Is Gaza a ploy in freezing the peace process?

If Prime Minister Ariel Sharon intends to freeze the peace process after the Gaza disengagement, as his senior adviser said last week, the Israeli government can look for a frost on relations with Washington. But don't expect to see any icicles before Nov. 3.

Until that time all is warm and fuzzy as President Bush focuses on his ever-tightening re-election campaign and doesn't dare risk offending any potential voting bloc, especially one he may need in a critical swing state like Florida.

Dov Weisglass, Sharon's personal envoy to the White House and the man responsible for negotiating Washington's support for the Gaza plan, stunned everyone in his interview with Ha'aretz when he declared, "The significance of the disengagement plan is a freezing of the peace process."

He explained: "And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem.

Weisglass announced "all this [is done] with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

It was a stinging slap in the face for the Bush administration, which had endorsed the Gaza plan as the "historic and courageous" key to thawing the peace process, not putting it in the deep freeze. Moreover, the president is committed to establishing a Palestinian state as early as next year, something reiterated in the vice presidential debates by Dick Cheney.

Sharon was forced to disassociate himself from his aide's remarks, but many observers in both capitals were convinced Weisglass revealed the real thinking of the prime minister and his inner circle.

Weisglass is not some minor figure like the foreign minister; he is the prime minister's senior adviser, personal liaison to the White House, a key architect of the disengagement plan and the man who negotiated its approval by Bush.

But comments that should have caused a diplomatic firestorm instead caused barely a spark, and the reason is presidential politics.

So far the State Department has requested "clarifications" and declared itself satisfied with Jerusalem's lame excuse, "That may be what he said, but it's not what he meant."

But is it?

Whoever is the president of the United States next year will expect Sharon to keep his word that Gaza is the beginning of a process to revive the peace process, not the end.

If Sharon thinks that by leaving Gaza, he can put everything else on indefinite hold, he is courting disaster.

It is unlikely to appease his Likud Party's right wing, which brands his Gaza policy a "retreat"; it won't satisfy the vast majority of Israelis who want the evacuation accelerated; and it won't appease a U.S. government that faces mounting international pressure to jump-start the peace process.

A poll out Friday, Oct. 8, showed 65 percent of Israelis support the plan and 70 percent want to see it lead to the evacuation of West Bank settlements. By a 2-1 margin they feel it will improve Israel's security.

The reaction among American Jewish leaders is similar to that of Israelis. On the left, they're saying, "I told you so, he never intended to make peace," and on the right, "It's just a ruse to throw us off guard while he marches toward Palestinian statehood."

Notwithstanding Weisglass' comments about Sharon's motives, most Israelis agree the evacuation of Gaza remains the right move. It puts the burden on the Palestinians to show whether they are capable of governing themselves and taking their security responsibilities seriously.

Weisglass's interview confirmed the worst fears of those who question Sharon's commitment to peace, and they consider his re-endorsement of the "road map" insincere .

Sharon understands he cannot afford bad blood with the United States. He reaffirmed his support for the road map not because he likes it but because he doesn't want to get on the wrong side of the Bush administration, which he is convinced is committed to the plan.

Sharon learned a valuable lesson from his experiences

during the first Bush administration and he doesn't want to repeat the mistakes of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, whose conflicts with Washington led to his defeat at home.

Bush repeated in last week's debate that he considers Yasser Arafat an unfit partner for peace, but for regional as well as broader foreign policy reasons the president remains committed to reviving Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

The next U.S. administration can be expected to view the disengagement plan as a way to revive the peace process, not, to use Weisglass' term, to dump it in "formaldehyde."

The Bush administration has repeated frequently that it wants to see not only a freeze on West Bank settlements but their removal as well, starting with the four Sharon committed to removing in winning Bush's endorsement of the Gaza plan.

Bush has been careful to mute his public criticism of Israel, but reports out of the administration suggest he privately questions Sharon's commitment to peace and is growing weary of his unkept promises, particularly regarding illegal outposts, settlement construction and illegal outposts, and "humiliating" the Palestinians.

The Washington Post has quoted Bush telling Sharon, "I said you were a man of peace. I want you to know I took immense crap for that."

State Department officials muted their criticism in deference to the political season but privately questioned Sharon's commitment to the road map and to Bush's two-state vision.

Weisglass may be, as one of his acquaintances said in an interview, "an intellectual lightweight caught out of his depth" in the Ha'aretz interview, but he was essentially, albeit not very artfully, expressing his boss's view.

Sharon has long insisted that the "eradication of terrorism" and the emergence of a new, responsible Palestinian leadership are prerequisites for "a political process."

The best that can be expected before that day arrives, Sharon has said, is long-term interim arrangements. Like leaving Gaza. In other words, read the Weisglass interview.




Douglas M. Bloomfield is a Washington, D.C.-based political consultant who was formerly chief legislative lobbyist for AIPAC.