FOR MIDDLE East peace, hope springs eternal. Unfortunately, for two of the key players in the process, eternity is measured in weeks. US President Bill Clinton leaves office next month, and in February Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak faces a hostile public in elections. These deadlines have hung something of a Sword of Damocles over the peace process.
The question is, will Bill Clinton's fervent desire to produce a legacy for his presidency, and Ehud Barak's equally intense wish to carry a peace deal into the election, produce a workable agreement? Initial reaction to President Clinton's proposal for discussion has been cautiously optimistic.
Meanwhile, the US administration has been working to build international support for the deal, particularly among Arab governments. So far, these diplomatic efforts seem to be bearing fruit.
The problem, as usual, is that the support voiced by Middle Eastern governments has not been echoed in the streets. Recent polls, not to mention the continued violence, suggest that public support for the proposals among both Palestinians and Israelis is, to put it kindly, weak. It is likely such suspicious sentiment is widespread throughout the region.
Building public support for such a deal will be a task that will likely require a long and costly effort. Thus, Mr. Clinton may have to accept that the best he can do is keep the process from dying. Trying to rush it to a resolution before he leaves office will probably only prolong the anger we have seen in recent months.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
