By Abdel-Malek Khalil It was Friday night at the Moscow Foreign Ministry's Near East department. A decision had to be made on the position to be taken on the Palestinian-Israeli deal which had just been signed in the United States. The following day, the ministry issued a statement describing the agreement as positive in general, and affirmed the importance of an Israeli troop withdrawal from the Palestinian areas mentioned in the accord, as well as the need to disseminate a feeling of peace in the region. The announcement also stressed the need to follow-up on the agreement until a final settlement is reached. In his Washington statement, Yasser Arafat had praised the efforts made by both Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov. Moscow had appeared preoccupied with its own internal affairs and, consequently, unable to play an active role in the peace process. However, the influence commanded by hundreds of thousands of Jews who migrated to Israel from the former Soviet Union, as well as of those Russian immigrants who live in Israel today, should not be underestimated. The importance of this Russian constituency can be gauged by the following indicators: the Russian language is the third most commonly used in Israel, after Hebrew and Arabic (in fact, many Arab channels that broadcast in Israel include programmes in Russian); Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's pointed remark during his Washington statement regarding Nathan Sharansky, the Israeli minister of trade who is an immigrant from the Soviet Union; and the fact that Soviet Jews and Russian immigrants living in Israel have been granted the right to vote in Russian parliamentary and presidential elections. The reaction of public opinion to the accord was mixed. A writer for the daily Nezavissimaya Gazetta indicated that the agreement could result in history repeating itself -- by which he meant that Arafat's fate might turn out similar to that of Egyptian President Anwar El-Sadat who was assassinated in 1981 by the militant Islamic opposition. The same theme was reflected in the daily newspaper Sigodnaya which suggested that the fate of Netanyahu and Arafat could be that of Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli prime minister who was assassinated two years ago by a Jewish fundamentalist. The newspaper explained that both Palestinian and Israeli extremists would never forgive their leaders for signing the agreement. Nezavissimaya Gazetta, considered an independent newspaper, questioned whether the conflict could be resolved when, out of 3,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, only 500 (700 according to the Washington agreement) are to be released. The paper also asked if the deal would resolve the question of the status of Jerusalem and the return of Palestinian refugees. Commentators concluded that the agreement would face opposition from both Palestinian and Israeli public opinion. As for the refusal of the Palestinian embassy to comment on the document on the grounds that it had not yet received the text, researcher N. Kivartova indicated that the argument was plausible in light of Israel's last-minute refusal to sign. Consequently, Kivartova said, it was possible the embassy had not received the full text in time to study it and prepare any comments. A prominent member of the Jewish community in Russia noted that the agreement would seal Netanyahu's fate, and speculated that both the Israeli prime minister and Arafat would eventually lose their positions because of it. A development that attracted the community's attention was the consultations which took place with both King Hussein of Jordan and President Hosni Mubarak and the fact that the deal proved a big victory for President Bill Clinton and his administration. Moscow Radio described the agreement as a positive step but fraught with pitfalls, adding that 1999 would be a critical year in deciding the fate of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, particularly since 4 May -- the day a Palestinian state may be declared -- is fast approaching.
