The Middle East peace process has entered yet another critical period with the decision of the Palestinian Central Council to postpone the declaration of an independent state today. This is to allow more time for an agreement to be negotiated with the Israeli government, which would allow independence to be declared with mutual consent. Given the calendar of possible dates, whatever can be done will have to be accomplished by the end of the year if the Palestinian leadership is to retain credibility.
It very much remains to be seen whether the Israeli government led by Mr Ehud Barak is in a position to reach such an agreement. When the Israeli parliament reconvenes next month Mr Barak will no longer have a majority, following the resignation of the orthodox Shas party from the coalition. He has plenty on his mind besides agreement with the Palestinians. But undoubtedly his hand would be greatly strengthened in domestic politics if he could reach one. Thus both the Palestinian and Israeli leaderships face into risky but potentially fruitful dialogues with one another and their supporters.
The main issues outstanding in the peace process are the position of Jerusalem, the question of precisely where borders are to be drawn and the rights of Palestinian refugees to return. Much progress was made on each of these issues at the Camp David negotiations chaired by President Clinton during the summer. After them the Israeli side was very frustrated with Mr Yasser Arafat's refusal to compromise on Jerusalem. He tested the waters of international opinion, in the Middle East and Europe especially, and concluded that it would be better not to declare an independent state without an agreement. This proved a convincing argument for his colleagues, putting them at something of an advantage over the Israelis.
The problem now is whether Mr Barak has sufficient support left to take the risks required to reach a settlement in coming weeks. Israeli public opinion has been volatile, but there has been a discernible swing against the necessary flexibility. On the Israeli right the former Likud leader, Mr Benjamin Netanyahu, has enjoyed a wave of popularity, which could undermine his successor, General Ariel Sharon. As always in Israeli politics, tactics come into play. It might suit both Mr Barak and Mr Sharon to forge a grand coalition deal rather than face elections in which Mr Netanyahu could stage a comeback. But observers wonder with very good reason whether such a deal would scupper the chances of reaching agreement with the Palestinians.
International pressure will be brought strongly to bear to keep these options open. President Clinton in particular has an interest in seeing a positive outcome. Given the vast elongation of these talks since they were first agreed at Oslo in 1993 it is quite possible to imagine a further delay, based on fudged principles and postponed decisions. But it is difficult to see that satisfying either Israeli or Palestinian public opinion. And once negotiating contact starts to unravel the momentum would have been lost.