US President Bill Clinton is back in Washington to grapple with his domestic political crises after failing to achieve substantive progress in the troubled Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. Although Clinton claimed he "achieved what I came to achieve" following a trilateral summit with Binyamin Netanyahu and Yasser Arafat, he failed to extract a firm commitment from Israel to proceed with promised West Bank troop withdrawals or to release political prisoners as demanded by the Palestinians. Instead, Netanyahu repaid Clinton for his pledge of $1.2 billion in additional US aid to Israel by refusing to commit himself to the troop pullout schedule and then condemning the US president for an off-hand remark equating the plight of Palestinians with the sufferings of Israelis. Netanyahu appeared to be making efforts to appease the Israeli extreme right, which has threatened to topple his government if he proceeds with further land transfers to the Palestinians. Clinton did far better with the Palestinian side, scoring a symbolic success by becoming the first US president to visit the Palestinian territories and being on hand to witness the formal cancellation of anti-Israeli clauses in the Palestinian National Charter. For Arafat, who met in Cairo yesterday with President Hosni Mubarak, Clinton's visit was a stirring victory and welcome recompense for his years of efforts to stay in the good graces of the only nation capable of putting pressure on the Israelis to move ahead with the peace process. But with an apparent strengthening of US-Palestinian ties came Israeli irritation. And that irritation is unlikely to be a helpful element as Palestinians and Israelis begin the final status negotiations. Despite the troubles, Clinton nevertheless insisted that he had put the faltering peace process "back on track" -- an optimistic note sounded by the president as he faces today's historic vote in the House of Representatives on whether to go ahead with impeachment hearings. Clinton delayed the return to his domestic crisis by touring holy sites in Bethlehem on Tuesday with his wife and daughter, a move US commentators were quick to characterise as a bid to shore up his family image in the wake of his sexual scandal with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. If the House decides to pass the matter on to the Senate, Clinton -- who has always kept one eye on his place in the history books -- will become only the second US president to face impeachment hearings. In Israel, talk of early elections is getting louder in the wake of Clinton's visit that brought into sharp relief Netanyahu's dilemma -- he can either try to maintain his coalition or implement peace accords with the Palestinians. What is increasingly obvious is that he cannot do both. And for now Netanyahu seems to have opted for political survival. In Gaza, Palestinian Authority officials were so thrilled by the visit that they claimed that their gain was Netanyahu's loss. "The Americans stick to agreements and to implementation. They have shown even-handedness although the Israelis continue to act to obstruct the achievement of peace," said Yasser Abd-Rabbou, the PA culture and information minister. Unlike the not too distant past when the Palestinians felt that America was their unflinching enemy and Israel's staunch ally, many of them now believe that they can win the goodwill of at least one section of the US administration, leaving the other section committed to unwavering ties with Israel. Many, citing America's ability to put pressure on Israel, also believe that the newly-forged friendship will make it easier for them to achieve their declared target of an independent Palestinian state. "The outcome of Clinton's visit affirms the Palestinians' confidence in the eventual returns on their peace policy," said Yehia Ashour, secretary-general of the revolutionary council of the Fatah movement. Other Palestinians are more pragmatic, viewing the newly-born special relationship from the perspective of American and Palestinian gains. According to Nabil Abu-Rudeina, Arafat's adviser, "The importance of Clinton's visit to the self-rule areas stems from two factors. The first is affirmation of the US commitment to the Wye River agreement and the necessity of its implementation while the second is linked to the re-arrangement of US interests in the region. America's policies in the region and other parts of the world are met with obvious resentment. Making progress along the Palestinian track of negotiations will help to a great extent in eliminating this resentment." In Cairo, Foreign Minister Amr Moussa told Al-Ahram Weekly that the speech made by Clinton in Gaza was "a strong one that reflects the US position and its call for the implementation of the Wye agreement in order to allow for progress on the Palestinian track of the peace process in accordance with the accepted parameters, including the established rights of the Palestinian people and the co-existence of two entities and two peoples within a peaceful framework." Moussa described the speech as a "positive one. We agree with this speech and its framework. Actually, Clinton's visit comes as part of a positive US attitude that we welcome." "We welcome Clinton's call for honouring the [Wye] agreement and the need [for the parties] to work together on the issues that should be negotiated, while taking into consideration the legitimate rights on security issues and the legitimate rights of the Palestinians which are fair, established and understandable," Moussa said. "Also, Clinton's call for coexistence and coordination between the two countries [Palestine and Israel] gives reason for hope that things will be moving along the right track, provided that Israel starts to cooperate, stops its procrastination and refrains from adding more [post-agreement] conditions [for implementation]," Moussa asserted. "I also think that the speech made by President Arafat was clear. I believe that in his speech Arafat clearly projected the Palestinian position concerning the issues of their state, Jerusalem and their rights and commitments in relation to the Wye River agreement." Moussa, asked what would happen if Clinton's visit failed to secure Israel's implementation of its commitments under the memorandum, responded: "Then, it would be a hopeless situation." Sources cautioned that although Clinton gave expression to some encouraging US policies with regards to Palestinian rights, he seemed to fall short of guaranteeing Israeli implementation of the Wye Memorandum. The same sources noted that no commitments were made in public by Clinton or his aides on the thorny issues of further redeployments in the West Bank or the release of Palestinian political prisoners. Although Clinton affirmed commitment to the memorandum, his speech appeared to send a message about US intentions to begin steering clear from heavy involvement in the small details of regional peace-making. Clinton's most clear-cut commitment was pledging financial support. But despite the obvious value of economic assistance, money cannot buy peace in the Middle East, a source said. And, according to analysts, although Clinton's visit to Gaza helped improve Arafat's image among his supporters it did not strengthen the position of Palestinian negotiators in the final status talks and did not provide Arafat's opponents with reasons to be less critical. The visit, analysts say, projected the policy that the US has adopted for some time -- showing sympathy to Arafat and still getting him to agree to Netanyahu's terms. This policy obviously works in Netanyahu's favour and has helped him water down the terms and principles that were agreed upon in Oslo to the extent that was demonstrated in Wye. And it is obvious that while Arafat is getting recognition from the US for honouring the best part of his commitments, he could still fall under US pressure to do more to please Netanyahu. Meanwhile, Arafat's position on the visit reflects his intention to stick to his reconciliatory attitude which is likely to hamper rather than strengthen the Palestinian negotiating position, one expert pointed out. Sources say that future coordination between Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinians is going to be crucial for securing a decent bottom-line for the Palestinian negotiator, particularly in the final status talks. "It is essential to have Palestinian-Jordanian-Egyptian coordination on all the coming steps in the Palestinian talks," Moussa said. "Obviously, we are not imposing ourselves on the Palestinians but we respond to their demand for cooperation." Khaled Amayrah in Jerusalem; Tarek Hassan in Gaza; Dina Ezzat in Cairo
