washington | Ariel Sharon already is reaping political dividends from last week’s historic exchange of letters with President Bush, but the U.S. president’s payoff depends a great deal on what Israel does next.
The Bush administration wants to see clear signs in coming weeks that Israel will live up to the prime minister’s commitment to pull out of the Gaza Strip and a small portion of the West Bank in exchange for Bush’s recognition of Israel’s claim to part of the West Bank.
Bush’s historic endorsement of Israel’s claims — and his rejection of any “right of return” to Israel for Palestinian refugees — have boosted Sharon’s political fortunes, allowing him to win over opponents in his Cabinet who had been skeptical of the withdrawal plan.
By contrast, the deal poses clear political risks for Bush, battered by increasing U.S. casualties in Iraq and seeking international support for a transition to civilian rule there.
The fallout in the Arab world was almost immediate. Jordan’s King Abdullah II postponed until May a meeting scheduled this week with President Bush, and it was clear from his embassy’s statement that the Bush-Sharon agreement had caught him off-guard.
Jordan wanted to “clarify the U.S. position regarding final status issues, especially in light of recent statements by U.S. officials,” the statement said. It said the king “underlined the importance of ensuring that Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza will be part of the ‘road map,’ and not an alternative to it.”
The Sharon-Bush summit won’t help the transfer of power in Iraq, said Feisel Istrabadi, a constitutional adviser to the U.S.-supported governing council.
“From the perspective of American policy and helping us in Iraq, I think it was the wrong thing to do at the wrong time,” Istrabadi told PBS’ “One-on-One” show. Israeli-Palestinian tensions dog the United States’ good intentions in Iraq and elsewhere, Istrabadi said.
Administration officials said matters were worsened by Israel’s assassination Saturday of Hamas’ new leader, and the predictable conspiracy theories in the Arab world accusing the United States of approving the hit.
The State Department suggested that the killing of Abdel Aziz Rantissi showed a lack of sophistication.
Putting Hamas out of business is “a much more complicated question than just assassinating a leader here and there,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Monday. “The idea of putting them out of business really does require somebody else to take authority in these areas.”
Boucher reiterated U.S. support for Israel’s right to defend itself, and noted that Rantissi headed a terrorist organization. But his comments still underscored an emerging U.S.-Israel schism. A senior Israeli official described the plan as a “mortal blow” to Palestinian dreams, while President Bush sees the plan as facilitating Palestinian empowerment.
The president wants to “jump-start progress on the road map,” a senior administration official said last week. “Sharon has also talked about continuing to move toward a settlement freeze, getting rid of unauthorized outposts.”
David Makovsky, a senior analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the administration would remain quiet until a May 2 referendum in Sharon’s Likud party on the plan; after that, it would want results.
“This is a president with over 100,000 troops in Iraq, and he will want to see Israeli action after the Likud referendum,” Makovsky said.
One sign that Sharon understands Bush’s need for immediate results was the Israeli commitment to dismantle 28 outposts and remove about 240 settlers within the next few weeks. Televised pictures of Israeli soldiers removing settlers from their homes on rocky West Bank hills would help make Bush’s case that his words produce action.
Israeli officials also have promised swift action in easing restrictions on Palestinians’ movement.