The deadline set by the Oslo accords for completing negotiations on final status issues is May of 1999, setting the stage for a tumultuous year for the U.S.-sponsored peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

The politically weakened Clinton Administration has sought urgently, if sporadically, to bring the parties to agreement. But the actual implementation of the accords remains elusive. Israel refuses to carry out the withdrawals that Israeli leaders promised at the Wye talks in October 1998. Now, Israeli elections are set for May 17, giving excuse for further delay. Yet it is not certain that the Declaration of Principles negotiated in Oslo and signed on the White House lawn in 1993 is still valid after May 5, and if it is not, what then? If Yasser Arafat declares an independent state unilaterally at the end of the interim period set by Oslo, one can only guess how the U.S. and Israel will respond?

While the Administration's efforts at Israeli-Arab peacemaking sputter, the drumbeat for U.S. military domination of the region grow louder. Both President Clinton and Congress have promised to pump new money into the U.S. defense budgets. As justification, incoming House Speaker Dennis Hastert cited a "world of danger" in which a "rogue regime" might fire missiles on U.S. cities or deploy terrorist bombs and/or biological weapons - all threats associated in the public mind with the Middle East.

The new enemy of the United States, in the eyes of many Americans, is radical political Islam. Political Islam is a twentieth century popular movement that stretches across North Africa to Central Asia. Extremist elements of this movement express anti- Western and specifically anti-US sentiments in their words and actions. In 1998, bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa were attributed to Osama bin Laden, a Saudi Arabian dissident noted for extremist views. Secretary of State Albright and President Clinton have hinted that the retaliatory missile attacks last August against sites in Afghanistan and the Sudan were the beginning of a long military campaign.

But this "war" is a competition of ideologies as much as of power. Strategies other than military retaliation are necessary. Actions to support America's avowed principles of justice, self-determination, human rights, economic freedom and peacemaking should be the foundation of the Administration's approach. Public opinion has become a factor in Arab and Muslim countries despite the lack of democratic institutions, and U.S. policymakers would do well to give more weight as they make decisions to what is known as the "Arab street". Consequences can be expected to follow from U.S. policies and actions that insult and provoke anger among Arab and Muslim people. High on the list is Washington's insistence on maintaining crippling sanctions on Iraq and the indefinite military occupation of the Persian Gulf by U.S. ships, planes and troops while Israel's possession of weapons of mass destruction is winked at.

A just resolution through negotiation of the final status issues outlined in the Oslo accords would do much to calm tensions in the region. The situation of Jerusalem as Israel's declared capital while Palestinian rights are denied particularly inflames popular sentiment among Muslims. Critics of the hard line policy toward Iraq point to Washington's lax attitude toward Israel's violation of Security Council resolutions that call for its withdrawal from occupied Palestinian land. While this year will almost certainly bring some surprises, the following issues and themes will most likely be on the policy-making table:

THE DEADLINE FOR OSLO LOOMS: The five-year interim period will conclude in May with no hope possible for completion of negotiations on the final status issues - Jerusalem, settlements, refugees, borders and others. This raises questions about the legal and political status of the Palestinian leaders and entities established since the 1993 agreement.

As sponsor of this peace process based on the Oslo accords, the U.S. should be preparing for a post-Oslo transition or extension that can absorb the expected declaration of a Palestinian state. The unwillingness of the Clinton-Gore Administration to exert any pressure on the Israeli government is unlikely to change. But a change in the Israeli government, via the specially called May 17 elections, could bring new opportunities for negotiation and agreement. Still unclear is what will follow the warming relationship between the Administration and the Palestinians that we saw during the President's December visit to Gaza and Bethlehem.

This is also a deadline year for the demand by the U.S. Congress that Washington move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem even though the city's status as Israel's capital is not internationally recognized and is a subject of the pending final status talks. Rhetoric can be expected in the House and Senate that will outrage much of the world, but in the end, the Administration will likely use a Presidential waiver to again postpone carrying out the law's requirement.

ISRAELI CANDIDATES BRING CAMPAIGN TO CAPITOL HILL: The elections for prime minister are set for May 17, with a June 1 runoff probable. Israel's Likud and Labor party leaders have already enlisted members of the U.S. Congress into their camps as detractors and supporters of the "peace process." The U.S. role as sponsor of the negotiations is made even more difficult by this unseemly meshing of Israeli and American domestic politics.

MONEY WILL CONTINUE TO FLOW TO ISRAEL: This was to be the first year of a phased reduction of $600 million a year in aid to Israel. But new money was promised as a side agreement to Israel to the Wye negotiations in October last October: $1.2 billion, reportedly for building bypass roads in the West Bank deemed by Israel to be necessary to complete the land transfer called for in the Wye Memorandum. As part of the same deal, Jordan is expected to receive an additional $200 or 300 million and the Palestinians, $400 million. Several key questions remain unanswered by the State Department. If Israel fails to withdraw, will the new money be provided? U.S. policy has prohibited the use of aid money in the occupied territories? Will that policy still stand? Won't new bypass roads further entrench Israeli settlements instead of being a step toward the transfer of land? Since the Congress has capped the amount of aid going to the Middle East at $5.4 billion, where will this money come from? Some expect a raid on Department of Defense funds.

IRAQ DILEMMA PUTS SPOTLIGHT ON US-UN RELATIONS:  The Clinton Administration's ongoing war with Saddam Hussein is being carried out with heavy-handed manipulation of the United Nations Security Council. Coupled with the long- term anti-U.N. effort led by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), the relationship between the U.S. and the U.N. is deteriorating. The vote by Congress in 1998 to provide $97 million for the Iraqi opposition in an effort to overthrow the regime further distances the U.S. from the U.N.'s mandate.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi people are suffering a humanitarian crisis as economic sanctions enter their eighth year. Neither Congress nor the Administration seems much concerned about the plight of Iraqi civilians despite documented reports of widespread death, disease and suffering attributable to the sanctions. There is little international support for continuing these sanctions.

ADMINISTRATION GESTURES TO IRAN BUT RELATIONS REMAIN CHILLY:  The American business community is gaining some support in Congress for the prospect of getting back to business with Iran and its petrochemical industry. But Congress is expected to remain tough in maintaining sanctions that prohibit U.S. firms and deter those of foreign countries from conducting such business in Iran.

INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT WILL BE TESTED:  Passed in 1998, this legislation began with a focus on the persecution of Christians, then was broadened to include concern for others who suffer abuse because of their religion. It remains to be seen whether the mechanisms established by the law will be useful in fostering religious freedom or whether they will be used to heighten mistrust of other religions by American Jews and Christians.