Ironies abound as the 'war on terrorism' in the Middle East is getting bogged down in detours that were quite unexpected, and certainly not part of the 'script' written in Washington or its allies in Tel Aviv.

Ever since the Bush administration took office in January 2001 and Sharon assumed office as the prime minister of Israel a month later, both have had a common agenda regarding the leader of the Palestinians, Yasser Arafat.

The United States was determined to ignore him, treating him a virtual pariah not even to be touched by a pair of tongs. He never received an invitation to visit the White House in the last 15 months.

Sharon publicly expressed regret at not having killed Arafat when he was defence minister during the 1982 Battle of Beirut, while the Palestinian leader was first beleaguered and then forced to quit his base in Lebanon.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell's three-hour meeting with Arafat in his battered compound in Ramallah on April 14 was a failure of both American and Israeli policy  because it demonstrated that Arafat remains relevant to the future of Middle East peace.

For Arafat, the survivor of many a battle, it probably vindicated his oft-expressed belief in the 'power of the weak'.

Ironies

Arafat's cause has been emboldened by the counter-productive results of the following factors: Israeli military force in the last two weeks, the contradictions in American policy and the resilience of the most lethal weapon in the Palestinian armoury, the suicide bomber.

A stark contradiction reflecting double standards of the 'war on terrorism' became evident on the same day last week, when the United States was presenting a different perspective on a similar issue.

On April12, American spokespersons were busy denouncing Palestinian 'suicide bombers' and urging Arafat to follow suit, with Powell even refusing to meet him until he duly did so.

Conversely, the United States was praising the commitment to "peace and a negotiated settlement" by the head of the Tamil Tigers, Vellupillai Prabhakaran, reputed to be the architect of modern-day suicide bombings whose tally includes killing of both a former prime minister of India and a president of Sri Lanka.

Is this dichotomy in American approach toward suicide bombings due to religion or a differing definition of its national interest on the same issue, since the leader of one set of suicide bombers is being praised while another leader, who a few days ago denounced the killings of civilians on the Israeli and Palestinian sides, is being penalised?

Another irony is the apparent helplessness of the world's supposed sole superpower, which has been defied with impunity by Israel despite its dependence on a US$3.5 billion annual subsidy from Washington.

On April 4, a visibly angry Bush announced that he was despatching Powell to bring peace to Palestine and ordered Israel to "withdraw now without delay" from areas of the Palestinian Authority that it had occupied.

A week later, General Sharon rejected the American demand, and the very next day Powell acquiesced, meekly stating, "No timetable has been given for the Israeli withdrawal.''

New realities

Notwithstanding these ironies, the intensity of the Intifadah in recent weeks and the extent of Israeli repression have changed the 'rules of the game' probably for good, spawning new realities in the process. Three are apparent.

First, Israel has already lost the game politically and morally, although militarily it may seem still to be ascendant.

Despite Israel's alleged massacre of what news reports say may be up to 500 Palestinians in the Jenin refugee camp last week, its brutal capacity to kill is unable to match the Palestinian willingness to die.

Such military force is rendered useless against the Palestinians who have no fear of death and are willing to part with their most precious possession, their lives. A woman who once refused to move out of her house without the veil ( hijab ) but is now willing to go out armed with explosives around her body  represents a sea change in the intensity of resistance.

Second, the US-led 'war on terrorism', for which vice-president Dick Cheney toured the Arab world last month to muster support for the coming campaign against Iraq, has witnessed a counter consensus both in the Muslim world and the European Union that Israel, not Iraq, is the main issue.

Third, there is the popular sentiment among the Muslim masses, which finds manifestation both in the street and in statements, including the one on April 7 by Saudi Arabia's intellectuals seeking a review of Riyadh's ties with Washington.

In this regard, an opinion poll of Muslim countries carried out by the American pollster John Zogby is instructive. Releasing its results last week, the poll found that while most Muslims have a favourable opinion of American products and even its culture, there was a highly negative rating for America's Middle East policy, especially Palestine, which is at the core of the region's anti-Americanism.

Popular ire

Popular ire has already spilled out into the Arab street, with huge demonstrations in Morocco, Egypt, Bahrain and Sudan among other countries last week.

In Amman, one demonstration was led by Queen Raniya herself while Morocco's King Mohammed VI told Powell when he called on him in Rabat: "You should have gone to Jerusalem first.''

Instead of preparing to launch the second phase in the 'war on terrorism' on Iraq as Washington's script would have it, American diplomacy is now busy fire-fighting not just in Palestine. It is also trying to prevent a 'second front' against Israel from Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, hence, Powell's pleas with leaders in Beirut and Damascus on April 15.

Christian conservatives and Jewish groups in the United States have politically coalesced to pressure President Bush to pursue a pro-Israeli policy, which continues to drive America's Middle East policy. Indeed, the Washington Post says that "at the core, President Bush has a solidly pro-Israeli outlook".

Earlier this month, the newspaper reported that a survey had shown that the Bush tilt toward Israel has "pleased the US Jewish groups", a significant development given that 80 percent of Americans with Jewish backgrounds had voted against Bush in the 2000 election.

Apparently, Bush is determined not to be a one-term president, unlike his father who lost despite winning the Gulf War. (IPS)