, but it would be a first if the council did not accept Arafat’s recommendation.
If Arafat had followed through with his original statehood pronouncement scheduled for May 4, it would have had a profound effect on Israel’s May 17 elections.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may try to take credit for Arafat’s postponement, but the Israeli people undoubtedly will realize that Arafat had other reasons.
Certainly pressure from President Clinton had a lot to do with Arafat’s decision. Arafat has become a welcome guest in Washington and other world capitals. He would have jeopardized that standing if he moved against the wishes of Clinton and other world leaders.
Arafat also didn’t want to help Netanyahu’s efforts to win by declaring a state two weeks prior to the election. Had Arafat followed through on his original threat, Netanyahu would have immediately pushed for the annexation of the West Bank to prove his tough credentials to the electorate.
So what happens after the election?
Clinton was right this week in telling both sides that negotiations toward a final accord must resume within six months after the election. Clinton said the goal should be to reach an accord within a year.
The Oslo accords called for a final agreement to be reached by Tuesday. Promises made by both sides have been broken, and that date became unattainable.
Clinton’s call to resume talks deserves the endorsement of all the candidates running for prime minister.
If Israelis are to ever live in peace, they must reach some kind of accommodation with the Palestinians and their other neighbors. That goal should be every candidate’s promise.
Arafat has done his part. Now Israel must follow through with some gestures of good intentions.