Two weeks ago, the local press announced that after weeks of inconclusive negotiations, an agreement was reached within the framework of the Roadmap regulating the border crossings in and out of Gaza. At the same time, it became clear that this agreement deprived Israel of means of preventing the passage of terrorists and arms into Gaza.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came to Jerusalem in order to move these negotiations forward, and the newspapers reported that she brutally forced Israel to accept the terms of this agreement. It seems that the staff at the hotel where the negotiations took place heard Condoleezza Rice screaming at Israel's defense minister, Sha'ul Mofaz. On a past visit, the Secretary of State had also vented her anger on Mofaz. The media have devoted attention to two main facts: a confrontation took place; and Israel's sovereignty and its ability to defend itself had been compromised.

Although the United States has always exercised pressure on Israel, this month's drama reflected unusual brutality and forcefulness. What happened was shocking and unforeseen. No state would have knowingly placed itself in the situation Israel faced two weeks ago. While we will have to wait for further details, we can learn something by reviewing the long-term lines of American-Israeli bilateral relations as understood by the Sharon government. One should not generalize on the basis of a single event. Nevertheless, it is of such importance that we must try to understand it.

This brutal confrontation took place despite the fact that one of the priorities of Israeli foreign policy has been to build cordial relations with the American administration, and that, specifically with the departure of Yasser Arafat as a negotiating partner, the Americans would accept a certain Israeli unilateral approach regarding the establishment of its borders and keeping settlement blocs. On several occasions, the Americans have denied the existence of this type of understanding, but the Sharon government has maintained that indeed there is a special American appreciation for Israel's needs. It followed that the Sharon government hoped that this summer's disengagement from Gaza would earn special consideration for Israel, particularly in view of the fact that the Palestinian Authority has not shown any positive cooperation in fighting terror and ending incitement.

The formulation of this policy dates back to Sharon's address to the Herzliya Conference of December 4, 2002 and more recently to his advisor Dov Weisglass' famous interview in Ha'aretz of October 8, 2004. This interview reflects great confidence and buoyant optimism. Here, Weisglass explained that after Israel's seizure on January 4, 2002, of the Karin A (a ship smuggling illegal weapons to the PA), and the documentation of Arafat's financial links to terrorist organizations, the Americans no longer wanted to have anything to do with the ra'is: "From that moment, he was as good as dead."

Weisglass further declared that Israel had adopted the principle that the eradication of terrorism would have to precede the start of a political process. In the meantime, the peace process would be stopped in place, as if it were preserved in formaldehyde: "We received a no-one-to-talk-to certificate. That certificate says: (1) there is no one to talk to. (2)As long as there is no one to talk to, the geographic status quo remains intact. (3)The certificate will be revoked only when this-and-this happens - when Palestine becomes Finland. (4) See you then, and shalom."

There is every reason to believe that the Sharon government endeavored in good faith to protect Israel's interests according to its best understanding of the situation, but things did not work out as hoped. There may have been a change of American policy, or Prime Minister Ariel Sharon may have overestimated his friendship with the American administration. What is clear from this month's ugly and heavy-handed episode is that the US Secretary of State did not show much special appreciation for Israel's critical needs or respect for its sovereignty. Like a broom sweeping away cobwebs, Condoleezza Rice challenged the basic assumptions that, in recent years, have guided Israeli foreign policy.