LONDON, June 26 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) - U.S. President George W. Bush's call for the removal of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat is impractical and forced London to distance itself from Washington, British experts said Wednesday, June 26, 2002.

Germany, the European Union and Russia have joined Britain in their mute response to Bush's demands for leadership change despite expressing satisfaction at Monday's peace blueprint, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported.

Commentators said that such calls were unrealistic and suggested that the U.S. leader would have done better to lend an ear more widely than his own backyard.

The British government “are distinguishing their policy from the American policy quite clearly,” head of Oxford university's Middle East Center, Eugene Rogan, told AFP.

Bush, outlining his strategy for the Middle East, said Palestinians could expect U.S. support for an independent state within three years if they voted out leaders “compromised by terror” - a clear reference to Arafat, AFP said.

“This is clearly a speech that Mr. Bush needed to consult with others than just [Israeli Prime Minister] Sharon,” Rogan suggested.

His failure to do so could be the downfall of U.S. policy “because what he has put forward is not practical and is not the way things are going to play out in the Middle East,” the expert added.

Arafat threw down a challenge to Bush, calling Wednesday for elections in January that he could easily win.

“If indeed the Palestinians go to elections, I don't think anyone doubts that Arafat will be elected and the Americans will then have to change their line,” Rogan said.

This would be a rebuff to Washington and the eventuality is sure to give British Prime minister Tony Blair and the U.S. President plenty to think about as they prepare to meet later Wednesday at the G8 summit in Canada.

En route, following media stories that Downing Street and the Oval Office faced their biggest rift since September 11, Blair sought to smooth over the differences in comments to traveling journalists, criticizing the failure of the Palestinian negotiating stance.

“All I'm saying is that I don't think this process has been properly negotiated on the Palestinian side up to now,” he said.

“If we want to get agreement it's got to be properly negotiated.”

However, Blair also acknowledged that the Palestinians would “elect who they want to elect,” while emphasizing the importance of finding a leadership “prepared to make a deal.”

London has always felt that its special relationship with Washington meant that it often had a role to play in tempering U.S. foreign policy.

Blair famously promised Britain would “stand shoulder to shoulder” with the U.S. after the September 11 outrage and has been a key player in global war against terror.

William Wallace, a professor at the London School of Economics specializing in transatlantic relations, said the British government felt “deep frustration that the Americans are not prepared to learn from the British experience in Northern Ireland.”

There, Britain left it up to local communities to choose who came to the negotiating table to broker what has been a successful ceasefire.

He said London was also frustrated that “American foreign policy has been captured by domestic lobbies and is unable to produce a balanced approach to the Middle East.”

Middle East expert Rogan went further: “The two constituencies the Americans are concerned with are domestic and Israel. The rest of the world just doesn't get much of a say.”

While the fact the U.S. has put forward a plan has been warmly received and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak praised the proposals as “totally balanced,” some were more concerned.