THE story of Hebron is a tale of two cities. Or rather the germ of an Israeli city planted in the soil of a Palestinian city.

Hebron is two cities because it has been divided against itself, between 400 odd militantly religious Jewish settlers, many of them immigrants from the US, and the 120,000 Palestinian natives of the conservative Muslim West Bank town.

The politico socio cultural chasm between the two peoples, the essentially Western Israelis and the Middle East Palestinians, has been widened by the settlers" drive to expand and the Israeli army's determination to force the Palestinians to accommodate the settlers, causing resentment and violence.

Although the Hebron accord was meant to preserve Hebron as "one city", it has, in fact, formalised its partition. But this is not a clear cut divide between East and West, as was the case in Berlin, or between north and south, as in Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus, but a partition which involves the core of the city, the heart of ancient Hebron, known by the Arabs as al-Khalil, one of the world's oldest human habitations.

According to the agreement, the Israeli army will retain control over 20 per cent of the city, a thick wedge of land in a wadi, or valley nestling between the five hills of Hebron. This area contains 17,000 to 20,000 Palestinians as well as the settlers. The hills, where 100,000 Palestinians live, are due to be handed over to the Palestinian Authority.

Partition is both geographic and functional. The Israeli army is to provide security for the settlers who live in the city centre in half a dozen apartment blocks and housing complexes, and to maintain control over the Ibrahimi Mosque housing the tomb of the Semitic Patriarch Abraham (Ibrahim), venerated by both Jews and Muslims and partitioned between them.

WHILE the settlers will continue to administer their own affairs and joy lavish services and utilities provided by Israel, the Palestinians will live under the administration of the local municipal council and the impoverished Palestine Authority.

Palestinians who live, work and visit the centre of town will continue to be subject to the dictates of the settlers and Israeli soldiers.

Thus, as far as its essential's are concerned, the long awaited Hebron accord could be a recipe for conflict. Mr Nabil Abu Znaid the spokesman of Hebron's Islamic University, said that most Hebronites were unhappy about the arrangements because they wanted "to live in peace not in pieces", and preferred to defer the redeployment until a "good deal" could be reached, one involving the total withdrawal of the Israeli army and settlers.

Dr Hanan Ashrawi, the Palestinian Minister of Higher Education, said the negotiators who framed the first Oslo accord, the fundamental document of the peace process, signed in September 1993, did not envisage the partition of Hebron. The city was to be "treated just like the other six West Bank Palestinian towns" and totally' evacuated by the Israeli army, she asserted.

But Israel insisted on staying to secure the settlers and to stake its long term claim to the town. She believed that talks should begin promptly on final status issues, including the settlers, whose presence in the West Bank and Gaza constituted a "threat" to the Palestinians who live there.

Seen as disadvantageous by most Palestinians, the Hebron deal was only made palatable by the reaffirmation by the present government of linkage to Israel's delayed redeployment from the villages and countryside of the West Bank, in accordance with the second Oslo accord of September 28th, 1995.

This redeployment was due to be completed on September 7th next and involves the withdrawal of the army into designated bases and Jewish settlements.

THE Palestinians expect Israel to pull out of 80 to 90 per cent of the West Bank in three stages, beginning in March and ending on August 31st, 1998. However, Israeli informants close to the present Likud government have said that, at most, Israel would evacuate 30-40 per cent of the West Bank.

The head of the Palestinian negotiating team, Dr Saeb Erekat, said the two sides had achieved a balanced "win win situation". A member of the PLO executive committee, Dr Asa'ad Abdel Rahman, told The Irish Times: "The balance of advantage has shifted. We are getting a good package deal."

However, Dr Ghassan Khatib, one of the Palestinian academics who began the peace process, was not so confident. He felt that the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Benjamin Netanyahu, escaped committing himself to a timetable for implementing outstanding provisions of the Oslo accords - such as the release of Palestinian prisoners and the opening of the corridor connecting Gaza with the West Bank and the Gaza airport.

Dr Khatib was also concerned about the difficulties ahead in the negotiations, particularly over the extent of the Israeli redeployment in the West Bank, which can be expected to consume many months in negotiations, eroding whatever credibility is left in the peace process.

In a survey of Palestinian opinion, it was found that support for the peace agreements had declined from a low 23 per cent in October to an even lower 19.7 per cent in mid December, while trust in the Palestinian Authority President, Mr Yasser Arafat, had dropped from 44.5 per cent to 41.2 per cent. Optimism for the future fell from 19 to 12.4 per cent.

In Dr Ashrawi's view, accord on Hebron proved that "an agreement is an agreement which is binding on the government, on the country, regardless of which party is in power ... The Israeli government changed and all of a sudden we saw this government trying to renege on their commitments. I think that now there is a chance that this government might come to terms with reality, decide that it cannot continue to (avoid) the requirements of a genuine peace (i.e. the exchange of land for peace) ... The element of trust certainly has been lacking, it has to be built up ... but in the end real trust comes from actions, not just from words. And this is the real test for whichever government is in power.