Global Policy Forum

By Chris McGreal, Brian Whitaker and Ewen Macaskill

President Bush is said not to have a strong grasp of detail on the Middle East. Instead, he has a new strategy: naivety. Stride to peace, or a footnote in history?

The summit - with Mr Bush, Mr Sharon, and his Palestinian counterpart, Mahmoud Abbas - in the port city of Aqaba is seen by both sides as a critical test of how far the White House is prepared to put pressure on the Israelis, in particular, to adhere to the peace process. "We are looking for very specific commitments from both sides," said a US official. "The Palestinians know what they have to do in fighting terror and we now think Abbas is serious about doing it. We hope and believe Sharon is also serious but the president will be looking for some firm commitments to a timetable of actions and to the end result which he has said has to be a viable Palestinian state." The Palestinian uprisising, which began in September 2000, has so far claimed the lives of about 2,250 Palestinians and 760 Israelis.

Preparing the ground for today's summit, Mr Bush met moderate Arab leaders yesterday in Egypt. They are hoping that, in spite of their instinctive pessimism, Mr Bush will be even-handed in his treatment of Israel and the Palestinians. The Arab leaders received some encouragement when he told them that the round of talks was a "moment of promise". Mr Bush said: "Israel has got responsibilities. Israel must deal with the settlements. Israel must make sure there is a continuous territory that the Palestinians can call home." The continued building of Jewish homes in the occupied Palestinian territories is one of the major obstacles to a renewed peace process.

Signs have emerged in Washington in recent days that Mr Bush has a strategy for the Middle East, albeit an unorthodox one - naivety. Old hands in the diplomatic service, say the President knows almost nothing about the intricacies of the conflict. Nor does he show any sign of wanting to learn. In their view, Mr Bush has stumbled into one of the world's most intractable problems in a superficial way which holds out little hope of success.

But snatches of presidential conversation that creep into the American media suggest Mr Bush sees naivete as an advantage that will allow him to cut through the bickering to core issues. While Mr Sharon quibbles over dismantling new Jewish settlements and Israeli negotiators relish the thought of interminable arguments about what, precisely, constitutes "settlement activity", and similar details, Mr Bush is either not interested or determined to stay out of such squabbles. The Israelis are simply wasting their money, he reportedly told aides, because ultimately those new settlements will become homes for Palestinians.

The president's famous description of Mr Sharon as a man of peace infuriated Arabs at the time but may yet return to haunt the Israeli prime minister by setting a yardstick for him to measure up to. During a private meeting recounted yesterday by the Washington Post, Mr Sharon told the president he was a "man of peace and security", to which Mr Bush replied: "I know you are a man of security ... I want you to work harder on the peace part." Then, according to the newspaper, Mr Bush added: "I said you were a man of peace. I want you to know I took immense crap for that."

What everyone agrees on is that Mr Bush's approach is different from that of President Clinton, who made Middle East peace a top priority but failed to achieve it. In 2000, Mr Clinton tried to emulate the success of his fellow-Democrat, Jimmy Carter, who brokered an Israeli-Egyptian peace at Camp David in 1978. But Mr Clinton's own Camp David ended inconclusively, and was followed, weeks later, by the Palestinian uprising. That October, in an effort to halt the violence, Mr Clinton held more than 20 meetings in 28 hours during another summit at Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt - the spot where Mr Bush met Arab leaders yesterday. He left with Israeli and Palestinian promises to end the bloodshed, but it continued nonetheless.

Increasingly, for Mr Clinton, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict became an all-consuming issue, with the president deeply involved - some would say bogged down - in the minutiae. This, in Mr Bush's view, was a mistake, and one that he is determined not to repeat. Though the road map drafted by the Quartet - the US, the EU, Russia and the UN - provides a framework for the next moves, almost everyone acknowledges that its success or failure hinges on American determination to implement it.

Many seriously doubt that Mr Bush is up to that. With the Arab world inflamed by anti-American sentiment in the wake of the invasion of Iraq, there are many who see Mr Bush's efforts as little more than window-dressing. Judged by his performance so far, he is the most pro-Israeli president in American history, according to the Jewish historian, Avi Shlaim. "I divide American presidents into two groups - the 'Israel first' school and the even-handed school," Mr Shlaim said. "Most have been 'Israel first', the two exceptions being Carter and Bush senior. In order to broker a viable settlement, an American president has to be even-handed and get not just security for Israel but justice for the Palestinians."

The latest initiative echoes events after the 1991 war with Iraq when President Bush senior initiated the Madrid peace process that led to the Oslo accords and establishment of the Palestinian Authority. Mr Bush senior left much of the work to his secretary of state, James Baker, "but he kept up the pressure," Mr Shlaim said. "He used economic leverage against Israel over loan guarantees." In 1992, this US pressure contributed to the downfall of Israel's Likud government and its replacement by Labour - a fact Mr Sharon will be painfully aware of.

Whether Mr Bush junior would be willing to apply similar pressure is another question, particularly because of the Zionist-orientated neo-conservatives in Washington who have come to dominate US foreign policy. Again, though, the answer is not as obvious as it might seem. Neo-conservatives are dominant in the Pentagon but less influential in the state department. The conflict with Iraq, because of its military nature, gave the Pentagon the upper hand. But the Israeli-Palestinian issue is handled by the state department, and the Pentagon may have difficulty muscling in. The composition of the state department's team who deal with the issue is also reasonably even-handed, according to a source familiar with negotiations from the Palestinian side. During Mr Clinton's presidency, the team were "all associated with various pro-Israeli outfits," said the source. Although the Bush administration so far has been "foam-at-the-mouth pro-Israel", the state department's team is more balanced, the source continued.

The road map sets out a timetable for creation of a Palestinian state by 2005. It is already behind schedule. The first phase, which included a reduction in Palestinian violence as well as Palestinian political reforms accompanied by Israeli troop withdrawals and a freeze on Jewish building of settlements on the West Bank was supposed to be completed by May this year.

Among the many hurdles facing Mr Bush is that of persuading Mr Sharon to accept a Palestinian state that would be recognisable as such. Everything in Mr Sharon's career to date has shown him bent on territorial expansion. He has been the driving force behind the settler movement that has seen hundreds of thousands of Jews move into the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza, and, until now, he has actively delayed implementation of the roadmap. Mr Sharon, under pressure from Washington, has promised to make concessions. One of the key questions on the table today is how far Mr Sharon is prepared to go in dismantling the settlements. He has told his cabinet that he will dismantle illegal outposts but these amount to little more than tents and containers placed on hilltops. That would leave huge Jewish blocs that would split the West Bank into three isolated Palestinian areas.

Mr Bush said yesterday he would not accept that and he wants a Palestinian state that had "continuous" territory. The speaker in the Knesset and a member of Mr Sharon's Likud party, Reuven Rivlin, predicted yesterday, in the Israeli daily Haaretz, that Mr Sharon will go much further than previously expected by evacuating 17 West Bank settlements to allow the Palestinian contiguity. Mr Rivlin, who said he had turned down a place in Mr Sharon's cabinet on being told of the plan, said: "Sharon has accepted the fact that if we want to live within borders that enable the Palestinians passage that does not go through our territory, a number of settlements will have to be evacuated."

In a goodwill gesture, Israel yesterday released 100 Palestinians, including Ahmad Jubarah, 68, Israel's oldest and longest-held prisoner. He spent almost 30 years in jail after being convicted of involvement in a bombing which killed 13 people, including two children. He met the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, for an emotional reunion in Ramallah before going to see his family.

For Mr Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, the onus is on him to persuade the militant groups - Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade - to implement a ceasefire. The Israeli chief of staff, Moshe Ya'alon, told the Knesset foreign affairs and security committee that he expected such an agreement between Mr Abbas and the various groups within days. Such ceasefire talks between the Palestinian Authority and the militant groups have been taking place since early last year without success and Hamas yesterday rejected the road map. In spite of Hamas's rejection, there is a weariness on the Palestinian side with conflict, as there is on the Israeli side, and Hamas may make the calculation it would be better to fall in line for the time being.

Mr Sharon's involvement in the talks at present may be tactical. He has succeeded in isolating his old enemy, Yasser Arafat - the two confronted one another in Beirut in 1982 - and it suits him, for the time being to build up Mr Abbas. He may also have made the calculation that it is also better to bow a little to Washington. Whether he has the will to do a deal that would remove a significant number of settlements, allow the Palestinians to set up their capital in East Jerusalem ,and compromise on Palestinian refugees living round the Middle East, is another matter.

The question is also whether Mr Bush has the will to push him into such a deal. His imperative is securing the second presidential term that his father failed to achieve. Although the Jewish vote in the US is predominantly Democrat, Mr Bush will be looking at the margins. Only 19% of Jews voted for Mr Bush in the last election. He also badly wants a win in Florida, given the ambiguity of the result last time, and with so many Jewish votes in that state he will not be looking to alienate them.

More important from a psephological point of view is the Christian Right, which, for the most part, supports Israel. According to US officials, Mr Bush's attitude to the Israel-Palestinian conflict underwent a major rethink after a meeting last year with Saudi crown prince Abdullah at Crawford, Texas. Officials said the blunt and emotional approach of the crown prince earned Mr Bush's respect.

He showed the president a book of Palestinian suffering and a 10-minute video of images of children shot and crushed by Israelis and explained the impact on the Arab world. He said the images were being shown not to convey hatred of Israel but respect for human life and demanded to know what Mr Bush intended to do about it. "It certainly made an impact on the president," one official said. Whether his emotional response to the images override his electoral ambitions will determine the progress in the coming months.