By approving the "unilateral" proposals of Premier Ariel Sharon in order to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (proposals that have really aggravated the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference), the White House has given a slap in the face to the entire Muslim world. The President's ill-considered choice will not bring about peace and will exacerbate the already explosive situation in the Middle East.
Why did George W. Bush (who wanted to present himself as the "mediator" in order to push Israel and the PLO into a just peace) in the end "marry" the policies of the Israeli premier Ariel Sharon, provoking not only the ire of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, but also Jordan's monarch Abdallah II, the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference?
Arriving at the White House in Washington in the middle of April, Sharon illustrated his "unilateral" plan to resolve the Palestinian problem: Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, and their withdrawal from a few settlements in the West Bank. In exchange he asked for: the acceptance of the "impossibility" that Israel return to the pre-1967 "six day war" borders; the perpetual renunciation of the "right of return" for the Palestinian refugees; the continuation of most of the settlements (totaling approximately 160) in the West Bank; the entirety of Jerusalem under total Israeli sovereignty; and the continuation of the "wall" under construction in the West Bank.
Why has Bush blessed such a plan, for the first time over-turning the policies of the White House which, up to now at least formally, had always based its policies toward Israel/Palestine on the realization of the UN resolutions? Some hold that Bush decided to do it in the hope of insuring the vote of the important Jewish minority in the USA in the presidential election of November, when the whole issue of American policies in the Middle East will be weighed in order to push the electorate to confirm the incumbent president or to choose the Democrat John Kerry.
More likely, strategic confusion was at the root of Bush's decision. When - outside of the legality endorsed by the United Nations - on the 20th of March, 2003 he started the "preventive war" on the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, Bush spoke of wanting to destroy an overbearing "Rais" accused of accumulating weapons of mass destruction (never found), but certainly not to attack a Muslim country as such.
Now a year after that war, not only are there movements more radical in Iraq, but there is also a majority of the public opposed to the military occupation of the country (and the democracy "exported" from the USA with the war) who are ready for the resistance. In such a picture, this "marriage" to the unilateral proposals of Sharon says to the Arab masses, and also to non-Arab Muslims, that their reasons do not matter to Bush. It therefore demonstrates - this is the conclusion that the average Arab man-on-the-street has - that the head of the Western (formally "Christian") empire is attacking Islam as such. Even if not all Arabs and Muslims arrive at such a drastic conclusion, surely the more radical groups will. In any case, Bush's policies seem purposely designed in order to obliterate any "moderate" Arab leaders credibility or margin for error.
A year ago Bush promised that he would be the arbitrator, judging the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with impartiality, and helping them both reach a reasonable compromise with the Road Map. With his last choice he announced that he was a fan of one of the contenders. A provocative attitude that can perhaps "fly" at a Texas rodeo, but certainly not if he has in his heart, a long tenure, the true security of Israel, an honest Israel-PLO peace, a respectful attitude toward the Muslim world, or cleaning the much deprecated "Islamic" terrorism out of the barn.