Ha'aretz: On the eve of the Summit in Akabe, the United States continues to cherish their illusions

Washington needs to have time to do everything you need in the Middle East until October. After October, the main resources will be thrown onto the internal front, on the election campaign, and the peace process in the Middle East will be able to flow on its own, if it does not negate until this moment, today Ha'aretz writes (translation on the website inopressa.ru ).

At this time, namely this week, the US administration plans to take advantage of a rare agreement at the Akabe summit. There is an agreement on the summit itself and the necessary details that guarantee its successful completion - but not necessarily an agreement on the long -term policy that should follow it.

One Washington analyst, trying to understand how President Bush will act in the Middle East, reminded this week - and it is not by chance that the words said by Leon Viselle about the previous president of the United States, Bill Clinton. The main mission of Clinton, he said, is to preserve the memory of Clinton.

David Halberste also spoke about this in his book, claiming that with the failure of negotiations in the Camp David, the last hope of Clinton had failed that the memory of him would be based on his successes in foreign policy. References to the failures of the past come up in all discussions dedicated to the new attempt by America to play an active role in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian administration.

This attempt brought together two former national security advisers, Zbignev Brzezinski and Brent Skokucroft. During a joint television interview, they agreed with each other without reflection: the initiative of Bush on conducting a summit is a bold act. For his success is far from so obvious.

They agreed on a different, more significant issue: both are sure that the United States should demand from the Israelis and Palestinians to take parallel steps to embody the "road map" - parallel, not alternate.

It is not surprising that Ha'aretz writes that Frank Gaffni, the founder and president of the security center and one of the “hawks” of the neo-conservative camp in Washington, looked very preoccupied in recent weeks. He calls the “road map” the “road trap” and protects the point of view (available, including in the administration), according to which the method, elected to revive the Boos of peaceful negotiations, is not crowned with great success.

The administration, he claims, builds illusions about the new Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen). Gaffni emphasizes that the "road map" will strengthen the conviction of the Arab world that the United States intends to put pressure on Israel - and thereby weaken it. In the meantime, the Arabs think that they are able to weaken Israel, Gaffney notes, they will continue to use terror.

And the word "illusions" is unsuccessful is next to the name of Abu Mazen. Soon after his appointment, the President of the United States was surprised by the Prime Minister, having learned what a new prime minister was for a person. During one of the meetings, he made it clear to his advisers that he was very glad to the fact that the Palestinians elected the prime minister of a young energetic revolutionary. Then one of the officials of the State Department explained with a smile: Mr. President, he is 68 years old, and he worked all his life with Arafat.

In Washington, the attitude to the abbas is ambiguous, and its reputation is sometimes called "dark." The administration has hopes for him, but is almost ready to admit that there are no firm grounds for these hopes. In the best case, Abbas is a mysterious person.

The position of Sharon, apparently, is somewhat better, although he does not enjoy such a huge support for society as his predecessor Ehud Barak.

One Jewish lobbyist was asked to name the figure in the government of Sharon, which is most popular in American society. He was in thought for almost a minute and, finally, said the name: Nathan Sharansky.

However, the administration works in close cooperation with Sharon, and the attitude towards it only improved after the recently made moderate statements. According to the source familiar with negotiations between Israel and the White House, the administration has illusions in relation to Sharon. “They believe that they will be able to successfully advance the political process without even facing it along the way,” he said. That's what they think, that's what they hope.

These "they" are influential, key people in the leadership of the United States. President, Vice President, Head of the Middle Eastern Department in the National Security Council Elliot Ebrams:.

Now newspapers and magazines are actively digging in the present and past Ebrams (they study its role in the Iran-Contra, for example). Many consider it unreliable.

The person who is now heading the settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict from the very beginning objected to how the roadmap was created. He did not want Europeans to participate in this process, and did not want to quarrel with Sharon because of the question of settlements. Some representatives of the State Department suspect that Ebrams is actually not going to implement the quartet plan, with which he did not agree from the very beginning.

People who know the US Vice President Richard Cheney believe that he is one of the main supporters of close cooperation with Sharon. They say that for this he has two motives. The first, political motive lies on the surface: the right wing, especially the right-wing Christians, sympathizes with Israel, and the US leadership is not interested in a clash with this camp due to the not so necessary pressure on Israel.

A deeper reason is at the same time and more interesting. Someone once said that the United States should not complicate the life of Israel, demanding various concessions from him, because in the future the day may come when similar concessions in the war with terrorism will require the United States, and Cheini is not ready for these concessions. If during the coming months this line is strengthened in the administration, there is nothing to worry about Sharon. There will be no serious pressure on it.

At the same time, there is an opinion that Israel makes a mistake, counting on neo-conservators or Christians. As Jeffrey Kemp from the Nixon center notes, this week in Europe Bush made it clear that he wanted to "restore connections" with the world. The right, according to Kemp, in any case, will vote for Bush, because they will not have alternatives. And the president will soon take a more pragmatic position. In the end, he is the son of his father, says Kemp.

The decisive question, of course, is whether he wants, like his father, to enter into a fight against the Israeli Prime Minister due to settlements. In the Bush team there are those who have their own considerations in this regard. For example, Douglas Faith from the Ministry of Defense said several months ago that the United States should stop talking about settlements using "negative terms." But there are much more others who adhere to a more traditional position: they believe that settlements should be destroyed.

The other day, a person familiar with the point of view of the president, noted that the president is somewhat naive about the issue of settlements. It is clear to him that they should be dismantled, but "he does not understand why now they are doing such a big problem."