Last year, writing from Jerusalem, I described Christmas Eve in Bethlehem as a “silent night” during which “no bells jingle, no lights twinkle, and no Santas chant ho-ho-ho.” The usually cheerful event was a casualty of then three-month-old Israeli-Palestinian violence. One year later, despite an explosion of hostile rhetoric from both sides, the broader contours of Middle Eastern politics remain as they were, and there are still some positive signs that the conflict may yet be managed if not resolved.

The new twist on Israeli-Palestinian relations this Christmas was a Wild West-style Mexican standoff between Israel’s recently elected Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, who technically controls Bethlehem under multiple Israeli-Palestinian agreements. Earlier this month, after a spate of kamikaze-style bombings and assassinations in Jerusalem and Haifa that left 25 Israelis dead, Sharon blamed Arafat for not doing enough to stop terrorism and confined him to land-locked Ramallah. Sharon thereby set the stage for a confrontation over Arafat’s annual, well-publicized Christmas Eve pilgrimage to Bethlehem, which can only be accessed from Ramallah by travel across Israel.

The conflict between a Jewish prime minister and a Muslim chairman over a Christian celebration intensified on Dec. 22 when the Palestinian Authority formally petitioned the Israeli government for permission for Arafat to travel to Bethlehem. On Dec. 23, Sharon’s Cabinet voted seven-to-six, with one abstention, to reject Arafat’s request unless he arrested two assassins of Israel Tourism Rehavam Ze’evi who allegedly are being sheltered in Ramallah. Arafat rejected the Israeli conditions and asserted that “no one will prevent me from travelling to Bethlehem with or without Israeli approval,” insisting that he would make the 15-mile journey between Ramallah and Bethlehem “by foot” if necessary. The Israeli Army then beefed up its presence at roadblocks between Ramallah and Bethlehem in anticipation of a possible attempt by Arafat and his entourage to force their way through.

The resolution of the standoff occurred bloodlessly and via modern technology: a televised, Christmas Eve message from Arafat confined in Ramallah to congregants at a mass in St. Catherine’s Church, near the Grotto of the Nativity in Bethlehem. While a broader “peace on earth” does seem to have eluded Bethlehem this year as it did last, one should not lose sight of the context in which this Christmas’s confrontation took place. Despite ample hostile rhetoric from both sides, an examination of those basic conditions suggests regional peace may yet be possible.

Apart from incidents last year in which Syrian-backed, Lebanese-based guerrilas abducted three Israeli soldiers and a European-based Israeli businessman, Israel and Syria enjoy a frontier that has been casualty-free since l973. Indeed, the Henry Kissinger-brokered Israeli-Syrian Disengagement Agreement of l974 may have set an all-time record for peace between two former Middle Eastern adversaries. It certainly has outlasted numerous peace agreements between Arab states.

Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty six years ago and have quietly settled a long-simmering frontier dispute over an area informally renamed “Peace Island.” Jordanian airliners, unlike those of any other Arab country, have access to Israeli air space. Negotiations are under way to regularly export Israeli Dead Sea minerals to East Asia via the Jordanian port of Aqaba and Jordanian products to Europe via Israel’s Mediterranean ports, thereby freeing Israel’s port of Elat for tourist expansion.

Israel has enjoyed only a cold peace with Egypt since President Anwar Sadat’s courageous visit to Jerusalem twenty-four years ago. Nevertheless, the current Israeli-Egyptian relationship is infinitely superior to the incessant warfare that characterized the thirty years prior to Sadat’s visit. An example of that cold but peaceful relationship is the uninterrupted Egyptian export of Sinai oil to Israel and the reversion of the Taba beach resort to Egyptian sovereignty after decades of agonizing negotiation culminating in a case before the International Court in the Hague.

And what of the Palestinians? The first state to recognize Palestinian independence was Israel. It did so at the moment of its birth fifty-three years ago only to have the viability of such a solution shattered by Arab states which attacked a fledgling Israel and confiscated the territories the United Nations had set aside for the Palestinians, namely the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Since the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991 Israel has granted infinitely more autonomy to the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip than they ever enjoyed under Jordan or Egypt, which held those territories from 1948 to l967. It once again formally offered to recognize a Palestinian state at negotiations at Camp David in 2000 and at Taba in 2001.

Israel is now secure on its Jordanian, Egyptian and even Syrian frontiers due to long-term negotiation and deterrent strength. Unresolved problems remain with the Palestinians and Lebanese. Hopefully, it will not be long before arrangements similar to those reached with Jordan, Egypt and Syria can be negotiated with the Palestinian Authority and with Lebanon. The alternative is a continuation of Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Lebanese violence, more silent nights in Bethlehem, and the possibility of a regional war which no sane Middle Easterner desires and which the world can ill afford.

Dr. Jonathan Goldstein, a professor of History at the State University of West Georgia, is currently doing research at the Harry S Truman Institute of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is a summer resident of Glenburn.