SITUATION ANALYSIS -- XIV

Jerusalem, Israel

U.S.-ISRAEL RELATIONS: FRICTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST

A recent poll indicates Israel is one of the least peaceful countries in the world. Yet, in this land of chaos and conflict, religious Jews pray three times a day for peace. But, peace has been the illusive dream. Americans and Israelis, alike, hope that this will be the year when Israeli-Palestinian clashes will end, and Iran will back down from its nuclear pursuit.

Since January 2009, American foreign policy has been reshaped by U.S. President Barak Obama. Since February 2009, Israeli foreign policy has taken on a new dimension under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama with his liberal leanings to the left of the political spectrum, and Netanyahu with his conservative leanings to the right, have found compromise to be difficult on Middle East issues. Friction between both administrations is threatening the strategic relationship between the two democratic allies.

Israel and the U.S. will survive this current chapter in political history, but not without constant American pressure applied to Israel, to offer concessions not only to the Palestinians, but to moderate Arab states, as well. Obama is seeking a quick end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a comprehensive regional agreement that he hopes will move Arab states closer towards peace with Israel.

THE ROAD MAP – PAST AND PRESENT

Talks have centered, recently, on revamping the Road Map for Peace, an agreement proposed by the Quartet (U.S., U.N., EU, and Russia), and outlined by former American President George W. Bush in his June 2002 speech. At that time, Bush called for an independent Palestinian state, proposing that Palestinians could live side by side with Israel in peace. The vision was to protect Israel’s security while offering the Palestinians a viable democratic state.

Three phases were spelled out. A key demand was an end to Palestinian violence, along with the expectation of Palestinian political and military reform. Also agreed upon was an Israeli withdrawal from settlements, as well as a freeze on settlement expansion. The phases offered Palestinians economic recovery, and encouraged Arab cultural and trade links with Israel.
Phase 3 proposed the hosting of an international peace conference. Following that, a permanent final status agreement would deal with an end to the conflict; an agreement on borders; and clarification regarding the fate of Jerusalem, refugees and settlements.

While Israel’s cabinet approved the plan, they attached 14 reservations to the document. Among Israel’s reservations was any linkage to the Palestinian track with other tracks. Arab peace deals (such as with Syria or Lebanon) would be considered separately. Israel also demanded that declared references be made to Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, and the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the state of Israel. In the reservations, Israel acquiesced to certain aspects of Palestinian sovereignty, but, insisted on a de-militarized Palestinian state with only police and internal security forces allowed.

A series of violent Palestinian attacks on Israelis in 2003 derailed the Road Map. In 2006, Hamas took over the Gaza Strip, which outdated the internationally recognized agreement.

Because Israeli leaders and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas have agreed to follow the Road Map, it is expected to be revised in the coming year. Already, in Netanyahu’s Bar-Ilan speech on June 14, 2009, he made references to how the peace process could move forward, signaling Israel’s continued approval of the Road Map. In his Bar-Ilan address, he spelled out many of the Road Map details, including Israel’s reservations.

AN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

To implement the revised Road Map, and include Obama’s vision for a comprehensive Middle East peace, Israel has tacitly agreed to attend another international conference. Israeli leaders have stated that they will need to know the parameters of such a conference, and will insist that Iran and Hezbollah are not included. In the past, international conferences have tended to hurt Israel politically, with diplomats consistently pushing a “land for peace” formula.

One of the reasons the U.S. is encouraging the conference now is to advance the Obama Administration’s agenda. If Russia hosts the conference, which is likely, it will be a way of getting Russian leaders involved more directly in the Middle East, with America hoping they will join a future U.S. led coalition against Iran.

DISPUTE OVER SETTLEMENTS

Several high level Israeli government officials have complained privately and publicly that the settlement issue has been blown out of proportion by the Obama Administration. Increased pressure on Israel to freeze all settlement construction, including “natural growth”, has been rejected by a majority of Israelis and by almost all Israeli political parties. Many think that Obama has overplayed his hand, being driven by an overeager staff bent on humiliating Netanyahu. Meanwhile, outspoken Democrats in Congress and liberal American Jewish leaders have agreed with Obama, which is not helping Israel’s position.

Obama’s worldview of “two states, a Jewish State of Israel and an independent Palestine, in the historic homeland of both peoples”, along with his constant pressure on Israel regarding the settlement issue, has caused Israelis to question his real intentions. Mistrust of Obama can be seen in recent polls that suggest only 6% of Jewish Israelis consider the views of his administration to be pro-Israel. And, 50% consider the policies of his administration to be more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli.

A compromise is being worked out so that both Obama and Netanyahu can say they achieved a political victory on the settlement issue. The U.S. may agree to Israel finishing construction on 2,000-2,500 housing units. Israel may allow a complete settlement freeze for a short period of time during which Arab states would be given the opportunity to normalize ties with Israel.

Settlers have already complained that, since November 2008, there have been no new building permits approved for settlement construction. Ironically, a freeze on settlements takes jobs away from West Bank Palestinians. More than 12,000 Palestinians are employed by both Jewish and Arab contractors who are building new homes. Most Palestinian workers are more concerned with putting food on the table for their families than protesting their political rights to settlement land.

One of Israel’s red lines regarding the settlement issue has to do with construction in Jerusalem, especially East Jerusalem. Israel has said Jerusalem is off-limits until final status negotiations. New construction in Har Homa, a Jerusalem neighborhood that is partially beyond the Green Line, has resulted in international protest. But, Israeli leaders say that Har Homa is non-negotiable.

Settlements have been around for more than 40 years. The U.S., under previous American presidents, agreed verbally with Israel to a quiet settlement formula, whereby Israel promised not to diminish the territory of a future Palestinian state.

Israel is concerned that the Obama Administration is not willing to consider these verbal agreements or a written letter by George W. Bush to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in June 2004. That letter outlined the changing nature of the settlements and facts on the ground that indicated Israel could not be expected to completely withdraw to the 1967 borders in a future peace agreement with the Palestinians.

It’s expected that major settlements like Gush Etzion, Ariel, and Maale Adumim will continue to try and build for natural growth despite U.S. objections. Israeli officials are hoping that the Obama Administration will agree to put the settlement issue on the back burner, and instead pursue a much more serious issue –Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

THE IRANIAN ISSUE

Most Westerners understand that Iran is the greatest threat to the world today. If Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons, Middle East experts say it will prompt an arms race in the region that will undermine peace throughout the world.

Yet, President Obama has not changed his mind in pursuing a diplomatic exchange with Iranian leaders despite a revolution taking place inside Iran between the elites in power. Israelis are aware that reform in Iran will not change the fact that the ruling religious clerics, who control Iran’s power, will continue to pursue a nuclear Iran.

Israeli leaders have urged Obama not to delay his diplomatic talks with Iran, strongly suggesting he end the talks within a given time frame of several months. Israeli officials think that diplomacy will ultimately fail, and the next option will be stiffer U.N. sanctions followed by possible military force.

Israel’s air force has been training for a long-term mission with reports indicating that, if necessary, Israel may launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran to prevent the country from “going nuclear”.

Meanwhile, Israelis are hoping for a peace process that allows the Jewish State to confront the Iranian problem, while refraining from giving in on dangerous concessions to the Palestinians. Whether this balance in diplomacy will be acceptable to the U.S. or not is unclear. What is clear is that the two allies have been at odds on how to solve both the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Iranian issue, and this friction may continue until new governments emerge in both nations.