Analysis: A blow for Mideast conference

LONDON, Dec. 23 (UPI) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon presented a united front in Jerusalem this week, insisting both parties had agreed there was no need for Israel to attend the Middle East peace conference in London next March. However, the announcement has raised suspicions concerning Israel's level of commitment to U.S. and U.K. plans for the peace process.

Speaking at a joint press conference Wednesday after talks, Sharon said that although Israel viewed the London conference as extremely important, both sides were in agreement that there was no need for Israel to participate as it would be dealing only with "the Palestinian issues."

Blair, in turn, maintained that it was "never anticipated" that Israel would come to the meeting.

However, their absence has prompted speculation that Blair's efforts have been snubbed by Israel, and that the United States has failed to adroitly force Sharon to cooperate with the peace initiative.

Blair is under significant pressure from within the British Parliament and from European leaders to prove he can secure U.S. movement on the peace process in exchange for his support in the "war on terror."

Within Israel itself, the refusal to participate has been touted by some as a failure for Blair.

Last week, Israeli newspaper Maariv quoted Israeli officials as saying that Sharon had only agreed to support the conference after assurances from Blair that it would be strictly limited in scope.

"Blair would ideally have liked to have a full-scale Middle East peace conference in London, but neither Israel nor the U.S. was prepared to support him," it reported.

It is indeed clear that the United States does not share Blair's enthusiasm for the conference. The idea originally met a chilly reception in Washington, but Bush eventually agreed to a smaller scale meeting focused on Palestinian reforms, state-building and security.

A senior American diplomatic source told United Press International Wednesday that though the United States would be present, they did not consider further talks to be particularly important as they have in the past proved to have little effect.

However, a spokesman from the British Foreign Office maintained that Israeli participation "was never seen as a necessary element" and that the decline of Blair's invitation was "not seen as a snub at all."

Questioned as to whether Israel has a useful role to play in Palestinian state-building, he said it was "a bit unrealistic" to expect such cooperation between the two sides at this point.

Israeli Deputy Ambassador to Britain Zvi Rav-Ner also told UPI their position was not a snub to Britain.

There was "no room" for Israel at a conference which was aimed at ensuring international commitment to Palestinian state-building, he said.

It could even be counterproductive for Israel to participate, he said, maintaining, "We might be drawn into the arguments between us and the Palestinians."

Israel very much hoped that the conference would contribute to the peace process, Rav-Ner continued, and any failure could have "very dangerous consequences."

In particular, Israel did not want to be pulled into a "premature" and "ill-timed" discussion over final status, he said.

"We should not hurry and try to get to the more advanced part of the process," he emphasized.

This concern over being pushed into negotiations seems to be the primary reason Israel declined to participate.

Israeli newspaper Haaretz quoted diplomatic sources as saying Blair had scaled back his plans as Sharon was resistant to the idea of an international conference, fearing it would exert pressure on Israel to quit all of the West Bank and Gaza.

The paper also reported Eliot Abrams, U.S. national security adviser on the Middle East, as saying the United States shared Israel's concern that the conference not be turned into a fast track to a final status accord.

Blair has supported Sharon's insistence that the first step must be an end to Palestinian violence, saying at the joint press conference there had to be "a complete and total end to terrorism" in order for peace talks to succeed.

In private talks, Haaretz reported, Blair was even blunter, saying the Palestinians would get no assistance or political support from Britain unless terror was stopped. U.S. President George W. Bush will also not help them, he reportedly said.

He was criticized by aid organization Christian Aid, who said in a press release "while Mr. Blair and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon placed the onus on the Palestinian Authority to comply with its obligations, Israel has not come under the same international pressure to implement its own 'road map' obligations."

The charity voiced its suspicions of Sharon's true commitment to peace, saying that he was using disengagement in Gaza as a distraction from the expansion of settlements in the West Bank.

"It is becoming apparent that Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip is coming at the expense of consolidation and expansion of its settlements in the West Bank," said William Bell, advocacy officer for the organization.

Inayat Bungnawala, spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, told UPI that Israel's nonparticipation in the conference was indicative of their attitude to peace.

"The fact that Israel has said that they're not going to attend is no surprise, it fits into their policy," he said.

Likud's whole philosophy is about holding onto the West Bank, and senior members of Sharon's administration have made clear they will not allow the existence of a Palestinian state, he said.

There is, he said, much skepticism about Israel's intentions and equally about whether Britain has any real influence with Israel or the United States.

Though the Muslim Council of Britain was happy that Blair recognized the importance of a settlement between Israel and Palestine, the only country that really had any leverage in the situation was the United States, he continued.

"I don't think we've seen any evidence of real influence" on Blair's part, he said, and Israel's failure to participate only confirmed that.

"Without the United States on board ... we're not that hopeful," he concluded.

Despite the insistence of all sides that Israel's absence would not be an issue, there seems little doubt that it represents a significant blow for Blair.

Since he needs to prove he can use his special relationship with the United States to advantage, failure to deliver on the Middle East peace process is something he can ill afford.

For now, it seems that pressure is unlikely to abate any time soon.