June 15, 2003	Sunday	Rabi-us-Sani 14, 1424

WASHINGTON: An upsurge in Middle East violence this week is testing the Bush administration’s commitment to its peace plan but analysts say it has invested too much in its current approach to try any other tack.

In a reprise of the vacillation that marked the administration’s Middle East policy last year, the United States has fluctuated between calling for a crackdown on Palestinian militants and asking Israel to show restraint.

US President George W. Bush, whose personal opinion is deemed crucial to the policy, has also given conflicting signals on how much he agrees with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on the nature of the challenge.

An Israeli minister said on Friday that Israel must “wage a war to the bitter end” against the militant group Hamas, which has taken part in two major attacks on Israelis this week.

Bush said last week he saw the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as part of his “global war on terrorism”, implying that his priority was similar to that of Sharon, who says that Israeli security is his primary concern.

Earlier in his two-and-a-half years in office, Bush had already shown signs that he is willing to turn a blind eye to Israeli military action against Hamas and other groups which the State Department calls “foreign terrorist organizations”.

But the United States has also criticized Israel’s attempts to assassinate Hamas leaders — attempts which usually precede retaliatory suicide bombings by Hamas members.

The US strategy so far has been to make telephone calls to Arab and Israeli leaders and set up diplomatic meetings in the days and weeks to come. Friday started out as the quietest day in the Middle East this week but Israeli helicopters struck in Gaza in the early evening, killing one Palestinian.

Arab diplomats, whose governments have very little influence in the conflict, said they had to take the Bush administration at its word on its public high-level commitment to promote the international “road map” or peace plan.

The commitment was embodied in the Sharm el-Sheikh and Aqaba summits attended by Bush this month, which grabbed the headlines and showed Bush in a statesman role.

APPROACH MAY NOT WORK: “The president does seem to be very determined but Sharon and the Palestinians are not going to make it easy for him,” said one Arab ambassador, who asked not to be named.

“The only choice for the United States is to push again for a start on the roadmap and I do not know how firm and effective they can be,” he added.

Stephen Cohen, analyst and national scholar for the Israel Policy Forum, predicted the United States would intensify its diplomatic efforts to curb the violence and avert the danger of a major Israeli assault on Palestinian militants. But he added: “I’m not saying it will work.”

“Success is going to depend how determined the president is. He tends not to see shades of gray, only black and white,” added Judith Kipper of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Maggie Mitchell, director of communications and outreach at Middle East Institute, said Bush had to keep up the level of commitment he promised when he went to the Middle East.

“What should happen is that Mr Bush back up that Aqaba photo opportunity with real muscle, not repeat the hands-off approach of the last two years,” she added.

She noted a report in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that Bush did stand up to Sharon and Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz at the Aqaba summit on Israeli support for the Palestinian security forces and on withheld Palestinian tax revenue.

Edward Walker, the president of the Middle East Institute, said Bush surprised his Arab colleagues at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit with his grasp of the detail and a “sense of fairness.”

“He had his brief down well. He didn’t let the Israelis get away with anything,” he added.

“I think he’s pretty committed. Otherwise he wouldn’t have taken it on. But he may have been misled on where Sharon stands and how much support he gets from the Arab world,” he said.

Bush has appeared to lose patience with Sharon several times over the years but usually he has relented within days and fallen back into line with Israeli priorities.

Bush’s word must count with Sharon because of the financial, military and political assistance the United States gives to Israel. The United States has even more clout now because of Israel’s economic troubles, the analysts said.

“Sharon cannot afford to have bad relations in the current climate ... . They cannot afford to be blamed,” said Kipper.—Reuters