What it means is clear. Reality comprises two elements: words cost nothing and secondly, there are hard American interests that in practice override what was in effect the Bush manifesto for his second term. If the beautiful sentiments of his manifesto are not meant to apply universally, they become secondary, if not worthless to real American interests and concerns.

Primacy goes to interests. Not that one can object to American Administration pursuing its national interests and to subordinate the expedient rhetoric. There is nothing new in that. All states do that. But what is exasperating is to be subjected to such passionately idealistic and high minded sentiments that befool the unwary but in practice go on befriending the assorted Kings and dictators, exempting them from the logic of what is being proclaimed as the Grand Idea: freedom or democracy.

What are America's main interests? US foreign policy has necessarily to do what the American economy needs. That is a categorical imperative -- and it cannot be objected to in theory, though one can object the methods adopted involve sacrificing others' interests. Let's be specific.

When one deals with the interests of a world power, the unavoidable course is to look for the problems and areas that preempt most of its time, energy and resources. Inevitably, ME emerges as a set of complex problems in which the US is deeply involved. These problems are many. But those that grab the attention are two: the first is the age-old Arab-Israeli problem; this is the oldest and difficult even in theory. The second is the possible spreading chaos in Iraq despite Jan 30 polls. Iraq, requiring ampler treatment, will be taken up next time. Here one must stay confined to the Arab-Israel dispute. For, this is the key to many ME problems and so long as it is not solved, ME will remain unstable and democratisation of Arab countries will continue to elude.

Basic facts about this clutch of issues are clear. Israel came into existence in 1948 in the teeth of Arabs' opposition by a UN resolution, piloted by the US and UK diplomacy. Arab states rushed to occupy Palestine areas where Israel was going to be established. But the Israeli settlers' vigilante groups managed to defeat all Arab armies put together. Arab states did not recognise Israel for a long time. In 1967 Israel mounted a sudden, preemptive 'Six Day War' and occupied all of remaining Palestine and chunks of territories that belonged to Jordan, Syria, Egypt; it occupied a strip of land in Lebanon separately.

By 1974-75 the socalled Arabs' Rejectionist Front had had its unity broken by the Kissingerian concept of Mini-Palestine; it was accepted by a growing number of conservative Arab states -- and at length even the legendary Yasser Arafat came to accept this two-state solution of the Palestine problem. Although Israel had made sub-rosa contacts with Arab states like Jordan and Morocco earlier, the sudden appearance of Anwar-us-Sadat in the Israeli Knesset in 1977 was a spectacular breakthrough. More Arabs became advocates of two states in Palestine: Israel and Palestine: But the real man who symbolised the Arab-Israeli dispute was Abu Ammar (Arafat) who also accepted this solution. Even so, peace eluded Arabs. Why?

The cause was Israeli bad faith. It had, with the help of Dr. Kissinger, double-crossed Abu Ammar. It professed it liked peace with Arabs and sought their recognition. But what it loved more was Arab lands primarily in Palestine. Not only that. Even initially (1948) Israel occupied more land by force in Palestine than the UN had sanctioned it. But in 1967 war, it occupied all of Palestine and many more lands of Syria, Egypt and Lebanon; it has not ended its military occupation of these even after almost 38 years except returning Sinai to reward Sadat.

Most Arabs are aware that the Israeli fundamentalist ultras do not want any peaceful settlement; all they want is Palestinian lands minus the Arabs. On one pretext or another, Israel refuses to make peace with them. See what happened to Oslo Agreements. It does not accept such elementary demands of Arabs as Jerusalem's control and the right of refugees to return to their homes in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel from where Israeli fundamentalists had them driven out in 1948. Israeli hardliners make no bones about what they want: they want to drive out the Palestinians from West Bank and annex these areas.

A test of Israeli intentions is on hand. New election in occupied Palestine has thrown up Abu Mazen as the new elected President; these polls were credible. Palestinian-Israeli talks impend. Would Israel show some flexibility and magnanimity? Would the talks succeed? Would not Israel go on demanding more concessions from Arabs while making none? Only time will show.

What the US does not realise is that the Palestinians' cause is now an Arab cause. Pro-west governments in the region are sitting on dynamite of growing popular resistance. If the US and Israel refuse to be fair minded toward Palestinians, the stability of conservative Kings and dictators cannot be guaranteed by US alone. The Israelis' dream of mixing American capital, their own organising and managerial talents and Arabs' natural resources and labour to produce untold riches for US and themselves while improving Arabs' lot somewhat more is not realistic without a solution of Palestine problem.

It is true that the Israeli establishment partially realises that hardliners of their own and that of American neocons do not fully realize that as time passes, Arabs are not likely to become more moderate and meek. Rather the contrary may happen. Stability of ME has already eroded so much; continuation of the frustrations of Arabs and arrogance of US-Israeli combine is sure to radicalise Arabs more. The US has tremendous stakes in the stability of ME. It possibly stands to lose some of its stake in oil. General Arab sentiment is against the US that is seen as the protector of Israel and is not an honest broker: it is far too committed to Israel -- and at Arabs' expense.

The point is simple: both Israel and US, as its chief protector, have gone too far in oppressing and humiliating Palestinians; nor are they trusted by any Arab to be straightforward. Somehow the American expertise fails to notice the long-term consequences of Arabs' anger and frustration over their own Kings' subservience to the ugly American -- think of what the Arabs are likely to have concluded from Fallujah and Abu Ghraib. Israel would soon see the limits of its power and opportunities as soon as the Americans begin to realise the jeopardy their economic interests are in for the simple reason that they can be so easily manipulated by Israel and its supporters.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.