Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon inspects an honor guard
Jay Branegan: Sharon came out looking like the cat that ate the canary. He was one happy camper. You certainly get the impression that he's not hearing much criticism for his tactics in dealing with the Palestinians, and that he's getting a lot of sympathy for Israel's position that it's being victimized by terrorists.
Sharon also had to be happy with Secretary of State Powell's rejection yesterday of "arbitrary even-handedness." That speech had been billed as one of the major policy statements of the administration. Sharon certainly feels that he's gotten a good hearing in Washington, and he'll welcome the idea that the administration won't meddle or interfere. Both sides share many of the same criticisms of the Barak-Clinton process.
What is Sharon hoping for from the Bush administration, and will he get it?
He's looking for understanding from Washington, for some breathing space to implement a new policy for managing the Israeli-Palestinian relationship. He's proposing a step-by-step de-escalation from the present level of confrontation, pushing a message of realism to which the Bush administration is very receptive.
My understanding is that Sharon plans to offer the Palestinians a series of quid pro quo trade-offs — simple things that Arafat can do in exchange for the Israelis' doing similar simple things in return, which can lead to more simple steps. And Sharon hopes that will serve as a basis to resume dialogue and reduce violence. It's unlikely that he'll insist on a complete cessation of violence before he makes concessions. He'll take small steps if Arafat will do the same, and he's looking for Washington's support for that perspective.
The heart of the Sharon's principle is immediate quid pro quo, using the Wye River agreement as an example. He wants American support, but he's not coming with a shopping list. This was a getting-to-know-you session, exploring ways in which the two sides can work together. And it clearly seems to have gone very well.
Sharon also wants to change the U.S. attitude to Yasser Arafat. The Israelis are very frustrated that the international community looks at Arafat as some kind of Nelson Mandela figure. Because Arafat doesn't behave like Mandela. The Israelis want Arafat to be judged by his actions, and that there should be fewer carrots and more sticks in the way the international community deals with him.
How does the U.S. view Arafat's game plan right now?
Washington believes Arafat doesn't have a game plan, that he's adrift and doesn't know quite where to turn or what to do. Even last year when he rejected what was on the table at Camp David, he never offered a counterproposal. One of the great frustrations of the Americans is precisely that Arafat lacks a strategy. He seems to be caught in the headlights.
Presumably, then, the only concern for Washington is whether Sharon's approach will be accepted by U.S. allies in the Arab world...
Yes. There was strong Arab bias against Sharon when he was elected, but Washington was pleading with Arab states to keep their powder dry and judge Sharon by his actions rather than by his reputation. And the Bush administration is claiming some credit for the fact that Arab reaction to Sharon has been muted.
For domestic political reasons, many of those Arab regimes probably share an interest in seeing the Palestinian uprising come to an end.
Absolutely. And that's why Powell had been stressing that it's in everyone's interests for the Arab leadership to avoid pouring fuel on the fire. The only Arab leader gaining from the intifada is probably Saddam Hussein, who is boosting his popularity throughout the Arab world by the support he's offering. So the moderate Arab regimes would like the level of violence reduced, but they can't be seen to be not supporting Arafat and the Palestinians. So it's certainly in their interests to not oppose a measure of cooperation between Arafat and Sharon.