In the wake of President Mubarak's Camp David summit with President Bush, it appears that Cairo and Washington did not see eye to eye on how to overcome the crisis in the Middle East. Nevine Khalil and Soha Abdelaty report Click to view caption Over the past few weeks, the US administration has been listening to what several of the parties in the Arab-Israeli conflict have to say, before delivering a final verdict on what the next step should be. Meetings between President Hosni Mubarak and US President George W Bush at Camp David last weekend, and between Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on Monday, were part of this process. While Egyptian officials said their American counterparts listened intently to -- and seemed to understand -- Cairo's point of view during the three days of discussions, a wide gap clearly remains between the two sides' perspectives on the issues at hand. The first point of disagreement between Cairo and Washington was related to the idea of setting a specific timeline for moving the peace process forward. This timeline, in Cairo's view, must include dates for Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian-controlled areas, the declaration of a Palestinian state, and the relaunch of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. Mubarak told a joint news conference on Saturday that he wants to see "strong American engagement in the coming phase, in the context of an agreed-upon time frame and through negotiations on a permanent settlement, that should lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state on the entire West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem". But Bush dismissed any hopes that exact timelines are in the works. The vague timetable Bush had in mind involves an "immediate" start on building the Palestinian institutions necessary for the emergence of a sovereign state. Alongside the development of these institutions, he added, a political dialogue is necessary. When it will take place, though, remains up in the air. "We're not ready to lay down a specific calendar," Bush said, "except for the fact we need to get started quickly, soon, so that we can seize the moment." It was believed that Mubarak went to Camp David with a clear-cut proposal including time frames, as well as ideas for major security and political reforms of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The time frame Mubarak was reportedly offering Bush included the declaration of a Palestinian state as early as 2003, the official admission of Palestine into the United Nations, and negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis on all other pending issues over a span of three to four years. Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher, who was accompanying Mubarak, dismissed these reports upon his return from the US. Maher insists the president did not go with a specific time plan but was instead arguing for the idea in principle. "There was no proposal or refusal," Maher said on Monday. "President Bush said he is not ready now to set a time frame, [but] the idea was accepted [by the Americans]." Observers argue, however, that the US administration is unlikely to pressure Israel into accepting the idea of timelines, since Tel Aviv has so far rejected the concept completely. This is especially true in light of the mid-term US congressional elections coming up in November, since antagonising Israel at this point in time could cost the Bush Administration and the Republican party the support of Evangelical Christian voters -- who have become some of the most influential lobbyists on behalf of Israel. Another point of divergence between the Egyptian and American views revolves around the conditions that must first be met before a Palestinian state is established. While both sides agree there should be a Palestinian and an Israeli state side-by-side, the US insists on reforming Palestinian institutions to support such a state. Egypt agrees with the idea, but believes the reforms have to be determined by "the Palestinian people and no one else", according to Maher. Making matters more complicated, Egypt wants the future Palestinian state to be within the borders of 4 June 1967 -- an idea the Israeli government has categorically refused -- while Washington has yet to declare its position on this issue. Reforming the PA also includes the thorny issue of the status of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. Mubarak told reporters that Arafat should be given the opportunity to prove he is capable of the necessary reform. "We should give this man a chance," he said. "Such a chance will prove whether he is going to deliver or not. If he's going to deliver, I think everybody will support him. If he's not going to deliver, his people will tell him that." Standing at Mubarak's side at Camp David, meanwhile, Bush hinted that it might be time for Arafat to go. "There is plenty of talent amongst the Palestinians," the US president said, "and if we develop the institutions necessary for the development of a state, that talent will emerge." He added that Arafat was not the issue -- "the issue is whether or not the Palestinian people can have a hopeful future." As if on cue, Bush also repeated his refrain that Arafat had "[let] the Palestinian people down". He also said that Arab leaders understand the need to develop the institutions necessary for a "peaceful and hopeful" Palestinian state to emerge. Despite this public disparity of views on Arafat, Egyptian officials insist that the US administration remain committed to supporting Arafat for the time being, at least. Maher told Al-Ahram Weekly that Bush made statements which "can be considered" in support of Mubarak's position that Arafat is conducting reforms, "and he has to be given the full chance to implement these political, security and economic reforms." But analysts note that by allowing Israel to destroy Arafat's institutions, including his security and police forces as well as his headquarters, and constantly voicing disappointment in his performance, the US is clearly paving the way for the replacement of the Palestinian leader. As for the oft-mentioned idea of an international peace conference, Maher said that Egypt made clear to the US that the conference be convened on the basis of all past agreements and negotiations, and that it should aim to reach a final status resolution. In Cairo's view, both sides must introduce confidence-building measures and Israel must completely withdraw from all the areas it has re-occupied since the second Intifada began on 28 September 2000. Israel has thus far refused all of these conditions and the US has not voiced its support for them either. According to Maher, Washington's preparations for the conference could include a tour of the region by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as consultations with the various parties that may be involved. How successful these efforts will be, however, remains to be seen. The real gauge of the success of the Mubarak-Bush summit will probably be the American president's much-ballyhooed speech -- the date of which has yet to be decided -- where he will outline his administration's new vision of the way forward for peace in the Middle East. "We received a reasonable response from the US," Maher said on Tuesday. "We expect a reflection of this understanding [when the US] formally announces its position." Bush's address, added Maher, should also serve to clarify the vision expressed by Bush in the 4 April speech in which he outlined what the Palestinians and Israelis must do in order to achieve peace. In fact, Mubarak and Bush agreed that it was time "to implement our common vision, in an effective and systematic way". Mubarak noted that this "critical junction" in the peace process, "requires us to exert all possible efforts on the political and security tracks, to rebuild confidence between the parties and relaunch serious political negotiations aimed at a final settlement". While appreciating Mubarak's "experience and advice" and expressing a willingness "to listen any time he is willing to give it", Bush's vague statements make clear that he has yet to make up his mind.
