With his letter to Sharon reversing years of US foreign policy Bush has declared war on moderation, says Hassan Nafaa* President Bush's letter to Sharon, a translated version of which appeared in Al-Hayat on 16 April, is a turning point in the Arab-Israeli conflict and will have grave long-term consequences for the region. The general outline of this letter became clear at the news conference Bush and Sharon held Wednesday last week. The Arab reaction was swift in expressing its outrage. Most Arab analysts called the Bush letter a new Balfour Declaration. They described it in the same words once reserved for the declaration: "a promise given by one who doesn't own to one who doesn't deserve." There are similarities between the Bush letter and the Balfour Declaration: both constitute major landmarks on the path to achieving the Zionist plan. The first Zionist Conference, held in Basel in 1897, launched that pkab. The Balfour Declaration, announced in November 1917 took the first step towards turning that dream into reality by committing the old world order, then led by Great Britain, to the creation of a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine. The Bush letter of April 2004 commits the new world order, led by the US, to implementing the final stage of Greater Israel. The Zionist plan is edging yet closer to final aims. There is more to the Bush letter than just that. The letter is more than just a promise by "one who does not own to one who does not deserve". It is more than an election year promise that may or may not be fulfilled. It is a joint US-Israeli declaration of war on the forces of moderation in the region. Arab elites, political and intellectual, have not yet grasped the full implications of the Bush letter. Most of the commentaries I have seen focus on two things: the refugees and 1967 borders. The letter endorses Israel's rejection of the return of refugees to their land and calls for settling them elsewhere, particularly within the borders of the future Palestinian state. The letter endorses Israel's refusal to withdraw to its 1967 borders and says that future borders should take into account new facts on the ground. Had the US simply wanted to encourage Palestinian "concessions" as a way of furthering the settlement process it could have achieved the same results through endorsing the Geneva Accord as a suitable basis for negotiations. The accord unofficially offers the same concessions without US prodding. It accepts the principle of settlement, not return, as a way of resolving the refugees issue, and it gives Israel the chance to annex settlement areas surrounding Jerusalem. The Bush administration, however, knows well that Sharon, who rejected the Geneva Accord, is not interested in a negotiated settlement and does not have an acceptable vision for such a settlement. What Sharon wants is to impose his own view of a settlement not only on the Palestinians but on all Arab countries. This is why the Bush letter is so catastrophic, for it gives Sharon a green light to impose his vision of a settlement through military force. President Bush has endorsed Sharon's designs unconditionally. The Bush letter reiterates the vision the US president outlined in a speech made on 24 June, 2002, a vision of a two-state solution, reiterating commitment to the roadmap and a future Palestinian state. But the letter omits any reference to the establishment of such a state. Actually, it sets impossible conditions for its creation. The Palestinians are urged to halt all military activity and acts of violence against the Israelis wherever they are (even if settlers on Palestinian land), end acts of incitement, take firm action against terror, and undertake comprehensive political reform. To understand the intentions of Bush and Sharon one has to examine carefully the Israeli prime minister's plan for unilateral withdrawal and the manner in which the US president gave it unconditional support. Israel, the letter says, would "withdraw certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza, and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank". In other words, Israel may retain control of military installations in Gaza as well as the airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of Gaza. The withdrawal from the West Bank is cosmetic, confined to a few settlements and military installations of no worth. Nor will this limited withdrawal be completed before the end of 2005. In the coming two years, therefore, there will be much talk about withdrawal without anything happening. Even if things work out as planned Israel will complete withdrawing its civilians from Gaza by the end of 2005. Meanwhile, it will consolidate its presence and strengthen settlement expansion in the rest of the West Bank. The Bush letter does not suggest that this new situation will be the final settlement. But it makes the final settlement contingent on the Palestinians creating a state that is to Israel's liking, a task that is only conceivable once the Greater Middle East is created, or so its seems. Even after it withdraws from Gaza Israel has the right to hunt down "terror" in whatever way it deems fit. Since Israel and the US see all Palestinian resistance groups, and Hizbullah, as terrorist groups (and all countries helping or backing them as countries supporting terror), the Bush letter gives Israel the right to kill any of the leaders of these groups and, if necessary, take military action against countries such as Syria and Iran. The US reaction to the assassination of Abdul-Aziz Al-Rantisi, coming only 48 hours after the Bush letter was made public, is a case in point. The US, says the letter, will work "together with Jordan, Egypt, and others in the international community to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organisations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat that would have to be addressed by any other means". (For which read indiscriminate murder by Israeli Apache gunships). The US also promises to join "with others in the international community to foster the development of (Palestinian) democratic political institutions and new leadership committed to those institutions, the reconstruction of civil institutions, growth of a free and prosperous economy, and the building of capable security institutions dedicated to maintaining law and order and dismantling terrorist organisations". Bush urges all states in the region to "cut off all forms of assistance to individuals and groups engaged in terrorism; and to begin now to move towards more normal relations with the State of Israel". In other words, the US wants Arab countries that have ties with Israel to become partners in the dismantling of "terror". The US wants Arab countries to discontinue any assistance to the Palestinian resistance and normalise ties with Israel without waiting for even the Gaza withdrawal to be complete. The draft of this letter was ready for signing at the time President Bush was meeting at his ranch with the president of the largest Arab country, a show of cordiality that failed to reassure many, including myself. Treachery was in the air. In the news conference held by Bush and Mubarak following their talks the US president made a point of telling Mubarak and the Egyptian press much of what they wanted to hear. The Egyptian official media dutifully applauded the rhetoric and called it a personal victory for President Mubarak. Little did the media know what Bush's next move would be. Once Bush made his promises to Sharon public, the Egyptian media changed its tone from praise to vitriol. Perhaps it should have admitted that Bush was acting in the only way that makes sense to him. He gave the Arabs and the Israelis what they wanted. The Arabs wanted rhetoric and got it. The Israelis wanted action and got it. President Bush may not be yet aware of the enormity of the insult. President Mubarak, most Egyptians would agree, is working tirelessly for peace and deserves better. Aside from the insult, one wonders: if the US administration is treating the county that launched the peace process, the country that has so far wagered on an unbiased US role, with such scorn, how will it treat others? The Bush letter is a declaration of war against moderation in the region. It is an unmasked invitation to fanaticism and terror. Bush is likely to find many who will accept the invitation. * The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University. International Response to the Bush Declaration on the Palestinian Right to Return
