U.S. to Take It Slow on Mideast

President Bush last week committed himself to a new push for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, a goal he declared was “within reach.” But as the president and his team intensified their effort, they also left no doubt that they intended to move forward one cautious step at a time.

Although the president’s State of the Union address suggested that he viewed Middle East peace as a potential centerpiece of his legacy, the administration has made it clear that it will focus its efforts on shorter-term goals. And that although they will offer vigorous assistance, they view their role as helping rather than leading the way.

Condoleezza Rice underscored this point in arranging her first overseas trip as secretary of State. She made plans to meet with Israeli and Palestinian leaders today and Monday -- but will leave before a much-anticipated summit between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is held Tuesday in Egypt.

“It is extremely important that the parties themselves are taking responsibility,” she said Friday.

“We really want to be supportive of the parties and their efforts. Not every effort has to be an American effort.”

The United States’ cautious approach doesn’t mean that the White House won’t someday focus more directly on the tougher, long-term issues that have so often undone the peace effort, such as land, control of Jerusalem and the status of Palestinian refugees.

But it does mean that the president intends to limit his political risk while he waits to see whether, in the course of this year, the two sides take advantage of several promising developments. These include Abbas’ recent election and an increasingly coordinated effort to carry out Sharon’s planned withdrawal of Israeli settlers and troops from the Gaza Strip this summer.

By proceeding cautiously, the White House can avoid confrontations with Sharon and allies within the Israeli government as well as with Jewish groups in the U.S., most of which support the Gaza initiative.

The Israelis prefer to keep the international focus on security issues, Palestinian reform and development and the Gaza withdrawal -- not on what they should concede to the Palestinians. Sharon’s government also is under pressure from Israeli settlers and their supporters to drop the withdrawal plan and maintain hawkish positions.

But the U.S. approach is likely to earn the disapproval of Europe, with which the administration hopes to improve ties in its second term.

European leaders have praised recent signs of renewed U.S. involvement in the Middle East issue but worry that too much attention is being paid to demands for Palestinian political reform and ending militants’ violence and not enough to Palestinian grievances.

The U.S. effort is “entirely commendable,” said one European diplomat in Washington, who asked not to be identified. But if “average Palestinians don’t believe that the new government is heading where they want to go, then the [Abbas] government won’t get the support it needs. It will be weak.”

In his State of the Union speech, Bush promised $350 million for the Palestinians -- $150 million for the coming fiscal year and $200 million in a supplemental budget request. The money is to be used to rebuild infrastructure, provide jobs, advance internal governmental reforms and build support for the new Palestinian leadership.

The money isn’t the Bush administration’s only initiative. It is also pushing the idea of a three-government commission, involving Americans, Israelis and Palestinians, to monitor security conditions and defuse potential problems. There have also been discussions about three-way sharing of U.S. intelligence information to prevent militant attacks.

In his State of the Union address, Bush made clear his high hopes for the peace effort, describing Israeli-Palestinian progress as a key element in democratic changes he seeks to promote in the Middle East. Members of Congress who have been pushing the administration to step up its presence in the region have been delighted.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-Del.), ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stood to applaud the president’s Middle East proposal during the State of the Union.

Biden said the key to progress was the active participation of U.S. leaders. He predicted that an activist agenda might “be on the verge of getting broader support within the administration.”

Yet some U.S. officials and analysts contend there is no new approach -- only that circumstances have changed to give the old Bush approach a new shot at success.

Bush made a major speech on the conflict in June 2002, emphasizing the need for security improvements and reforms by the Palestinian government. At the time, with Yasser Arafat in charge of the Palestinian Authority, the proposal went nowhere.

Now, with the changes set in motion by Arafat’s death, the same proposals could meet with success.

Robert Malley, an advisor to former President Clinton on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, said the Bush administration was committed to a short-term agenda for now.

“We shouldn’t try to delude ourselves into thinking they’re trying to resolve the whole [conflict] at this point,” Malley said. “I don’t think that’s on the agenda right now. And I think they’re probably right about that.”

But Malley, who now directs the Mideast program at the nonprofit International Crisis Group in Washington, said that although the United States was likely to put off decisions on the “final status” issues, it might find it difficult to postpone action on other charged problems.

Troublesome intermediate issues include the growth of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the path of a barrier Israel is building in around that territory.

“They’re going to have to deal with that without crossing an Israeli ‘red line,’ but coming close enough to what the Palestinians want, to make the process sustainable,” Malley said. “If not, [Abbas] will be significantly undermined.”

David Makovsky, a senior fellow at the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said it could be a mistake to try to figure out the administration’s future course on the issue.

“So much is riding on whether the withdrawal goes right,” Makovsky said.

“They’re waiting to see what happens, and I don’t think they know yet what they’ll do next.”