ACROSS THE SPECTRUM

By LEAH RABIN; ELIE WIESEL; NORMAN PODHORETZ; DAVID GROSSMAN; MICHAEL LERNER; JAMES A. BAKER III; YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI; NADAV SAFRAN; EDWARD W. SAID

TIME asked several distinguished observers of the Middle East to predict the future of the peace process under Netanyahu. To one, the process "is at an end." To another, civil war looms among the Palestinians, and to a third, Netanyahu has a chance to heal Israel's "suicidal divisiveness."

LEAH RABIN Widow of slain Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin

It's very difficult to say what will be in the future. The whole world is puzzled. It is a time of soul searching and way searching. I want to believe that the peace process which was signed with an international signature, is to be honored. Also, there is a dynamic in this process. I'd like to believe that people, or at least part of the people, very much desire the agreement. So I hope it will continue. I think Netanyahu will try. He will have opposition from within his own people. I think he will be more willing than some of the people there with him. We shall all have to live and learn. The whole world is now watching to see how we will continue, and everyone will simply try his best to--how do you say it?--take the chestnuts out of the fire.

For me, it is a very difficult time. I miss my husband. So many people believed in him. I know that so very, very many people miss him and feel that had he not been killed, it would not have turned out this way.

ELIE WIESEL Author and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize Don't be worried. There is something called the wisdom of the people, and we must have faith in it. A Jewish wise man once said, "Trust the people, for they may not be prophets, but they are the children of prophets." History is irreversible. Think about tomorrow. There will be negotiations. During the campaign, Netanyahu spoke like Peres; Peres spoke like Netanyahu. So don't worry. It will be O.K.

I don't think [the impact of the elections on the peace process] will change much. Netanyahu has 45 days to form a Cabinet. He has already said he will respect the achievements in negotiations. I am convinced that no leader in Israel can simply stop the peace process; it is irreversible. So many people here were afraid [last week], because they don't remember that Begin was as hawkish as Netanyahu seems to be. It was after all Begin who signed the first peace agreement with Egypt--he was the one who gave up the entire Sinai. So let's not start coming out with statements of fear; there is no reason to panic. For me, it's not a matter of personalities, it's a matter of principle. I am for the peace process; it will continue because it must continue.

NORMAN PODHORETZ Editor-at-large, Commentary

If you subtract the Israeli-Arab vote, it means Netanyahu received 55.5% of the Jewish vote. It's like a landslide--not a close vote at all. For me, the real question is whether the momentum toward the establishment of a Palestinian state and Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights in exchange for Assad's paper agreement can be entirely stopped. My guess is no.

But I think an explosion is coming anyway--the fat is in the fire. Very few agree with me, but I have a sense of doom about the whole thing. I believe that with the establishment of a Palestinian state, tactical cooperation between the P.L.O. and Hamas--their fight-and-talk strategy, similar to what the Vietnamese did with the U.S.--will break down, and you'll have a civil war between the Palestinians and Hamas, a Lebanonization of Palestine. The Syrians would use this kind of unrest and violence as an excuse to move in, as they did in Lebanon, to "restore order." Israel would have to react, and this could set the stage for a serious outbreak of armed hostility that other Arab states would get sucked into, to make one last effort to wipe the Jewish state off the map.

I hope to God I'm wrong.

DAVID GROSSMAN Israeli author, most recently of The Book of Intimate Grammar, a novel

Netanyahu's election shows that at least half of the people are not really mature enough for the peace process. They want peace, of course--everyone wants peace--but they're not willing to make the concessions it takes. It's ironic, because this is exactly what the right wing used to say about the Arabs, that they're not mature enough to make peace. The election of Netanyahu paradoxically shows the same thing, that most people are afraid of the peace process. They want it to be much slower. It's very natural, though, because for people like us to suddenly open ourselves to our enemies, to make concessions, to take risks, it's against our DNA.

Every catastrophe is so engraved in our genes that it's easy to conceive of the world in terms of fear, suspicion, being on alert; to dichotomize everything as if there are no nuances between living and dying. I don't say that some of the dangers are not real. Many of our fears are justified; after all, we're not surrounded by the Salvation Army.

Peres and Rabin suggested something almost heroic--in the middle of terror activity, of hostility, to come and present a vision of an abstract idea like peace. Of course, the reality was much more concrete and bloody. But the greatness of Rabin and Peres was that they said we are strong enough now to be a little weaker, to take a calculated risk.

MICHAEL LERNER Editor and publisher of Tikkun, author of The Politics of Meaning

I think it's going to undermine the peace process severely. It's likely that Netanyahu will make some kind of conciliatory gestures to appease the U.S., but he will follow a policy of subtly undermining the possibilities--i.e., he will not say he wants to end the peace process, he will say he wants to go forward with it, in the same way that [Yitzhak] Shamir said that and then later acknowledged after he left office that he was doing everything he possibly could to undermine it.

JAMES A. BAKER III U.S. Secretary of State in the Bush Administration

This is a major setback for the peace process, but I don't think it's the end of the process. I believe the question is going to be whether or not Bibi is going to be the master or the captive of whatever coalition he puts together. I worry about the latter because there is so much greater fragmentation under Israel's new electoral system. But the desire for peace on the part of the Israeli body politic is very strong. Bibi is going to have to deal with that. He has laid down some very tough markers, such as no more redeployment [of Israeli forces out of] the West Bank. That could be a breach of the agreement solemnly negotiated by the Israeli government with the Palestinians. He says he won't reverse the process, but that's not consistent with saying, "No more redeployments." He is also going to have to properly manage the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Regardless of who is elected President this year, U.S. policy in opposition to settlements and in favor of peace is not going to change.

YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI Senior writer for the Jerusalem Report; author of Memoirs of a Jewish Extremist

No matter which side won, this election would have been a tragedy, alienating half the nation from its government. Israel is divided against itself not just ideologically but existentially: both left and right now see each other as the main threat to the country's long-term survival.

Netanyahu perceives himself as a last-minute rescuer, sent to save a nation hijacked by a false peace process--much like his brother Jonathan, who died leading Israeli commandos sent to rescue Israelis hijacked at Entebbe Airport in 1976. But as an old commando, Netanyahu knows that victory depends on high morale and unified ranks. If he tries to fully impose the right-wing agenda, he will go to battle with only half the country behind him and the other half actively opposed.

Netanyahu won because a majority of Israelis gradually stopped believing in Yasser Arafat as a peace partner. But a clear majority of voters--including many who backed Netanyahu--want negotiations to continue. And they remain prepared for painful territorial concessions, should Arafat finally prove himself a worthy partner. For Netanyahu to reclaim Israel's vanishing center, he will have to overcome the vehement opposition of many of his closest supporters. Should he succeed, he will rescue the country from its greatest danger: its suicidal divisiveness.

NADAV SAFRAN Professor emeritus, Harvard University, author of Israel: The Embattled Ally

Netanyahu agrees that he wants to pursue the peace process, but he has different conceptions from those who had prevailed. Hitherto the U.S., Israel and the Arab parties were in agreement that it is necessary to "complete the circle of peace" by bringing in Syria and Lebanon and completing the Oslo accords. Netanyahu's analysis is that the Golan is not so important for Assad; much more important for Assad is establishing good working relations with the U.S. and legitimizing his position in Lebanon. Netanyahu believes the U.S. should tell Assad, "You make peace with Israel, we normalize relations with you, we'll take you off the states-supporting-terrorism list, we will cooperate, invest, take you into the community of nations and recognize your legitimate security concern in Lebanon; in exchange for that, you make peace. No return of the Golan." Netanyahu argues that if the U.S. takes that position, Assad will kick and scream for a while, but in the final account Assad will take that because what the U.S. will be offering him is more important for him than the Golan. Netanyahu will have a reasonable chance of persuading the U.S. because after all, he will argue, what is the rush? Why do we need to rush to complete the circle of peace, it will be nice if it can be achieved; if it cannot, so be it.

Netanyahu will not repudiate the Oslo accords with the Palestinian Authority, but he will negotiate hard. The Oslo agreements call for final-settlement negotiations to be started by the third year--which means now--and completed by the fifth year. Netanyahu says, "I am under no obligation to close an agreement because it takes two to agree; I am under obligation to negotiate for the next three years in an endeavor to reach an agreement, and my view is yes, autonomy for the Palestinians as a people, but not autonomy over land." On the Palestinian question, Netanyahu is kidding himself, and he risks dragging Israel into another armed confrontation with Palestinians.

EDWARD W. SAID Professor of English and comparative literature, Columbia University

I'm not at all convinced that anything but a tiny minority of Israelis has had a change of heart about peace. Having been in the territories a couple of months ago and seen what the devastation of the Israeli-American peace process has wrought on the Palestinians, I came to the painful conclusion that better a crude and brutal Netanyahu than a posturing--but also crude and brutal, judging by his actions in the territories and in Lebanon--Peres.

The Middle East peace process as we have known it is, I believe, at an end. There are going to be dark and confusing days for Arabs and Jews in the immediate future. Perhaps more Israelis will realize that it is in their own long-term interest to acknowledge that Israeli security cannot ever be built on the military occupation and colonization of Arab land. Until that time, however, Palestinians and others must struggle to make their voice and their vision of a true reciprocal peace between two peoples into reality.