Jerusalem was poised for new offensive as Bush 'dropped by' on Peres
Julian Borger in Washington Thursday October 25, 2001 The Guardian
Shimon Peres had been in Condoleezza Rice's office for about 15 minutes, mournfully explaining to the national security adviser the latest downward twist in the news from his country, when the president arrived. In White House jargon, such encounters are known as "drop-bys" and they are used to deliver precise messages.
The message this time was clear: get your troops out of Palestinian areas. By his own account, the Israeli foreign minister told Mr Bush that the army had no desire to be there and that it would pull out as soon as possible.
Mr Peres may or may not have known it at the time, but as he was reassuring Mr Bush, Israeli soldiers were preparing to make yet another incursion. Less than five hours after the White House meeting, soldiers moved into the West Bank village of Beit Rima in an assault which killed at least seven Palestinians, and took the Middle East another inch towards chaos.
The Bush message was echoed by the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, who called on Israel to leave Palestinian towns. He said he was "very disturbed" that Israel had intensified its occupation in breach of signed agreements.
The Bush administration has known for months that its control over the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, is tenuous at best. Yesterday's raid on Beit Rima was a neon-bright indicator of Mr Sharon's complete disregard for Mr Bush's opinions.
The Middle East situation now threatens to trigger a crisis in the Bush administration's pursuit of its war on terrorism. The bombing of Afghanistan is already chipping at the ground beneath Washington's Arab allies, who have been plead ing for US intervention to damp down the flames of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the US national security council, restated the president's position yesterday that "Israeli troops should withdraw from Area A [Palestinian-run districts] immediately".
But US officials now say their capacity to influence events on the ground is at an all-time low. Not only is Mr Sharon turning open defiance of Washington into a pillar of his government's policy, but it has become increasingly clear to the state department that Yasser Arafat has lost his grip on the situation.
The usual tools of US diplomacy in the region now look flimsy. The secretary of state, Colin Powell, has been planning for several weeks to make a landmark policy speech laying out a clear blueprint for Israeli-Palestinian cohabitation, including the creation of a viable Palestinian state, with a share of Jerusalem as its capital.
"That can be one of the threats held over Sharon's head," said Judith Kipper of the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. "But in the end it is just a speech. It is just words, and it is not going to have much effect on Sharon."
Ms Kipper said only strong actions, involving some form of sanctions, would send an effective message, but she added: "This administration doesn't have the stomach to use the big guns. The relationship between the two countries is so deep, so intertwined."
The US gives $3bn in aid each year to Israel, $1bn of which represents military assistance. Paradoxically, the subsidy is not a useful lever: cutting it would be politically perilous. In Jewish-American and conservative circles, President Bush's father still has not been forgiven for merely threatening to withdraw loan guarantees nine years ago - a factor in his 1992 election defeat.
And it is far from clear what impact economic measures would have on an Israeli leader who has embraced international isolation as a badge of martyrdom.
Washington's leverage on Mr Sharon is further diminished by the leverage he has on Washington. There is a significant constituency outside and within the Bush administration which is echoing the Israeli prime minister's line - that his struggle with Mr Arafat is directly equivalent to the US war on Osama bin Laden.
At a meeting of the House of Representatives' international relations committee yesterday, Mr Powell was showered with praise for his general handling of the terrorism crisis, but repeatedly assailed for his policy on Israel. Gary Ackerman, a Democratic congressman from New York, denounced US demands for Israeli restraint as hypocrisy. "We are telling them to do as we say, not as we do," he said.
That view is shared by a circle of right-wingers grouped around the deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz. They believe that US security is being compromised by the administration's concern about maintaining the support of the Arab world. In their eyes, this is preventing the Pentagon from eliminating Saddam Hussein as a threat, and it is preventing a comprehensive campaign against terrorism which would also target Palestinian and Lebanese groups.
Vice-President Dick Cheney and the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, quietly sympathise with those views. Both held meetings with Mr Peres yesterday, and some in the state department believe their strong support for Israel diluted the message Mr Powell and Mr Bush were trying to convey to Mr Sharon. Asked about his meetings with Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld, Mr Peres said simply: "I didn't hear a word of criticism _ I heard a good deal of understanding."
The collision of the Afghan war, the assassination of the Israeli minister Rehavam Zeevi, and the Israeli incursions - all at a time when Washington's hands are tied in the Middle East - has triggered a sense of near panic at the state department. Some US diplomats believe Mr Sharon is prepared to bring down the Palestinian Authority and reoccupy the areas it runs. The state department believes Mr Arafat's fall would ignite chaos in Gaza and the West Bank.
One option, according to Ms Kipper, is to send the CIA director, George Tenet, who has the confidence of some of the most powerful Palestinians, including the security chiefs, Djibril Rajoub and Mohammed Dahlan. Mr Tenet could be in a unique position to broker a ceasefire before it is too late, but he is under fire at home for the CIA's failure to prevent the September 11 attacks. Mr Bush has meanwhile become reliant on him for advice, and is thought to be reluctant to let him travel at such a critical moment.
As the situation slips from crisis to disaster in the Middle East, Washington finds itself all but paralysed in its response. George Bush came to office saying he would leave it to both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide to end the violence. That hands-off policy now looks , leaving the president with nothing credible to offer in its place.