Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is making a bid to repair relations with Britain.
In his first major trip to a foreign capital since October, Sharon began a three-day visit scheduled to include meetings with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Jewish community officials.
On Monday, Straw welcomed Sharon warmly, praising “the huge amount of work you have been doing to help — in very great difficulties — the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.”
Despite Straw’s praise, tensions between Israel and Britain are high following a number of public disagreements in the past year.
In December, Britain infuriated Israel by rolling out the red carpet for Syrian President Bashar Assad, who is widely considered in the West to be a major sponsor of terrorism.
Soon afterward, Blair snubbed Benjamin Netanyahu, then Israel’s foreign minister, instead welcoming then-Labor Party leader Amram Mitzna, who was running against Sharon in Israeli elections.
Early this year, London convened a conference on Palestinian reform without inviting Israel — or even informing the Jewish state of its intentions in advance.
Israel refused to let Palestinian delegates travel to the conference in the wake of a double suicide bombing, which angered Britain.
Straw in turn incensed Israel by saying that there are “double standards” at work in the West’s treatment of Iraq and Israel.
Most recently, the Israeli government imposed a ban on contact with the British Broadcasting Corporation, which it accuses of anti-Israel bias.
Sharon’s decision to visit London seems to indicate that the two countries have recognized the need to patch up frayed relations.
Britain, meanwhile, is trying to capitalize on momentum for change in the Middle East following the toppling of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, an insider said.
“As after the first Gulf War, there is a changed reality,” David Mencer, director of the Labor Friends of Israel lobbying group, told JTA.
Britain has been among the strongest advocates for the “road map” peace plan.
“Sharon recognizes that Europe is a player, and that it is a good idea to re-establish friendship” with “Israel’s best friend in Europe,” Mencer said.
Even on such a goodwill mission, however, each side was hoping to put pressure on the other to make significant policy shifts.
Sharon wants Britain to cut ties with Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, whom he calls an obstacle to peace.
“I think it’s a major mistake to keep contact with Arafat because Arafat is undermining Abu Mazen’s government,” Sharon said in an interview with two British newspapers before his departure for London, using the nom de guerre for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority prime minister.
“All those visits and telephone calls only postpone the solution here,” Sharon told the Sunday Telegraph and Observer newspapers.
On Monday, statements from Britain’s Foreign Office seemed to indicate that Sharon had failed to persuade London to turn its back on Arafat, but Mencer advised against reading too much into those remarks.
“Behind the scenes, it’s completely clear that Arafat is a discarded figure,” he said.
Foreign Office claims about refusing to cut ties with Arafat are “for the Arab world,” Mencer said.
Britain, for its part, is expected to urge Sharon to be as flexible as possible on releasing Palestinian prisoners.
Abbas has demanded that the vast majority of Palestinian prisoners be freed, but Sharon is refusing to release prisoners with “blood on their hands,” that is, those who have been involved in terror attacks. The dispute has threatened to derail the fragile new peace process.
By weighing in on the Palestinian side, Blair could well rankle an Israeli leader already upset by Britain’s behavior over the past year.
But Mencer said the prevailing desire on both sides is to put the past behind them.
“It’s been acknowledged that mistakes have been made,” he said. “Countries make mistakes all the time.”
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
