Softball

Bush met Sharon in the formal surroundings of state, far more formal than his time with Mubarak in Crawford TX. However, the tone was probably a lot less formal during the meeting and the statement was a lot less meaningful when the Bush-Sharon meeting was over. Sure, I could read into the details of it and search for nuanced changes of policy. In reality, though, Bush's policy remains unchanged, and he is obviously not going to challenge Israel unless and until it becomes an absolute necessity for maintaining the peace.

The most important issue in this meeting was the Israeli wall, of which Bush said:

The barrier being erected by Israel as a part of that security effort should, as your government has stated, be a security, rather than political, barrier. It should be temporary rather than permanent, and, therefore, not prejudice any final status issues, including final borders. And its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities.

I guess if you're looking for policy alteration, this might tickle your fancy:

In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

It's not really new as much as it is newly admitted on a high stage. He uses the date 1949 to mean 1967, because that way it tricks people who aren't thinking hard about it and it sounds more out-of-date and archaic, and less contradictory of the UN and everyone else. It's not like Sharon needed to have carte blanche to act like it - the only thing that is ever going to stop this man is death - but I don't think it's very helpful to publically give him such a fawning endorsement.

My philosophy on the peace process now is pray hard, hope not too many people get killed, and wait for Sharon and Arafat to die.