The death of Arafat seems set to produce little more than photo-ops aimed at saving discredited Arab governments and making Bush look good. Khaled Dawoud reports from Washington At his joint news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair last week, recently re- elected US President George W Bush simply disregarded a critical question on his position on Israel's ongoing expansion of illegal Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian territories. Instead, he preached on the importance of building a democratic Palestinian state, as if the Israeli occupation did not exist. He went on to recall, for what must now be the 101st time, the case of Japan, and explain how if he, George W Bush, is now a good friend of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, despite the bitter war waged between the two countries during WWII, then that is only possible because Japan has transformed itself into a democratic nation. Then he suddenly turned towards his guest, and added, "The prime minister knows Koizumi. He's a good man." This remark was greeted with general laughter among the journalists present, and signs of astonishment on Blair's face. The British prime minister then picked up the ball, adding adroitly: "Koizumi is a good man not just because I know him, although that helps a lot, I think." Cue more laughter. Both Bush and Blair downplayed the high expectations surrounding a detailed plan for reviving the Palestinian-Israeli peace process that aired before their meeting on 12 November, only hours after late President Yasser Arafat was laid to rest in Ramallah. Instead, they reaffirmed their commitment to a two-state solution, announced they will back elections for a new Palestinian president on 9 January, will continue to support Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan for disengagement from Gaza and would seek economic support from the European Union and other international institutions to rebuild Palestinian security and financial institutions. Meanwhile, the resignation of US Secretary of State Colin Powell, announced on Monday, and the appointment of National Security Counsel Condoleezza Rice in his place, also added to doubts among observers that Bush would actually put enough pressure on Sharon to reach a final settlement with Palestinians. Powell, known as the only voice of moderation and relative dissent within Bush's cabinet during his first term, and who was reportedly pushing hard for addressing the Arab-Israeli peace process as a priority, will continue to act as Secretary of State until early January when Rice's appointment is due to be confirmed by the Senate. Powell announced after meeting Israeli foreign minister, Silvan Shalom on Monday, that he would still attend the Sharm El-Sheikh meeting on Iraq due to be held on 22 November, and said he would discuss the Palestinian-Israeli peace process with members of the Quartet -- the European Union, the United Nations and Russia -- who will also be there. But he declined to confirm an earlier report that he would be visiting the Occupied Palestinian territories and Israel, saying he was still studying the issue. Powell's visit was expected to compensate the new Palestinian leadership for Bush's insistence on sending a mid-level State Department official, Ambassador William Burns, to Arafat's funeral in Cairo. Rice, although a strong supporter of the Iraq war, has avoided associating herself with the hard-line camp that controls the Bush administration, led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who is expected to keep his post. However, she is believed to be a strong Bush loyalist, and is not expected to express as much dissent as Powell did. Yet, despite the recent changes in Bush's cabinet and his refusal to issue a detailed plan on how to reach a final settlement between Palestine and Israel, there seems to be a near- consensus that both the US president and Sharon will be forced to make some moves on that track following Arafat's death. The volatile situation in Iraq, and Bush's desire to gain the support of Arab governments for the upcoming elections in January, are also likely to encourage movement in this direction. "Arafat's death has removed the argument that there is no partner to deal with," said Martin Indyk, the former US ambassador to Israel who now heads the Saban Center on Middle East Affairs. He added that Arafat's death might also alter Sharon's plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza and encourage coordination with the new Palestinian leadership, likely to be led by former Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen). The critical question, however, Indyk added, will be how Sharon intends to deal with the West Bank, and Bush's willingness to pressure the Israeli premier to set a deadline for reaching a final settlement with the Palestinians. Indyk also expects that Sharon may be considering "a large [Palestinian] prisoner release further on down the road". Sharon's refusal to release thousands of Palestinian prisoners and his insistence on continuing with the policy of assassinating militant members of the Hamas and Jihad movements were among the main reasons for Abu Mazen's failure to gain credibility among Palestinians during his short tenure as prime minister nearly two years ago. But even if he agrees to restart the peace process, Indyk added, Sharon is unlikely to deviate from his original plan of imposing a long-term interim solution limited to an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and from no more than 50 per cent of the West Bank. "As I understand the prime minister from years of working with him, from his point of view Israel cannot afford to give up some 40 to 45 per cent of the West Bank, which involves the high ground along the ridge where he put his settlements, and Jerusalem, which he regards as the united and eternal and forever undivided capital of Israel," Indyk said. He pointed out, however, that the only factors that could force Sharon to reconsider at least part of that strategy would be pressure from Bush combined with a crack down by the Palestinian leadership on what Sharon considers to be "terrorist" organisations. Flynt Leverett, a former official at the National Security Council responsible for the Middle East, who resigned in 2003, said he also agreed that there would be movement to revive peace talks, but he was not optimistic on the outcome. "We're setting ourselves up for a replay of what happened in the immediate aftermath of the Aqaba Summit in 2003, where we may get some nice photo ops letting the president look busier on this issue," Leverett said during a recent panel at the Saban Center on the future of the peace process after Arafat. "The real test for me is going to come in linking whatever we do in the near term in terms of engaging Palestinians to the roadmap [approved last year by the Quartet but virtually declared dead after Sharon came up with his Gaza plan]." He added that Sharon wants to link Gaza disengagement to phase two of the roadmap, which calls for a Palestinian state with provisional borders, and then freeze the process afterwards. "You link Gaza disengagement to a process, and you end up with Palestinians having some limited control over some portion of the West Bank; Israel is out of Gaza; Israel has taken care of its security needs on the West Bank; and this becomes the basis for long-term interim arrangements," he explained. "Mr Sharon and people close to him have said those long-term interim arrangements could go on for years, literally for a decade or more." Bush would not seek a confrontation with Sharon over the final settlement conditions, Leverett opined, mainly because he shares the Israeli prime minister's views on this issue as reflected by the letters of assurance he gave him in April. In these letters, Bush guaranteed that Israel would not be forced to return to the 1967 border or to accept the return of millions of Palestinian refugees forced to leave their homeland in 1948. "I think that even free of the burdens of re-election, this administration, this president is not going to want to be fundamentally at odds with Ariel Sharon," Leverett added. "The president and the vice president agree with the kinds of red line that Sharon has laid down about final status issues. They have, to some degree, convictions on these issues, and I don't think that they are going to push Mr Sharon." Shibley Telhami, political science professor at the University of Maryland, also agreed with Leverett that the strong alliance between Bush and Sharon would prevent reaching a lasting peace between Israel and Palestinians. "A lot of parties are interested in having some kind of symbolism of diplomacy, particularly Arab governments that don't have any options," said Telhami. "So the administration would succeed in getting something going. But it wouldn't last very long, and certainly wouldn't empower Palestinian leadership." Telhami added that when you look at the "bigger picture" in the region, and the deep mistrust among the majority of Arabs towards Bush and Sharon, "a process- oriented approach, where each party is going to be asked to give up what it sees to be its strength up front before you know where you're going to head in the end, is a prescription for disaster. I just don't think it can work."
