Systematic backtracking by the White House on the Middle East often makes comprehension of its policies precarious. Colin Powell’s comments that Yasser Arafat must use his “moral authority” to rein in militants is a classic example. For two years, Washington has been intent on making Arafat redundant and irrelevant. The Bush administration has resolutely refused to deal with him, saying he was “tainted by terrorism” and demanding that he select a prime minister that the US could do business with. Now, according to Powell, Arafat has “moral authority,” “is a leader” and, of course, is “fully responsible for Palestinian attacks against Israelis.” How can a man who has been under virtual house arrest since 2002 and intentionally bypassed by the Americans and Israelis “go after these perpetrators with the security forces available” [to the Palestinian Authority], and be “blamed squarely” for failing to stop attacks against Israelis.” It is anybody’s guess how, in his situation, Arafat could do any of these. Only in Washington, it seems, does the answer lie.
Another about-face was evident in Powell’s address. Washington is now responding favorably to Sharon’s plan to uproot Gaza settlements after initially rejecting it. Washington will be sending envoys to the region next week for talks with Sharon and his plan. A withdrawal “would be a good thing because there would be fewer things to negotiate” when the parties finally sit down to hammer out a final status agreement, one official said. Nothing could be truer. There will indeed be less to talk about because the plan, if carried out, will reduce the size of West Bank land returning to the Palestinians under any peace deal.
On the heels of Sharon’s announcement, the prime minister’s office revealed that the plan involved transferring Gaza evacuees to the West Bank to “consolidate” settlements such as Maale Adumim, east of Jerusalem, Ariel near Nablus, and Gush Etzion south of Bethlehem. The price, therefore, of evacuation would be the annexation of several large settlement blocs in the West Bank. This is a recipe for a takeover of most of the territories of the West Bank. The United States is not blind to this development. Powell has asked where the Gaza settlers will go and how settlement activity in the West Bank will be affected. But he has also told the lawmakers that the Middle East impasse may be broken by Sharon’s proposal to withdraw virtually all Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip and that the US team would follow up on some of the ideas put forward by Sharon. It can only mean that Washington is interested. Although the White House has publicly voiced opposition to transferring Gaza settlers to the West Bank, the language being used in private suggests that Washington is doing another about-face, one that is extremely troubling.
