Round The World

New Delhi, 25 March 2010

US-Israel Ties

HICCUPS IN HONEYMOON?

By Monish Tourangbam

Research Scholar, School of International Studies, JNU

The formidable US-Israel ties presently seem to be on the rocks as a result of Israel’s decision to build 1600 Jewish homes in Ramat Shlomo in East Jerusalem. The tension has aggravated the announcement of the new construction plans while US Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was on a visit to Israel, thus snubbing the prospects of an American effort to broker indirect talks between the Palestinians and Israel.

Since then, American leaders and their Israeli counterparts have been engaged in efforts to defuse the diplomatic fallout that many commentators see as grave and undermining the broader US-Israel ties. The US maintains one of the most extraordinary alliances with this Middle East Jewish State, a relationship that expands through numerous webs of inter-linkages and which is largely seen as unshakable in its comprehensive nature. But, the current smoke raging over the settlement issue has unleashed forces that have the potential to at least rock the boat vigorously.

The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, seems to be spearheading the ire against the recent Israeli moves and the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, seems equally adamant to prove his hawkish mettle when it comes to the issue of enlarging Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem. Speaking to the powerful US-based pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Secretary Clinton matched optimism and confidence in US-Israel relations with equal skepticism over the controversial decisions taken by the Israel government. She made it known that it undermined the credibility of the US as a honest peace broker in the Middle East.

In her remarks,  Clinton warned that the Obama administration would push back “unequivocally” when it disagreed with the Israeli government’s policies. But she reaffirmed that America’s support for Israel was “rock solid, unwavering, enduring, and forever.” Earlier, she had rebuked the Israeli Prime Minister and listed down some demands that the US hoped Israel should comply with to put the peace process on track. During her speech at the AIPAC meet held at the Washington Convention Centre, she defended her rebuke and displeasure over the Israeli decision, and said that such a move jeopardized the very nature of steps being taken to move forward on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through American-brokered indirect talks.

Secretary Clinton had reportedly demanded that Israel reverse the housing plan, in the neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo; that the Israelis avoid further provocations in Jerusalem during coming peace talks; and that Netanyahu commit to substantive rather than procedural negotiations with the Palestinians. As of now, it is not very clear if the Israeli government has come anywhere close to acceding to the demands put forth, though there are reports that  Netanyahu is willing to make some concessions.

But, since then he has made it very clear in public that Israel would not relent where it matters the most, the crux of the whole episode. He has reaffirmed very categorically that there will be no change of policy on the construction of Jewish housing in East Jerusalem. Netanyahu apologized for the timing of the announcement and called it a mistake “done in all innocence.” But he has not changed his stance a bit on Israel’s insistence on its right to continue building in all of Jerusalem.

The Israeli Prime Minister stated: “No government of Israel for the last 40 years has agreed to place restrictions on building in Jerusalem,” listing every prime minister from Levi Eshkol to Ehud Olmert. He commented that the settlement of Jews in various suburbs of Jerusalem did not harm the Arabs of East Jerusalem in any way. Intended as a clarification to the American government displeased with Israeli to continue construction in East Jerusalem, the Israeli Prime Minister opined that construction in Jerusalem is like construction in Tel Aviv.

Speaking at the AIPAC meet, Clinton tried hard to salvage some brownie points hammering on an issue where Israel and the US have solid common grounds i.e. the issue of the Iranian nuclear programme and its implications in the Middle East region and American security. When she talked tough on stopping Iran from getting the nuclear weapon and plans of putting what she calls sanctions that “bite”, the audience was most receptive and supportive. “There must be no gap between the United States and Israel on security,” she said to loud applause.

But, the tension and the fractures in US-Israel relations became evident when she passed curt remarks and exuded skepticism of the present Israeli policy towards new settlements. Without mincing any words, she  opined that the status-quo in the region was not fruitful and was seriously jeopardizing any prospect of going forward with the impending peace talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel, said  Clinton’s speech reaffirmed the strategic importance of the US-Israel relationship while not backing down on settlements.

She went ahead to praise Netanyahu for his 10-month moratorium on the building of settlements in the West Bank (Jerusalem had been excluded from it), and for backing a two-State solution. While condemning those who incite violence against Israel, she also defended the need to speak out against any decision that might endanger the peace process.  “As Israel’s friend,” she said, “it is our responsibility to give credit when it is due and to tell the truth when it is needed.” 

The comments doing the rounds is that the Clinton speech has calmed the boiling waters to some extent for the time being but the differences over the settlement are still brewing and fingers are being crossed on both sides as to what lies ahead. Even Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren was of the opinion that the US and Israel were facing the most serious case of difference since a confrontation between Henry Kissinger and Yitzhak Rabin in 1975 over an American demand for a partial withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula.

The US has demanded Israel to stop or restrict expansion of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank, pending final status negotiations with the Palestinians. On the other hand, the Israeli government seems unrelenting on the issue of settlement in East Jerusalem. Israel had annexed East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 six-day war and since claimed sovereignty over it, thus seriously complicating the issue as the Palestinians claim it as the capital of its future State. Jerusalem is at the centre of the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis.

As such, it is obvious that the most vicious disagreements will come over this issue. The US-Israel alliance is passing though a rough storm, but at the same time the alliance is time-proven and crisis-proven, cemented over the years through numerous deep-seated defence, strategic, economic and socio-cultural linkages. The coming days will unravel more questions on this alliance and the corresponding answers will come forth providing more insight into the nature of this formidable yet controversial relationship.--INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)