Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak are like two mountain climbers pinned down only yards from the summit of Mount Everest. They can not see how to get to the top, despite the constant encouragement of President Clinton. But climbing down now looks impossible as storm clouds gather in the valley below. Can they make it to the top, and what will they find there? Or will they be forced to turn back and be consumed by the storm below?

A few months ago, this column urged Arafat to hang tough on the final status negotiations. The key issues of refugees, Israeli settlements, and Jerusalem still needed to be negotiated. On all of these issues it looked like Israel was going to demand much from the Palestinians in return for allowing Arafat to create a Palestinian state. Arafat went to Camp David, where all parties looked for a final settlement. Clinton particularly took a huge step forward by becoming intimately involved in the details of the negotiations. In the end, the Israelis conceded much more than I ever expected, while Arafat essentially gave up nothing. Despite this, Arafat felt the deal was unacceptable since it did not allow Arab East Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa masjid to be part of Palestine. He walked away from the table.

The Israelis surprised many observers by their willingness at the end of the day to give up much more than they had ever previously even considered. On the issue of the refugees, the Israelis still refused to recognize their moral responsibility toward them. However, they agreed to let at least 100,000 refugees return to homes within Israel on the basis of “family reunification”. As part of a final deal, perhaps Arafat could get that number up to 200,000. This is a fraction of the total refugees, but on the other hand, although many of them want to live in “Palestine”, I’m not sure that many really want to live in “Israel”. The fact that the Israelis agreed to take in refugees at all was a major concession.

On the Jewish settlements, the Israelis again gave up more than anticipated. The final deal offered at Camp David would have kept only a small number of settlements around Jerusalem and near Tel Aviv under Israeli control, while all the settlements deeper in the West Bank would come under Palestinian control. The settlers there could choose to stay in Palestine or pack up and leave. Most Israeli proposals over the years insisted on Israel maintaining military control of the Jordan River valley, but at Camp David they gave this up. At the end, almost 94% of the West Bank land would be allotted to Palestine, a big boost from the 85% most Israelis felt would be part of a final settlement.

Finally on Jerusalem, Barak crossed the last major taboo of Israeli politics when he agreed to seriously negotiate partial Palestinian control of East Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa masjid. The Al-Aqsa masjid sits on a site holy to Muslims, but to Jews it is considered the Temple Mount, where Solomon’s rebuilt temple stood until destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. For religious Jews, the site is very important, but interestingly they are not actually allowed to set foot on it. No Jew is allowed up on the mount until the Messiah comes and the Temple is rebuilt. The old Western Wall (Wailing Wall) of the temple is the only part that still exists, and is the focus of Jewish religious life to an extent similar to that of the Kabah for Muslims.

A central tenet of Israeli politics since 1967 is that Jerusalem is Israel’s “eternal and undivided capital”. Barak broke past this barrier in a move of great courage. So where is Arafat’s courage? Where are Arafat’s concessions? The problem for Arafat is that he has nothing to grant Israel other than the legitimacy of a peace deal. He plays with a very weak hand and so far has played very well. But the time has come for him to accept with grace the Israeli concessions and put an end to this 100-year conflict. For the two sides to back away now from the summit would have terrible consequences.

Arafat has maintained a grip on power because of his claim to be able to lead the Palestinians to freedom and nationhood. If he is seen as failing at the end of the day, his power will evaporate. He has presided over the creation of another corrupt Arab dictatorship, but this one is much weaker in its central authority than Iraq or Syria. There are guns everywhere and civil strife could be terrible. Barak too faces a whirlwind if all his concessions yield nothing but Palestinian territories seething with discontent and an upsurge of violence. His government will almost certainly fall in November when the Knesset reconvenes and he will then likely lose the subsequent election to Netanyahu.

Will the final best offer Arafat gets on Jerusalem be good enough? Will the Muslim world accept the deal that Arafat accepts? The current round of diplomacy by Arafat, Barak, and Clinton as they shuttle to Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other places is to find out how to get to a yes answer on these questions. From a religious standpoint, Muslims and Jews are already separated, with Jews at the Wailing Wall down below, and Muslims at the Al-Aqsa Masjid.

Muslims have made deals on Jerusalem before, and we should keep that in mind. 800 years ago, the Kurdish Sultan Salah-uh-Din liberated Jerusalem from the Crusaders in 1187. But the Crusaders remained in Palestine for another 100 years clinging to a series of coastal castles and towns until the Mamluk Sultan Baibers expelled the last of them. In between, in the year 1229, Egyptian Sultan Al-Kamal agreed to hand Jerusalem over to the German Emperor Frederick II as part of a 10-year truce agreement. It did not return to Muslim control until 1244, when Turkish soldiers employed by Egypt seized it.

The Palestinians have suffered greatly over the last 100 years at the hands of Zionism. Their country has been stolen, their lives stunted, even their very existence denied. It is not right to let that suffering continue over a few square miles. An independent Palestine and the dignity that will come with nationhood are much deserved for them.

To reject peace, when we are so close, is to give up on the future. I do not believe that any arrangement that is made today is truly permanent. Not in the sense that Palestinians should break the deal at the first opportunity and attack Israel, but in the sense that nothing in history is permanent. It is a conceit that what we do today will last forever. We should do what is right and just for today, and let the future leave open the promise of something better.