Secretary of State Colin Powell arrived in the Middle East, met the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and left without any diplomatic achievement. True, Israel made a few small gestures, but it did not commit itself to the "road map", the American plan for restarting the peace process.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon rebuffed the American request that he freeze construction in Israel's settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, explaining that this construction was essential to provide for the "natural increase" of the settlements' population. Appealing to his guest's Republican heart, Sharon asked: "Do you want the settlers to have abortions?"

So in the aftermath of Powell's visit, large numbers of questions continue to waft through the Middle East. But they are all, when it comes down to it, progeny of one central question: what does Ariel Sharon really intend to do?

Sharon has, for more than a year, been declaring that he is prepared to take "painful steps" to achieve a lasting peace with the Palestinians. He even speaks of a process that will lead to an end of Israel's occupation of the territories, with the Palestinians receiving their own state. These are encouraging promises, especially from a man who has in the past branded as traitors people who dared suggest this very kind of compromise. Is he speaking truthfully? Or is he pulling the wool over our eyes, as he has done so often before? Maybe he is handing out generous promises, assuming that he can always count on Palestinian terror to abort any dialogue or at least provide a good excuse for suspending it.

Sharon's promises offer hope, but only until one examines the conditions he places on them. The Palestinians, he says, must completely cease all terror actions and disarm all Palestinian militias. They must also give up their demand for a "right of return" - that is, the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their former homes in Israel. This concession must come before negotiations begin.

advertisement

advertisement

In principle, Sharon's demand is logical and just. In fact, Israel must insist on a Palestinian abjuration of the right of return in the final agreement. Yet to insist that the Palestinians make this concession before negotiations even begin is to ensure that there will be no negotiations at all and that terror will continue. It will ensure that desperate Palestinians will take ever more extreme positions, including on the right of return.

It is clear to everyone that giving up the right of return will be an extremely difficult and painful psychological step for the Palestinians. Senior Palestinians I have spoken to recently say they realise that they will, in the end, have to give up their aspiration for the refugees' return to homes that are now inside Israel's borders. Yet they add that they will be able to insist that their countrymen make this concession only if they can show that they have achieved, in negotiations, significant Israeli concessions. "A Palestinian leader foolish enough to propose conceding the right of return in order to begin negotiations with Israel would be assassinated immediately," I was recently told by one the ministers in the Palestinian cabinet headed by the Palestinian Authority's new Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas, known also by his nom de guerre, Abu Mazen.

Sharon's other demand, that the Palestinian Authority fight terror, is also justified and morally correct. Nevertheless, no Israeli or Palestinian believes that Abu Mazen can, in his current stage of weakness, eradicate terrorism, or even fight it effectively. For the past three years, Israel has made a huge and effective effort to fight Palestinian terror itself. In doing so, however, it also shattered the same Palestinian government and security apparatuses that it now expects to halt terrorist acts. Furthermore, Abu Mazen knows well that he must act with determination of a type not yet seen in the Palestinian Authority against Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Yet he is trapped and nearly paralysed between the contradictory pressures, expectations, and threats pressing on him at home and from the outside. If he fights a war to the death with Hamas, he will lose the support of his own people. If he does not fight Hamas, he will lose the support of the Americans and Europeans. If he does fight, a Palestinian civil war could well break out. That will lead to increased Palestinian support for Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, who is lying in wait for his Prime Minister to fail. If Abu Mazen does not fight, and terrorists succeed in carrying out attacks against Israel, Israel will have an excellent excuse for pulling out of negotiations.

So the keys are in Sharon's pocket and the one really essential question, the axis around which the entire situation moves is: Does Sharon really, seriously mean to keep his promises? Is he speaking the truth when he speaks of a "window of opportunities" and a commitment to President George Bush's vision of a Middle East peace?

It's amazing how much now depends on a single man. It's no less amazing to realise that if Sharon were to decide to truly turn on to the path of compromise, and to take serious steps to build Palestinian confidence, he would have the support of the great majority of Israelis. So the polls say.

Will he do it?

Look where we are now. Iraq has ceased to be a threat to Israel. Syria is frightened and promising to rein in the terrorist organisations that operate with its support. Arafat has, for all intents and purposes, been relieved of his powers and influence. The Palestinian Prime Minister sharply condemns terror against Israel. The only major military power in Israel's proximity today is the United States. Had an angel come from heaven a year ago and given Israelis a glimpse of their current position, they would have thought that the Messiah was on his way.

Yet this really is our position, and our leaders must read the map properly to prepare for the future. If Sharon refuses to take advantage of this rare opportunity to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once and for all (on terms very good for Israel), if he continues to play tough and arrogant, it will be an act of historical irresponsibility. It will increase hostility to Israel in the region and in the world. It will entrench the conflict and will prevent any chance of normality.

Which way will he choose?