RIYADH: As efforts are intensifying to resolve the Palestine issue, gaps between the Arab and the US positions on certain key areas are becoming evident.
The US president has indicated that he would come out with a detailed statement on the Arab-Israel conflict after the current round of meetings with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
There is a growing perception that the US State Department is working on a peace plan for the Middle East. Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres has revealed that Washington is proposing Israel dismantle its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza in return for a Palestinian renunciation of the right of return for refugees.
According to reports, the US draft calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip, with slight border adjustments.
The plan has a three-year timeframe for implementation.
President Hosni Mubarak has, however, been insisting upon his hosts in Camp David that the US should announce a plan for the establishment of a state within a specified timeframe, most probably by early next year.
On the other hand Ariel Sharon intends to insist on no timeline for the formation of the state. His contention is that suicide bombings need to stop first before any negotiations on the peace deal.
Another perceptible difference of opinion exists on the framework of the proposed peace conference. Arabs are of the view that the conference should be convened to frame an implementation strategy for the Saudi peace plan adopted by the Beirut Arab summit and not to start a fresh round of negotiations between the two sides.
The Americans, despite their support, though a belated one to the Arab peace plan, are yet to indicate their position on the issue.
Sharon is definitely not ready to accept the plan until the Americans commit themselves to applying their leverage on him, many here believe.
In view of the situation on the ground, President Hosni Mubarak is taking a middle path. He is asking the US to agree to the plan of an independent state by early next year, with the issues of settlements and the right of return of refugees to be handled at a subsequent stage.
However, some here believe that in case the two issues are not handled at this stage, it would result in constant bickering between the states of Palestine and Israel in the years to come.
They feel these crucial issues also need to be resolved now, so as to ensure long-term peace and stability in the region.
ARAFAT: A number of other issues divide the Americans and the Arabs. The Bush administration has tended to waffle on the fate of Arafat, denouncing him but then, when faced with the logical inference drawn from its denunciation, pulling back to say it still recognized him as the choice of Palestinians.
On the other hand the Saudis, the Egyptians and in fact all the Arab states are of the firm view that Arafat is the man of the moment.
He is the one who can deliver and he needs to be supported and not jettisoned or ridiculed at this hour of need. Weakening him at this juncture would derail the entire process, as any deal would have to be struck with him and no one else.
There are no two opinions in official Arab circles about Arafat’s credentials as a legitimate representative of the Palestinians.
REFORMS: Also there is the apparent wedge in the thought process in the US and the Arab world. There is a lot stress in the American circles on carrying out political reforms within the Palestinian Authority (PA) to make possible any forward movement on a peace deal with Israel.
Some, including New York Times columnist William Safire, say that Sharon is the “man of destiny” for the Palestinians in the sense that it is he, and he alone, who can give them a democratic system based on the rule of law.
On the other hand the Arab world is saying “yes” to any reforms at the PA but not at the cost of peace. Analysts here argue that a forward movement on any peace plan could not be linked to reforms.
Reforms are a gradual process and hence could not be made a stepping-stone before embarking on any peace initiative. Some here say that it appears now the entire Palestine-Israel conflict has been reduced to reforms in the Palestinian Authority.
And indeed that is not acceptable to the Arab world. Analysts here strongly feel that by keeping the world talking about reforms, the Americans and Israelis want the international community to forget the question of statehood and other uncomfortable subjects.
IRAQ: The issue of Iraq is another bone of contention between the US and its Arab allies in the “fight against terrorism”.
None of them has condoned any aggressive military solution to tackle the problems with Iraq. They have openly said “no” to the very idea.
However, elements within the Bush administration, including Vice President Cheney, seem to be obsessed with the idea of confronting Iraq.
Only the other day Cheney said that while focusing on other issues in the region, the administration cannot stay unconcerned about Iraq and that it cannot allow the Baghdad regime to go for sophisticated arms buildup.
FINGERPRINTING: The recent announcement by the US attorney general about fingerprinting visitors from the Middle East has also evoked an angry response in the region.
Many believe that the system of racial profiling, in vogue since Sept 11, has now been systematically made part of the US judicial system.
With all these differences, as the diplomatic flurry continues in Camp David and then in Washington, all eyes are now focused as to what extent the US is ready to take into account the sensitivities of its Arab allies before embarking upon any peace initiative.
Washington needs to take a stand on some of the crucial issues before moving ahead. And with contradictory signals emanating from the Bush administration, it seems that the blueprint has not been finalized as yet.
Nevertheless, the Arab world is hoping that the US administration will be able to keep the belligerent Sharon in check.