They have a very close working relationship. I can't remember any two leaders who tailored their policies so closely. It appears to me that Israeli policy is almost entirely made in Washington right now.

Actually, pj, there are many who, with their own inimitable logic, claim precisely the opposite. (Of course, they would have to do this.)



The problem from Israel's point of view, or one of them, is the constraints that she has been under fighting this latest war. Some of these constraints are American ones, though these have loosened somewhat once the US administration began to understand the nature of the Palestinian strategy

(and no, this was not right after 9/11 but approximately May-June 2002, though it would be wrong to say that 9/11 did not play its part).



Other constraints have been due, more precisely, to American plans vis-a-vis Iraq and the perceived need (at least at one time) to garner Arab acquiescence for this "project." While still other constraints are due to Israel's relatively humanitarian (yes, that's right, gasp!) fighting of this particular war.



However, the US can, and likely will, "tighten up" what it has previously "loosened," and Israel can, I believe, expect significant pressure following the Iraq campaign (this to mend fences with the Arab world, to which Bush must viewed as not hostile, to assuage Blair's policy, and to assuage earstwhile allies).



All this, I believe, will reveal the truly artificial (though perhaps transient is the better word) nature of what has thus far been described as the "close" relationship that Bush has with Ariel Sharon.

Isn't Sharon using circular reasoning?



The reason Bush, Truman, Reagan etc. were\are pro-active was because of the experience of appeasing dictators like Hitler.

Barry:



Doesn't Sharon need US pressure so he can explain to his coalition partners why he's pursuing peace?

Barry - I think what unites them is a common strategic vision. Sharon knows that as long as Saddam, the Iranian ayatollahs, Syria, and other Arab dictatorships are fomenting, funding, and training Palestinian terrorism, Israel cannot escape it. Bush is committed to regime change in all the terror masters; the only way it will come about is through U.S. action; therefore Israel needs the U.S. to succeed before it can reach peace with the Palestinians. Israel is willing to temporarily hew to Bush's course in order to help him succeed. Thus Israel has been careful not to undermine U.S. diplomacy with Arab states.



Once Saddam and others are defeated, Sharon and Bush may well diverge. But I think you will find that once Iraq and Iran are democratic, the U.S. will be able to speak from its heart, and take a much more strongly pro-Israeli stance.