April 1, 2002	Monday	Muharram 17, 1423

WASHINGTON: As Israeli tanks rumble and Palestinian suicide bombs explode in a struggle that looks more like war each day, increasing voices are asking what President Bush could do if he left the sidelines. After all, Vice President Dick Cheney returned from the Middle East to say last week that “there isn’t anybody but us” to help resolve the conflict.

The administration says there is very little room for diplomatic manoeuvre, despite worsening bloodshed and concern that the conflict could jeopardize the White House’s evolving campaign against Iraq. As one official said on Saturday, “the administration would be prepared to do a substantial amount, if it thought it would be accepted.”

Many analysts contend there is a broad spectrum of policy options and strategies for the United States, short-term and long, if the president should choose to engage. These range from full-blooded support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s military campaign to a full-scale diplomatic initiative to putting American troops in the region as peacekeepers.

A former British foreign secretary, Lord Hurd, has even called for President Bush to summon Sharon and Arafat to a remote location where they would not be allowed to leave until they made peace.

Robert Malley, a former Middle East adviser to President Clinton, reflected the views of many in that more activist administration when he said that Washington must press the two sides toward a comprehensive final agreement. In a piece co- authored for the next issue of Foreign Affairs, he insists that the Bush administration cannot wait for the violence to subside.

“In the short run, perhaps, overwhelming Israeli force might quiet the situation,” Malley said. “But then there’ll be more terrorist attacks, and attacks on the occupying troops, and once those attacks hurt Israel enough and threatened stability in the region, the United States would feel compelled to come back in — as has happened time and time again.”

In contrast, Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon’s advisory Defence Policy Board, believes the administration should give Sharon full support, including pressing the European allies to lean on Arafat to fulfil his promises to suppress terrorism. “We need to bring the maximum pressure to bear on Arafat, not Israel,” said Perle.

US participation at critical junctures has often made the difference in the Israeli-Arab conflict. US presidents intervened forcefully with Israeli prime ministers during the 1973 Yom Kippur War to persuade Israel not to destroy the surrounded Egyptian army, and in 1982 to halt the destruction of West Beirut during the invasion of Lebanon.

The 1991 Middle East peace conference in Madrid required months of intensive shuttle diplomacy by US secretary of state James A. Baker III. Even the 1993 Oslo Accords, which resulted from talks launched secretly between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators without US knowledge, required an American endorsement and earned a White House signing ceremony.

But neither Sharon nor Arafat have shown themselves amenable to diplomatic persuasion. The administration is unwilling to get involved beyond the mission of envoy Anthony Zinni because of the belief that “the effort put in will not equal a successful or a useful outcome.” The official said that policy could change according to events.

In the short-term, to win a ceasefire, the administration needs a strong, visible Middle Eastern envoy with extensive reach and authority, said Israeli security analyst Yosef Alpher, a former member of Mossad. He added that such political issues as the fate of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip should be part of the discussion.

In the long term, Alpher said, Washington needs to lead an international effort to produce a new diplomatic framework for peace. “All of the international mechanisms set up for Israelis and Palestinians to make peace have failed: UN Security Council Resolution 242, the Madrid and Oslo frameworks. We need the US to sit down with the Europeans the Russians, Israelis and Arabs, and work out a new formula.”

The cycle can only be broken with “some kind of formula that will allow each one to save some face,” said former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. “We are hesitant to do anything now for fear that it looks like we’re condoning terrorism if we put pressure on Sharon.”—Dawn/The Washington Post News Service.