US-Israeli spat plants seeds of crisis
By Victor Kotsev
Last month, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy published an analysis
of three simulations conducted recently by experts at Harvard University, Tel
Aviv University and the Brookings Institution. The simulations explored
different scenarios for how the Iranian crisis would develop, and an outcome
they had in common was rising tensions between the United States and Israel and
a failure of the sanctions policy to halt Iran's nuclear progress. "Game play
suggests," the analysis points out, "that an eventual US-Israeli crisis is
likely."
Even without Iran, tensions between the two allies have been running high
during the past year. As far as the Iranian question is concerned, the row of
the past couple of weeks seems to more than confirm the predictions. Moreover,
it is likely to be just the
beginning of, or a dress rehearsal for, a larger crisis in relations.
If we look at Israeli behavior during and following the ill-fated visit of US
Vice President Joseph Biden, we will find elements of both pressure on the
administration of President Barack Obama and a preparation for - even letting
out some steam of - further confrontation.
At a time when Obama needed all the congressional support, down to the last
house representative, for his pivotal healthcare bill, and with congressional
elections looming in November, he can ill afford a drawn-out confrontation with
Israel. Settlements over the Green Line, on the other hand, have been a
contentious issue between Israel and the US for decades, and conflict over them
has been brewing ever since Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
took office.
In any major confrontation between the two administrations, this issue is bound
to take center-stage. The international community does not recognize Israel's
occupation and annexation of East Jerusalem and settlements on occupied land
are illegal under international law. If the Israelis expect a crisis in the
near future, they might be wise to let it blow over in advance, when the
American administration has little else to latch onto in order to create
trouble.
Both the substance and the timing of the announcement of plans to build another
1,600 Jewish homes beyond the Green Line in East Jerusalem - the two things
Biden condemned - gave the Israelis important strategic advantages in the
showdown that resulted.
Of all disputed lands, East Jerusalem is where Netanyahu has the strongest
domestic backing. Obama discovered this last year when he was forced to back
down from his demand for a full halt to construction beyond the Green Line.
Once again, Israelis rallied behind their prime minister. A recent poll shows
that 62% of Israelis support continued building in Jerusalem (against 26% who
oppose it). Right-wingers, including Netanyahu’s brother-in-law, accused the US
president of anti-Semitism and hypocrisy, and claimed that US denunciation of
Israel would support terrorism and hurt the peace effort. Some even coined the
term "Obama intifada" to refer to the recent Palestinian unrest.
Moreover, the Palestinians themselves provided a near-perfect excuse to brand
any harsh American reaction as disproportionate: on the same day the
announcement was made, high-ranking officials from Palestinian President Mahmud
Abbas' Fatah party held a ceremony in Ramallah in honor of a female terrorist
who killed 37 Israelis in 1978. This was not lost on American supporters of
Netanyahu, and neither was the fact that Obama decided to escalate the spat
with Israel after the Israeli government promptly apologized for its own
conduct while the Palestinian Authority remained silent.
"The conflicting Obama administration responses are no accident," claimed house
minority whip Eric Cantor (Republican-Virginia). "They reveal the perverse way
in which the White House intends to serve as the 'honest broker' in the Mideast
conflict." Congressional pressure on Obama mounted, and at a crucial moment
when he was scrambling to pass the single-most important piece of legislation
of his career - the healthcare bill, which he did on Sunday.
"We recognize that, despite the extraordinary closeness between our country and
Israel, there will be differences over issues both large and small," reads a
bipartisan letter to Obama signed by top house Democrats and Republicans. "Our
view is that such differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and
confidence, as befits longstanding strategic allies." It is little wonder,
then, that just a few days after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton scolded
Netanyahu for 43 minutes over the phone, the administration changed its tone.
"We have a close, unshakeable bond between the United States and Israel,"
Clinton herself announced last week.
It bears noting that Obama is likely reluctant to burn bridges with Israel also
because of the overwhelming US public support for Israel and the congressional
elections in November. "The Obama administration's shrill tone towards Israel
reflects its domestic political weakness as much as its strategic problems,"
writes David Goldman for Asia Times Online in
Obama in more trouble than Netanyahu over Iran. "According to a March 7
poll by The Israel Project, Americans take the Israeli side against the
Palestinians by a margin of 57% to 7%, with the rest neutral."
Last but not least, the timing of the row right before the annual American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, is highly symbolic. Two
years ago, at the same conference Obama himself announced that "Jerusalem will
remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided". The embarrassment
facing the administration right now has become so much part of the political
gossip of the day that the Foreign Policy magazine launched a contest on the
topic "A Best Defense contest: What should Hillary tell AIPAC? And will she?"
[1] (See also Clinton pushes to confront 'status quo', Asia Times Online, March 23 )
Netanyahu did not score a clear victory in the confrontation. He also had a lot
to lose: not least in terms of military hardware and diplomatic support. The
swift international condemnation (including from the European Union and the
United Nations) following the announcement added pressure on him, and
persistent reports claim that he was forced to retreat substantially in private
commitments to the American administration (nevertheless, at least officially,
he has continued to insist on his right to build in East Jerusalem).
In an interview with BBC last Friday, Clinton herself claimed that the decision
to escalate the tone with Israel was "paying off". Even so (which is not yet
completely clear), in this round Netanyahu managed to energize his core
supporters on both sides of the Atlantic, and to create a narrative that paints
him as the imperfect but innocent victim of the Obama administration’s hatred
for Israel and/or foreign policy ineptitude.
This achievement marks what looks like the beginning of a strong public
relations campaign designed to help his government survive a major rift with
its most important international ally: a crisis the likes of which have toppled
previous Israeli governments (eg Yitzhak Shamir's). Such an outcome appears
much less likely now. "Supporters of Israel should rejoice that Biden and
Clinton have emerged from Obama's closet hatred of Israel," reads a recent
opinion piece by Moshe Dann in the most widely circulated Israeli daily, Yediot
Ahronot.
"Their wild attack, as deadly as it seemed initially, however, did little or no
damage. It clears the way for a robust Israeli response, one that will set the
course of Israeli policy and the guidelines of future discussions." Senior
members of Netanyahu’s Likud party also squarely backed a tougher stance on
Jerusalem. "Prime minister, tell Obama and Clinton: 'Next Year in Jerusalem',"
urged the Knesset speaker, Reuven Rivlin, at a Likud convention on Sunday
night.
It is far from crisp clear that war will break out - that is not strictly
necessary for there to be a crisis in US-Israeli relations - but there are
ever-increasing indications that the cause of the anticipated crisis would be a
military flare-up with Iran and/or its allies. "Netanyahu to ask Obama for
weapons to strike Iran," a recent Sunday Times report, quoted by Israeli daily
Ha'aretz, claims. Other reports reveal that the US is currently shipping 387
bunker-buster bombs to a base on the island of Diego Garcia, from where they
would most likely be used against Iran.
An American intervention, however reluctant, would most likely be necessary in
the aftermath of an Israeli attack. Alternatively, rumor has it, the
bunker-busters might be part of a consignment to Israel that Obama is not quite
ready to deliver. Either way, they bode nothing peaceful for Iran.
Iran and its allies also sharpened the rhetoric, "You cannot speak about peace
and friendship while plotting to hit Iran," the Islamic Republic’s Supreme
Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared on Sunday.
Over in Lebanon, too, something seems to be afoot. A week ago, Druze leader and
former anti-Syrian champion Walid Jumblatt issued a poignant apology to Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad, and offered to "forgive and forget" the
assassination of his father decades ago. Both Hezbollah and the Lebanese
government have intensified their witch-hunt for Israeli spies (yet another
four people were charged with espionage for Israel on Saturday), and ordinary
Lebanese citizens report harassment even if they read Israeli online media.
Meanwhile, the Israeli-Palestinian front is heating up as well, with four
Palestinians killed in violent confrontations in the West Bank over the weekend
and a number of incidents on the Gaza front. Numerous analyses caution about a
possible flare-up in Gaza or even a full-blown intifada in the West Bank.
The future remains unclear, but it is very likely that it will hold increased
tensions between the US and Israel. The Biden spat, which many analysts rightly
see as overblown, appears to be a first stage of a coming deeper crisis.
Meanwhile, the Netanyahu government is taking steps to ensure its survival and
to diminish as much as possible the diplomatic and domestic effects of the
rift. If it succeeds in painting Obama as unreasonable and unfair, and the
Israeli prime minister as a martyr, it will have scored a major victory.
Note
1. For the winning answer, please click
here.
Victor Kotsev is a freelance journalist and political analyst with
expertise in the Middle East.
(Copyright 2010 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
