Bush's much-anticipated policy statement on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will likely satisfy nobody, and will almost be impossible to implement, Mohamed El-Sayed Said writes from Washington Click to view caption With the world holding its breath in anticipation over President George W Bush's policy statement on the Middle East -- which is expected to be announced any moment -- there is little optimism and much anxiety in Washington among those concerned with the situation in the region. As the deadline for the statement (scheduled to be announced this week) approached, the propaganda war intensified. Various actors -- regional and international -- raced to make their final bid to influence the US president. This anxiety left its imprint in the form of increased confusion over the direction of US policy, already widely viewed as incoherent. The suicide operation claimed by the militant Palestinian group Hamas in Jerusalem on Tuesday added substantially to the tension and left everybody wondering how it would impact on the timing and content of the statement. However, the virulent propaganda against Palestinian President Yasser Arafat that has filled virtually every media outlet in the US over the past weeks yielded to another theme which is expected to be the focus of the American president's speech: creating a "provisional" or "interim" Palestinian state on areas currently under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA) until a final deal could be reached with Israel. The idea was first introduced by US Secretary of State Colin Powell in an interview with the London-based Arabic daily, Al-Hayat, probably as a test balloon. Yet, the suggestion was quickly criticised by all parties concerned, including Egypt to whom the idea was attributed. Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher told reporters on Tuesday that the notion of an "interim state" is unheard of in international politics. He said, "We can speak of an interim government, cabinet, but not an interim state." In Israel, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon rejected the idea as being premature, and said that "terror" must stop first before talking about any kind of Palestinian state. The Los Angles Times drew on the objections of "experts" belonging to the Israeli lobby in the United States including Dennis Ross, the former Middle East peace envoy, and Martin Indyk, the former American ambassador to Israel and the unofficial spokesman of Israel's Likud Party in the US. The arguments of the Israeli lobby "experts" rested on bold but flimsy variations of the position reiterated by Sharon, in which he said that expectations should not exceed a "long- term interim agreement". Indyk, Ross and William Safire said that the declaration of a Palestinian state would reward "terrorists", limit Israel's ability to strike at will inside the occupied territories as these strikes would be legally regarded as acts of aggression against an independent state, and possibly encourage other "secessionist movements" around the world. Palestinians criticised the idea of an interim state on the basis that it had no precedent in international law and for fear of becoming stuck with an interim arrangement that would leave them with, at best, a mere 40 per cent of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. Palestinian Minister of Planning Nabil Shaath, who was in Washington for talks with Powell, insisted that without a firm American commitment on the principles of full withdrawal to the 1967 borders, and a just solution to the issue of refugees, the Palestinians could not guarantee the resolution of the outstanding issues within a specific time frame. These objections are also voiced by a number of Arab states, including Egypt. Despite such objections, the Bush administration's move on the Palestinian- Israeli conflict was seen by some American and European diplomats and politicians as an encouraging sign. Former French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine argued in an interview with The Washington Post on Monday that if President Bush committed himself to a Palestinian state based on what was achieved at the Taba negotiations 18 months ago, he would find enormous support from Europeans, moderate Arab allies and from the majority of the public in Israel, the occupied territories and the United States, too. In the United States, the only sigh of relief came from American diplomats interviewed by Al-Ahram Weekly. One of those diplomats, Former US Ambassador to Egypt Robert Pelletreau, who has extensive experience in the Middle East, spoke positively about the Bush administration's sudden interest in settling the Palestinian-Israeli conflict after long silence on peacemaking in the region. Pelletreau believes that Bush's statement may herald a new direction for the US's Middle East policy and pave the way for peace as the only alternative to the current violence. Meanwhile, the coverage of ongoing Middle East diplomacy in the American print media reflected the range of pressures on the Bush administration. The general trend seemed to be to urge the administration to demonstrate its will by initiating an effective process and standing firm against Sharon and domestic pressures. Most American mainstream media including editorials in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Globe, Boston Globe and The Los Angeles Times argued for months that the risks of implementing an active approach to peace in the Middle East greatly outweigh the potential consequences of inaction. However, Arab activists and American supporters of Palestinian rights were sharply critical of the administration's approach and the idea of a provisional state. Phyllis Bennis, a radical social analyst said to Al-Ahram Weekly that "the idea that a provisional state will satisfy Palestinians is nonsense." She added, "the problem that this administration fails to understand is that the only way to end violence is ending the occupation with all its ramifications, right now. In fact, any talk of a Palestinian state is futile unless the status quo is completely changed." When asked whether the concept of a provisional state might act as a vehicle for political change in Israel, Bennis replied, "I think this administration is more likely to use the idea to suppress the Palestinian people in collaboration with Sharon." Shebli Telhemi, an academic specialised in the Middle East, also criticised the idea of an interim mini- state. His argument is that the idea provides too little hope for both Palestinians and Israelis while heightening fears and risks. In his view, establishing such a state "would be a fatal mistake". Asked whether he thought Bush was serious about ensuring that his promise for a viable Palestinian state is implemented, Telhmi said, "The problem is that this administration has yet to look at the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a top priority. The president now looks at the problem through the narrow perspective of the 'war against terrorism'." The alternative that Telhemi recommends is "a package deal -- That is the only formula that can work". However, the real problem for all parties in and outside the region is that once declared, the idea of an "interim or provisional state" may gain substantial momentum by virtue of the fact that it would be the only game in town -- at least in the short-run. The current international situation leaves the PA with very few options. Arafat has made a last bid to influence Bush's policy statement by sending the administration a paper that outlines what the Palestinians would be willing to accept. According to The Washington Post on Tuesday, Arafat indicated his willingness to make certain concessions on the issues of Jerusalem and refugees, but insisted on complete withdrawal and formal sovereignty. Alas, with reduced room to manoeuvre, as Khalil Jahshan, the vice-president of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) contends, "There is a real fear of submitting to what President Bush may offer, after having Americanised the [Beirut summit] Arab initiative." Jahshan blamed Palestinian weakness on insufficient support by Arab regimes. On the other hand, it seems that the real impediment to Bush's offer of a Palestinian state, even one as limited as the president is expected to propose, is Israeli rejectionism. Sources in Israel leaked Sharon's promise to Bush "not to attack him" if the American leader announces a proposal for a provisional Palestinian state. But given Sharon's rejection of a Palestinian state for the foreseeable future, the Americans would be in for a hard time should they try to persuade the Israeli prime minister to withdraw troops and to recognise the independence and other rights of the Palestinian people. The suicide bombing in Jerusalem on Tuesday has already strengthened the position of those inside the administration who call for total American conformity with Sharon's approach.
