Ariel Sharon suggested this week he might remove some Jewish settlements. It indicates how he intends to preserve most, writes Graham Usher in Jerusalem Last weekend Ariel Sharon made ripples that rapidly became a wave. In speeches and interviews with the Israeli press, he implied that should the roadmap proceed no further with Ahmed Qurei than it did with Mahmoud Abbas he might "unilaterally" set the borders of a "provisional" Palestinian state, involving the removal of "isolated" settlements. "It is obvious that ultimately we shall not be in all the places we're in now," he said on Monday. His guarded comments sent Israel's right-wing parties and settler movement spinning. "The removal of any existing settlement will force us to immediately leave the government," railed Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the far-right National Union Party. The settlers dusted down plans for a mass campaign of protest as well as an old/new "political plan" to forestall both the roadmap and "unilateral separation". Instead, said the settlers, "Judea, Samaria and Gaza" should be divided into eight Jewish cantons and two Arab. Sharon feigned innocence at the storm. "I said one phrase -- that I don't rule out unilateral moves," he answered his critics. "There is no need to get upset by journalists who write more than they know. Nothing has happened yet." Nothing has happened and, believe most Israeli and Palestinian analysts, nothing will, at least not yet. Most read Sharon's ambiguities as a well-worn ruse aimed at filling the diplomatic vacuum that is the empty heart of his political strategy. What prompted them is (in his eyes) a dangerous mix of Israeli-Palestinian peace initiatives and a revived American interest in the long dead roadmap. Sharon is aware that any convergence between them might erode the Israeli Jewish consensus he has so far marshalled behind his leadership. This can be seen in the gathering support for the so- called Geneva Accords, a "virtual" peace agreement authored by Israeli and Palestinian peace activists. The accords envision a peace treaty based on Israel's withdrawal from most of the territories occupied in the 1967 War and shared sovereignty in East Jerusalem in return for a de facto Palestinian renunciation of the right of return and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Sharon, Hamas and several Palestinian refugee organisations have denounced the accords as "treasonous". But one poll showed 53 per cent of Israeli Jews and 56 per cent of Palestinians in the occupied territories support them. The accords are due to be launched, though not signed, at a ceremony in Geneva on 1 December, backed by 150-strong Israeli "peace" delegation and various notables, including French President Jacques Chirac. That US Secretary of State Colin Powell has cautiously welcomed the initiative is seen by Israeli commentators as a jab at Sharon to get on with the roadmap. It is not the only one. During his state visit to England last week President Bush used unusually harsh language to rebuke Israel, saying "Israel should freeze settlement construction, dismantle unauthorised outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people and not prejudice final negotiations with walls and barriers." This was followed-up by Tuesday's announcement that the US will deduct $290 million from $1.4 billion of loan guarantees to Israel. The figure represents the sum Washington has calculated Israel spends on the "civilian needs" of the settlements in the occupied territories, including, for the first time, investment in the construction of the West Bank barrier. While Israeli government officials dismissed the deductions as "negligible", many Israelis see the move as opening a crack in the hitherto seamless alliance between the Israeli and American governments. Can the Palestinians widen the crack? On Monday Qurei postponed his first meeting with Sharon as Palestinian prime minister until after the Geneva Accords ceremony and perhaps the meeting of Palestinian factions, due to convene in Cairo the next day. Instead he laid down the conditions for the meeting's success. "If Israel agrees to halt construction of the fence, remove every millimetre of it that has been built on Palestinian territory, if it also lifts the siege on Yasser Arafat and the closure and frees prisoners, we will enforce a comprehensive ceasefire," he said. Qurei is aware the chances of Sharon agreeing to the first condition are nil, and only slightly better for the second. His aim is rather to test whether there is any traction on the third and fourth. Egyptian Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman will reportedly travel to Washington to enlist American support in extracting the commitments. He may get them. Sharon has long used policies like the siege, assassinations and arrests as a means to slow or revive the diplomatic process and distract attention from his strategic goals -- the consolidation of the settlements and the building of a barrier defining the territorial base from which he will dictate the terms and then impose a provisional state on the Palestinians, through agreement if possible, but unilaterally if necessary. The principled Palestinian stand would hinge the ceasefire and the roadmap on a settlement freeze and the dismantling of the barrier. A more political stand will fudge both issues in return for a withdrawal from the Palestinian areas and a reconstituting of the Palestinian Authority within them. The former would hit Sharon at the heart of his strategy. The latter will ensure the survival of the Palestinian regime. It remains to be seen which the Palestinian leadership, and the Palestinian factions, sees as the priority.
