Suzanne Goldenberg15 April 2004
Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, is fond of flaunting his connections in the White House, and the remarkable closeness of his relationship with President George Bush.
The fruits of that friendship were on full view yesterday when Mr Sharon emerged from his talks at the White House with a letter from the American president endorsing Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, while retaining control of the majority of the West Bank.
Nearly 15 years after the first President Bush established the idea under the Madrid accords that peace in the Middle East was impossible unless the Palestinians were brought into the equation, his son appeared yesterday to have lost faith in the idea of a negotiated peace between Israel and its closest Arab neighbour.
The contours of Gaza - and possibly the West Bank - would now be dictated by Israel.
The change of heart was widely credited to Mr Sharon, who persuaded Mr Bush that Yasser Arafat's inability or unwillingness to end Palestinian suicide bombings made him an enemy in the global war on terror.
"The Bush administration seems to have accepted the Sharon premise that there is no partner for negotiations," said Philip Wilcox, a former US consul general in Jerusalem and the president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. "It offers commitments to Israel without any corresponding commitments to the Palestinians, which I think is unwise."
The territorial dispensation was not the only milestone victory for Mr Sharon. In his statement yesterday Mr Bush rejected the guiding principle of the Palestinians for the last five decades: the right of return of refugees. The American president also redefined the state department description of Jewish settlements as "obstacles to peace".
In a sense, the double diplomatic coup confirms what has been evident to observers of the Israeli-Palestinian process for months.
With the Bush administration distracted by events in Iraq, Mr Sharon has been able to dictate his terms.
"Sharon took a step in many ways that was revolutionary for him in the withdrawal from Gaza. He is showing real leadership, and when you have a leadership vacuum, the leader that has a plan is going to prevail," said Edward Walker, a former US ambassador to Israel. "There no American leadership in the process, and certainly I don't see leadership among the Palestinians."
But for all his success on American soil Mr Sharon has a struggle ahead of him. On May 2 he is due to present his proposals for a withdrawal from Gaza for the approval of his rebellious Likud party. He needed the White House benediction.
"Sharon must come home with some assurance that the United States does not see it as a first step towards evacuation of most of the settlements," said Menachem Klein of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. "He also wants to be able to say that Washington will back him if he wants to use Apache helicopters to fire on the Gaza Strip after the pull-out."
However, the boost to Mr Sharon caused almost immediate anger and dismay in the Arab world, and could complicate Washington's relations with the rest of the region.
"The United States may lose its status, or what remains of its status, as an honest broker," said Mr Klein. "It will be very difficult for them. It may also make some problems with Hosni Mubarak in Egypt."
Instead yesterday's events will probably confirm the suspicion that the US shares Mr Sharon's opinion that a settlement with the Palestinians can only be imposed, not negotiated.
That may lead to repercussions months or even years from now, but in this election season the White House has other considerations.
Mr Bush is in dire need of a foreign policy success as the costs of America's invasion of Iraq escalate. With no end in sight to an insurrection that has begun to inflict heavy casualties on US military forces and the entire project in Iraq, Washington finds it prudent to fall back on a reliable ally: Israel.
Mr Sharon has also succeeded in wearing down the administration's qualms about the wall he is building through the West Bank by making a few adjustments to the route.
Washington also decided not to penalise Israel by deducting loan guarantees - unlike last year when the wall cost the Jewish state $300m (£170m).
Meanwhile Mr Sharon's aides brought US officials around to Israel's vision for the West Bank, sketching out a division of land in which Israel would retain control of large swaths of territory, and the Palestinians would be confined to isolated pockets.
At the beginning of this month the talk was that Israel would retain three West Bank outposts. On Monday night, Mr Sharon raised the stakes to the five largest Jewish settlement blocks.
However, Mr Bush appeared unperturbed.
Yesterday he appeared to have shed almost all of his reservations about Mr Sharon's vision for the Middle East, calling his plan a historic opportunity, and urging the Palestinians to see it as a first step towards a state.
It seems highly unlikely that the Palestinians will agree.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4901928-103552,00.html
