London - May 1998

As American envoy Dennis Ross, packed his bags and headed home, the Clinton administration put a word that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat were to come to Washington in late May instead of the 11 May summit with the President. The conclusion was foreshadowed by the London summit on 4 May. A Cartoon in the Times depicted Mr Blair as a peace dove flying from Ulster grinning from ear to ear, only to crashes into the wall of the Middle East: dealing with the Irish was much simpler after all.

Mr Blair's bruises from the London incident were confined to some satirical comments and cartoons as Fleet Street held Mr Netanyahu responsible for the failure of the summit as nothing was achieved except an Israeli agreement to plans for a Palestinian airport and seaport in Gaza - issues on which the European Union and Britain have been particularly active, allowing the Palestinian leader to demonstrate some tangible benefits to his frustrated people.

Mr Blair was luckier than President Clinton as the buck was passed back to Washington where the American Jewish lobby has successfully mobilised the Clinton-hating Republican right to undermine the administration's Middle East peace moves.

The London talks were still underway when the Republican majority in the Senate urged Israel to reject the very proposal that the Administration was trying to sell to both sides.

American Secretary of State Madeline Albright invited the Palestinian Mr Arafat and Mr Netanyahu to meet the President in Washington, if they could agree on her proposals understood to be Israeli withdrawal from 13.1 percent of the West Bank, saying "watering [the proposals] down is not in the works". It was a de-facto ultimatum putting Mr Netanyahu on the spot both at home and abroad.

It was Mr Netanyahu who asked Washington to send Mr Ross on a non-scheduled visit, but the mission faced a dead end. The peace process seemed fixated on percentages. If the security of Israel- a small place- would be endangered by handing over 13 percent of the even smaller West Bank, wouldn't it be in as much danger from an 11 percent handover proposed by Mr Netanyahu? asked Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution " by linking land to security Netanyahu is reaching for a cheap trump card to play for his public."

According to sources close to Mr Ross, proposals were dictated to both sides two-month earlier after lengthy discussion. Washington did not make them public to avoid putting pressure on Netanyahu. '' It was so sensitive secrete,' That Palestinian minister Saeb Erekat flew to London to take down the proposals ' word for word' from Mr Ross before returning the same day to Gaza to deliver them to Mr Arafat, to avoid using telephones or faxes.

The unpublished plan proposes handing over 18.2 per cent of the West Bank over a period of 12 weeks to the Palestinians who only control three per cent. It called for establishing an American-Israeli-Palestinian committee to combat terrorism; Arafat must ban incitement against Israel by a presidential decree, and amending the National charter, which demands the destruction of Israel. The Palestinians are to ban the possession of private firearms and to give Israel a list of all Palestinian policemen with the aim of reducing their number.

In April the Israelis leaked part of the details - about handing over land to Arafat - to anti Clinton Republican commentators in the press and 81 out of the 100 strong Senate House implored the Clinton Administration not to press Israel to hand over land to the Palestinians.

Mr Arafat has agreed to U.S. proposal, even though he has said the Oslo accords gave him 30 percent more of the West Bank in this redeployment alone, and contrary to reports in the media, Mrs. Albright did not put any pressure on Arafat. ‘‘She only made it clear that she has taken a tough line with the Israeli Prime Minister,’' according to a source close to Arafat. ‘' You must trust me. You are my friend. I will stand by my initiative.’' She told the Palestinian leader.

Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich accused President Clinton of taking the Palestinian side against Israel, and in a letter signed by signed by a majority of the House of Representatives advised Mr Netanyahu to reject the White House's withdrawal plan. The House also passed a motion 435-0 calling upon Arafat to hand over the leaders of the Palestine Liberation Front who hijacked the luxury Italian liner Achille Lauro in 1985, to 'stand trial in the US for killing American citizens.

Israeli officials, off the record, accused the United States of "violating a long-standing agreement that only Israel can decide on its security needs."

As it was not clear what other options the Clinton administration was considering, Israel's friends in the US were advising Mr Netanyahu not to go ahead with his plans visit the US to meet Jewish groups and members of Congress. - But Mr Netanyahu showed no signs of reversing his plans as we went to print.

When Mr Netanyahu visited Washington in January he devoted more time to cultivating Mr Clinton's rightwing enemies than improving his often-acerbic relationship with the president.

'' Was London summit another gambit used by Mr Netanyahu to divert President Clinton Pressure on him?'' Asked one retired Arab diplomat.

The Palestinian and Israeli leaders did not meet or talk on the telephone and avoided mentioning one another by name when doorstepped by reporters. They agreed on only one thing: a desire that the other should be blamed for the destruction of the Middle East peace process.

Mrs. Albright who shuttled between London's most expensive hotels was portrayed as an Iron Lady, resembling ‘'both Golda Meir and Lady Thatcher'’ by Israeli President Ezra Weizman. He urged Mr. Netanyahu, ‘'to take her seriously'’ when he heard about some of Mr Netanyahu's tactics. Knowing that the pressure will be on him Mr Netanyahu went on the attack, repeatedly asking Mrs. Albright about the Americans' response if Arafat he went ahead with his threat to declare an independent Palestinian state this time next year. (He was infuriated two days later by Hillary Clinton y declaring her support for the creation of a Palestinian state "on the same footing as other states," as she spoke by satellite to a conference of young Israelis and Arabs in Switzerland.) To Mr Netanyahu's frustration, Mrs. Albright gave no specific answer, and the London atmosphere grew tenser.

There was no official agenda declared, but every party had its own, which was totally different from that of Prime Minister Blair.

The Sir Humphreys of the Foreign Office, were unable to talk the Prime Minister out of letting London being used by Mr Netanyahu for his own ends.

Still in the grip of toasting the Good Friday agreement in Stormont, New Labour mandarins put a spin that Mr Blair would extend his healing touch to the Middle East, instead of putting some realistic goals his Middle East visit.

Goals like wooing the Arabs - who historically brand labour as pro Israel and always preferred to do business with conservatives. In fact Mr Blair won a promise from the Saudis - later fulfilled by King Fahd- to release two British nurses found guilty for murdering an Australian woman in 1996. Another objective would have been to sweep the political egg-shells left by Israeli protesters’ greeting Foreign Secretary Robin Cook's controversial visit to Har Homa (or jabal abu Ghuniem, depending where you stand -. Instead Mr Blair, went ahead with his Jerusalem PR routine to pull something out of a hat.

During the Palestinian Israeli talks, there was some brief moments of magic effects in London as 'Cool Britannia' seemed to fit a cut-out of ' Rule Britannia': Some passing tourists in White Hall would have been forgiven for mistaking the year and thinking that Britain still ruled the Middle East. Outside Downing Street two tribes who came to London for arbitration shouted at each other. A couple of dozen Arab demonstrators waved black flags and banners with the slogan, 'Peace process go to hell!' as they chanted 'Allah Akbar!' (God is Great!). Five yards away, a small group of pro-Israelis shouted back: 'Give peace a chance.'

Was it a hologram dove that Mr Blair pulled out of the hat?

Despite the striking similarities between the situation in Northern Ireland and the Middle East, Mr Blair's touch lost its 'Stormont' healing spirit in the London meetings.

In days before the Good Friday agreement both sides cared passionately about what they thought they might lose. All knew that it would be almost impossible to change the terms, after the deal had been struck.

Mrs. Albright had billed the London talks as being 'decisive.' yet Palestinian officials, continued briefing journalists that nothing had been achieved, while Mr Netanyahu was locked in a reverend Ian Paisley mood.

In Comparison, the Ulster ' decisive' deadline set by the US mediator George Mitchell was made crucial by the parties involved. Whatever their differences on politics, they shared the view that this was their last chance. That wasn't the case in London.

Mr Netanyahu - never noticeably enthusiastic about Britain or the European Union - seemed to have taken the initiative in this. The conference was his idea.

''We must broaden things out a little,'' said one of Netanyahu chief aids as he briefed British reports accompanying Mr Blair, ' America isn't the only country with an interest in peace for the Middle East.''

This reasoning was intended to sound good to a British Sunday reader, rather than making a real political sense.

Mr Netanyahu belongs to a political trend with a distinct residual contempt for Britain's colonial record in Palestine. His Likud party is the lineal descendant of the Stern Gang, which bombed King David Hotel, kidnapped and murdered British soldiers.

He is not an ideologue like the two Likud leaders Menachem Begin or Yitzhak Shamir. Getting by is more important to Mr Netanyahu than any given set of principles, something the Americans have already understood. In January, President Clinton spoke bluntly to the Israeli leader at the White House about the need for Israel to stop delaying and agree to a substantial land transfer. On another recent visit, Mr Netanyahu was snubbed by the President, who refused to lunch with him.

Every Israeli wants to hear at least once every three month that Israel is America' most important ally in the region and Washington is committed to Israel's security. Mr Netanyahu, still playing for time, needed more players in the game in order to play one off against another - do parallel deals, muddy the waters. In that sense, and in that sense only, Britain and the EU might be useful to him.

British officials were anxious to point out the carrots offered to Mr Netanyahu: the US offer that the parties can move to "accelerated final status talks." Mr Netanyahu has long wanted a shortcut to final status talks without having to yield substantial amounts of the territory Israel has held since 1967 in an interim deal. And a meeting with Mr Clinton would be a bonus after months of chilly relations. The London conference, by coincidence, was exactly one year away from the date in 1999 when the parties were supposed to have finished their negotiations on permanent borders, settlements, refugees and Jerusalem.

The late Israeli leader David Ben Gurion told the government after the Six-Day War in 1967 that they should hand back everything that they had won - even the Old City of Jerusalem - in exchange for a full and lasting peace.

Oslo accords was a manifestation of Ben Grunion's wisdom: Those who are strong can deliver. Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the Oslo accords, had never been known for dovishness.

Mr Netanyahu, neither and ideologue or a war hero like Rabin, won the 1996 election by promising to bring peace without giving much concessions to the Palestinians, thus facing irreconcilable choices of his own making. Accepting the American initiative would provoke the fury of his ultra nationalist partners. He opted for the other choice to save his coalition and risk a diplomatic conflict with the United States. '

As Ambassador Ross held his futile session of talks with Mr Netanyahu, over in 1,000 supporters of the Islamic radical group HAMS rallied against Israel in Hebron screaming "Revenge, revenge!". One of their leaders, Nais Rajoub, said the Palestinian leadership was "running after a mirage" in trying to reach an accord with Israel.''

In London Mr Arafat who is 69, looked fragile, his hand and lower lip shaking all the times and only spoke once in English. Whoever takes over if the Palestinian leader dies will also lack his popular appeal among the 6 million Palestinians in the world and his reputation as an old revolutionary that helped him keep wild faction on a leash and out manoeuvring Hamas.

The Israelis might one-day regret refusing to make a deal with Arafat now.

_