I guess this means the Arabists over at State are wetting their pants.
washingtonpost.com
Sharon Threat Seen as Major Problem
Unilateral Steps by Israel Could Disrupt U.S.-Backed Peace Plan, Analysts Say
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 20, 2003; Page A15
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's threat this week to unilaterally separate Israelis and Palestinians, if negotiations falter, poses a new and significant challenge to U.S. diplomacy in the region, administration officials and analysts said yesterday.
While Sharon professed that he is committed to the U.S.-backed peace plan known as the road map -- which he has disdained for months -- the long-stalled peace initiative could well be buried by the steps he outlined in the speech, analysts said. In fact, Sharon significantly shortened the timetable for action -- "a few months" -- on a plan that is supposed to take effect over three years.
Sharon carefully hinged his support for the road map to actions by the Palestinians on security. But the Palestinian Authority for months has appeared incapable of taking those steps. The Bush administration, moreover, has limited contacts with and leverage over the Palestinians, particularly since travel by U.S. officials into Palestinian territories was restricted by a deadly attack in Gaza in October.
Officially, the administration pronounced itself "very pleased" by Sharon's speech Thursday, because he announced that he would take a number of actions to ease Palestinian living conditions and would dismantle settlement outposts. Sharon also signaled that he would evacuate some settlements and had come up with a formula for freezing the growth of the settlements -- important goals for the United States. One senior official suggested Sharon's gambit could well be the spark that reignites action on the road map.
But, in a sign of the difficult balancing act ahead, the administration was uncharacteristically off-message about the speech shortly it was delivered. White House spokesman Scott McClellan first appeared to criticize it, and then a senior administration official offered a much more upbeat assessment in a briefing to reporters. McClellan then echoed the positive view yesterday.
In a sign of the divisions within the administration, a number of officials said privately that they were troubled by Sharon's speech. They are skeptical Sharon will really take the positive steps he has outlined, and they worry that any potentially damaging unilateral actions might happen in the middle of next year, when President Bush will be in an election campaign and unable to forcefully respond for fear of offending the Jewish vote he has worked hard to cultivate.
Sharon also disturbed some members of the administration with his statement that any unilateral actions will be "fully coordinated" with Washington in order not to harm "our strategic coordinations with the United States." U.S. officials have frequently argued to Arabs that they do not have much leverage over specific moves by Sharon -- that the administration does not control some sort of traffic light. Now, Sharon has implied that Israel checks repeatedly with the administration on its actions.
One senior U.S. official closely involved in Middle East issues said he found little in Sharon's speech that could be described as positive or noteworthy. "Am I excited by it? No," he said. Sharon's backing of the road map "was not new," the official added. "It's less important that he says that than for Israel to start doing the things they need to do."
Another official said the risk is that Sharon will take these potentially dramatic steps when the administration is paralyzed by the looming election. "He may say, 'Here's my number, and if you are still in the White House give me a call,' " the official said.
Many parts of Sharon's speech were vague and open to interpretation. Sharon's proposal on a settlement freeze -- no construction beyond the existing construction line, no appropriation of land, no economic incentives and no building of new settlements -- was considered new and significant by some U.S. officials and a potential trap by others.
The road map calls for a freeze on settlements, as well as on what is called "natural growth," which generally means births and family moves. But the Israelis have repeatedly pressed for a definition of a freeze that would allow construction within existing boundaries, essentially saying settlements could expand upward but not outward.
The senior administration official briefing reporters Thursday night said the purpose of a settlement freeze is to make sure additional settlers would not impede Palestinian life or prevent the formation of a viable Palestinian state. It makes no difference, he said, if the Israelis add another house within a block of existing homes.
"We have not taken the position there has to be an end to natural growth in settlements," he said.
That statement was controversial to other administration officials, who say the United States in the past clearly opposed natural growth in the settlements. One official scoffed at Sharon's proposal, saying it is filled with loopholes. He said it was unclear whether the ending of economic incentives for settlements would apply to the building of roads and infrastructure, for instance, or whether the "construction line" would incorporate individual settlements or be expanded to include groups of settlements.
"This is not the way a settlement freeze is defined by the road map or the president," said Shibley Telhami, a Middle East specialist at the University of Maryland. "This is new language that is inconsistent with what's on the table."
Dennis Ross, a peace negotiator in the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations, took a more positive view. "There is a lot in there that Sharon has not said before," he said, noting that "he spells out for the first time Israel's definition for control of settlement activity."
Ross said a problem with the road map is that it creates "an illusion of specificity" where none exists. Ross said that even if Israel withdraws from much of the territories in a unilateral action, "it is not a solution but maybe creates an environment in which a solution is possible over time."
"The reality is that none of us knows what is in Sharon's head," Telhami said. "You have to look at the pattern of his behavior. Given that, we would have to think he has had in the back of his mind the idea of implementing a unilateral plan all along."
washingtonpost.com |
