A RED-CARPET welcome in Israel could be the highlight of George Bush's belated visit to the Middle East. Across the Arab world most commentators heaped scorn on his legacy. One pan-Arab daily published in London said: "Let him be received as a war criminal."
"It would be very, very difficult to find an Arab anywhere who'd have a good word for Bush," Gerald Butt, editor of the prestigious Middle East Economic Survey, told The Scotsman. "It's very difficult for governments that are naturally western-orient
ed like Egypt and Saudi Arabia to counter criticism of America because those governments themselves have been frequently embarrassed by the actions of the Bush administration."
For Mr Bush, who had disdained Bill Clinton's failed peace effort in the twilight of his presidency, the underlying motive appears to be about using his waning months in office to shape a legacy not completely defined by the unpopular war in Iraq.
It also seems to reflect his acceptance of what many critics have long contended – that only by tackling the region's most intractable conflict can he start restoring US credibility and also offset Iran's growing influence there.
"In Bush's thinking, it's like this: 'If I can solve it and Clinton couldn't and Carter couldn't and my dad couldn't, how wonderful that would be for my foreign-policy legacy,'" said Shirley Anne Warshaw, a presidential scholar at Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania. "Even if he fails, he figures he'll get credit for trying."
Many analysts say that if Israelis and Palestinians are to resolve differences that have defied solution for decades, it will require direct, sustained presidential involvement to get the two sides to take the effort seriously. Mr Bush has made it clear, however, that he has no intention of adopting what his administration once derided as Clinton's "shoot the moon" approach to Middle East peacemaking. Though his trip is meant to show a personal commitment, he will find it hard to overcome scepticism in the region over whether he has the perseverance and evenhandedness to shepherd through a deal before leaving office next January.
"There's no sign he has any interest in mastering the details," said Jon Alterman, a Middle East expert at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Many Arabs are concerned that rather than focusing on the core Israeli-Palestinian issue during his regional tour Mr Bush will concentrate on forging a regional front against Iran. A columnist in one Saudi paper worried that "Bush's blood lust" meant he could yet choose to leave office with a "bang". While Washington's Gulf Arab allies are concerned about Iran's nuclear programme they are even more fearful of a military showdown between the superpower and the Islamic Republic.
"Does the United States want the Arab countries to get involved in a confrontation with Iran and spend the rest of their life, wealth and resources on such a confrontation?" asked a commentator in a newspaper in Bahrain, where the US Fifth Fleet is based.
Still, Mr Bush may have little to lose in pressing ahead, given his low approval ratings, due largely to the Iraq war. Even if the end-of-year target for a Middle East deal is missed, he can always say he seeded the way for his successor.
Until then, delving into Middle East diplomacy could help him stave off lame-duck status as he sees his domestic agenda hobbled and attention diverted to the 2008 presidential race. He is not the first exiting president to look overseas in hopes of staying relevant.
"It's the 'get out of Washington' syndrome," Ms Warshaw said. "They all do it eventually."
