In Congress, key Republican and Democratic allies of Ariel Sharon’s government have not minced words: They are already pressing the White House to adopt a more staunchly pro-Israel position by calling on the president and the secretary of state to “temper” their support for the long awaited road map, drafted by the quartet and embraced last June by President Bush, who had pledged “my personal commitment” to its implementation in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute on March 14.

The plan envisions, in three phases, the creation of Palestinian institutions, the establishment of “an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty” by the end of the year, and a final agreement reaching defined borders of the state, with “the maximum territorial contiguity” by the year 2005.

Not so fast, these congressional leaders, spearheaded by the fanatically pro-Israel House Majority leader, Tom DeLay are now saying. In a rare public split with President Bush, these legislators are aggressively making their views known: The administration is “undercutting” Israel by embracing the plan, which is to be presented as a non-negotiable document calling on Palestinians and Israelis to take parallel steps to move toward peace. Very simply, these GOP and Democratic leaders in Congress — forever competing for Jewish-American voters and donors — have made it clear, in speeches and a letter scheduled for delivery to the White House later this month that they will oppose any deal that “imposes significant requirements” on Israel, as they claim the road map does.

The Washington Post reported last week that several Republicans on the Hill are saying that “Bush has privately assured them that he agrees with them, but they expressed concern that Powell and British Prime Minister Tony Blair might manage to soften his resolve.”

So Bush’s on-again, off-again campaign to bring peace to the region is up against concerted opposition in Congress by legislators who believe that “we are absolutely right to stand with Israel,” as DeLay, a born-again fundamentalist who views Israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, thundered at a conference in Washington last Wednesday that had brought together right-wing Jews and evangelical Christians, who had come to town to demonstrate their support for Israel.

For his part, Ariel Sharon is already digging in for a hard fight over the phraseology in the three phases of the road map. With regard to the “independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty,” for example, he wants “independent” taken out and the word “certain” inserted before “attributes of sovereignty.” And “the maximum territorial contiguity” is too much for Palestinians to enjoy in their homeland, he believes, and thus wants the absurd addenda, “where this is possible.” This is one of 100 changes Israel reportedly wants.

Lest we forget, Bush is an unwavering supporter of Sharon, whom he had at one time improbably called a man of peace. Yet he has been lobbied equally heavily by officials of the quartet and the State Department, who consider the road map a non-negotiable document, as he has been by friendly Arab leaders who believe that the president should make the pursuit of peace in Palestine a crucial follow-up to the Iraq war.

This may turn out to be in vain. These pro-Israel congressional leaders plan to tell Bush in their letter that before involving the US in attempts to implement the road map, the administration should demand of the Palestinians the creation of a new leadership with “real authority,” a “cessation of terrorist acts,” and the establishment of an “effective security apparatus.” Only these principles, they will be asserting, will form “the basis for peace.”

Thus, a more likely follow-up to the Iraq war will not be the settlement of the Palestine conflict but the settlement of scores that the US feels it has with Syria and Iran. America, in other words, is hell-bent on deepening the breach between itself and European leaders — including Britain’s Blair— on the one hand, and, on the other, deepening the backlash against it that has been building in the Arab world since the war started.