Indeed what is important to see is that Sharon is actually trying to annex as much West Bank land as he possibly can in the name of Jewish settlements on that territory ­ a crude predatory colonialism of a primary kind. Is Israel, under the plan, certain to withdraw from Gaza Strip? Or is it merely a PR slogan? He has put so many conditions on the supposed withdrawal as to render it meaningless: Israel will continue to target individuals it thinks are terrorists or are organizing terrorism; Israeli Army would continue to raid and punish Palestinian 'wrongdoers', in its own eyes. Everyone knows that this withdrawal is motivated by an analysis of costs and benefits: it is far more costly to keep it than to let it alone formally and continue doing what it has been doing as an occupying power.

Sharon's attention is actually focused on West Bank land. He has already put up a wall deep inside that territory. Areas on the Israeli side of the wall are as good as having been annexed already. How much more land he can grab under various guises from the West Bank remains to be seen.A major part of Sharon's Plan is never to permit Palestinian refugees back into their old homes in Israel, never. If they want to come back, they would be welcome to whatever bits and pieces of Palestine are left with the Palestinians. Whether all the Palestinians that are left on the remaining West Bank land can actually form a viable state of their own, in the sense of contiguity, is doubtful. Needless to say, that (a) far too little of original Palestine would be left for Palestinians after the present appetite of Sharon's Israel is satiated, if it can be satiated; (b) whatever may be available of the once-agreed Palestinian state under Oslo agreements would not be contiguous or economically viable; nor would it be free of Israeli Army's control, nominally for assuring security on the roads crisscrossing West Bank for connecting the so many "settlements".

The Bush government has endorsed the Sharon Plan in its entirety. That is a political reversal of 56 years old American foreign policy vis-à-vis Israel and Palestine. It was for the US to decide and it has opted to turn its back on its own past. Others should not be surprised, for signs of change in US stance were multiplying. But in terms of international law, it cannot be dismissed lightly because America is the only super, indeed hyper, power of the day. America now fully shares the moral responsibility for allowing Israel to keep "some" land on the West Bank and secondly the Palestinians' right of return to their original home has been repudiated by the American government for the first time.

It is indeed a new world: no nation's historical home can be considered permanently its home now; its rights on its land in perpetuity were never questioned before. Mr. George W. Bush and his government constitute the first major power to do so. Earlier it was only Israel that regarded

Palestinians as less than a people, whose Prime Minister once (1969) doubted whether there is any such thing as a Palestinian people. Now Bush virtually endorses such a view. It says much for the brave new world that Mr. Bush is actually reshaping. That he is rather clumsy and not all that successful in many matters is another matter. But his decision means a lot to the American policy on Middle East and the future of the UN. We will consider these aspects presently.

The immediate consequence is that the US has ceased to be an honest broker, although it would still continue to broker this or that objective in the region. But the honesty part of it is now gone. Bush could take this huge jump in policy more easily because of the present status of the Arab regimes in the region. From the American viewpoint they deserve the contempt that has been duly shown them. They are actually a string of ciphers. Each Arab gaddi is totally dependent on American goodwill and perhaps subsidy in a few cases. The Muslim world, except for one or two exceptions, eats out of America's hand. None of them can exercise any restraining influence on the sole superpower. In practice they to have been treated as so many zeroes.

What has happened to the Palestinians has happened. That they cannot look to anyone else for support is now abundantly clear. No single Arab potentate or Muslim state can be depended upon for any kind of support to Palestinians.The only meaningful criticism of American and Israeli action has come from European Union. Europe still stands firm on the Quartet Scheme that later became the US Roadmap. What exact significance to attach to the European criticism is hard to say? For one thing, Europe is no longer solidly united insofar as the US actions are concerned. One of the major European power, Britain, is actually Janus-faced; it acts more as an American surrogate in Europe than as a major European power. Some of the new members of the EU also feel beholden to the US; they will need time to readjust themselves into Europe and adopt a European mentality.

But Europe continues to mean two permanent members of the UN Security Council with some residual influence in the Middle East. The EU is also imbued with a certain amount ­ only a certain amount ­ of idealism. Left to themselves, Europeans cannot counter the weight of the US, with tactical support from Britain from time to time. Russia and China could be counted on the side of fair play if the rest of the world brings the two into the Middle East loop. The US is stoutly for its own sway over the Middle East; only Israel is a permanent partner, with Britain being allowed to support its imperial designs when required.

Let's realize the total supremacy of the US inside UN; it rests on the utter impotence of what used to be called former colonies or third world. Time was when there used to be a Non-Aligned Movement. It used to have a leadership that was commonly respected. It had no military muscle, of course; only morality was on its side. That older world is now gone for ever with the departure of Soviet Union, the power that had checkmated the US for 45 years. Now, there is no counter poise to the US. The UN has been reduced to the status of a hand maiden of America; it can assure nobody's security unless it happens to be strong enough on its own. Except for its specialized agencies, its current usefulness is not much greater than the League of Nations.

But it should be clear to all that the world cannot go back to the cold war days; they are gone for ever. But if major Asian powers ­ Japan, China, Russia, India, Indonesia ­ had an Asian forum to develop an Asian position on world problems, things might yet improve for all ­ and the UN. If only Asia had a Helsinki type Conference on Security, Cooperation and Human Rights, things may slowly settle into a new pattern in Asia. The US today is dealing with each bilaterally and it is successful in keeping all of Asia at sixes and sevens, each Asian power vulnerable to America's overwhelming influence.

If on the other hand, there was a growing unity among Asian powers, it could work in tandem with EU. That would make a difference, especially in the UN.

One can also, with some trepidation, mention the possible popular pressure on third world governments to revive their Non-Aligned Movement, the kind of pressure that isolated events ­ Iraq War, WTO, IMF-WB sessions or G8 meetings ­ evoke. In fact, Non-Aligned Movement is far more necessary today than it was in cold war days; it could channelise the urges that one has witnessed at World Social Forum or the various protests. But given the facts of economic life, the chances of any third world personality rising above the rest and creating an organised movement for independence of action, decision-making being predicated on moral and democratic values in third world states, seem rather slim.

The occasion for this daydreaming is about what can the world now possibly do about Palestine,a subject that has been snatched from the UN. The world has effectively betrayed a whole oppressed people; no one stands for their rights. The enormity of deception and unfairness dealt them is unparalleled. One wonders whether human conscience can co-exist with such hard geopolitical facts.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.