It’s now clear: Israel and the United States are at odds over what Israel can do in her own interest.

Recently, the U.S. super-envoy to the Middle East, former Senator George Mitchell, appeared on the Charlie Rose Show and talked about his discussions in the region and said that “We think the way forward…is full implementation of the Arab peace initiative.”
That means that Israel would have to withdraw to 1967 armistice lines and would remove Israelis from the Golan, Judea and Samaria (including the Jordan Valley) and East Jerusalem. It also means that the ‘refugee problem’ is solved by acceding to Arab demands that their millions who claim property rights in Israel be settled according to their claims.
So much for the Jewish State. So much for Israel.
Negotiations? Of course. But the words ‘full implementation’ are not subject to much interpretation or compromise. Mitchell goes on to say that this is the “comprehensive peace in the region that is the objective set forth by the president.” A definitive with no room for nuance, refinement or compromise. And no room for Israel.
As Evelyn Gordon says in the Jerusalem Post: “George Bush’s Road Map viewed the Arab initiative as merely one of many ‘foundations’ for talks. Mitchell’s adoption of its ‘full implementation’ as a goal thus represents a deterioration in the U.S. positions that ought to worry all Israel supporters.”
What to do about this divergence of opinion between Israel and the United States? This is not the first time that Israel and the United States are at odds about what Israel can or cannot do as a sovereign nation. And, it’s not the first time that the U.S. has been willing to risk Israel’s continued existence on policy decisions that leave Israel feeling threatened.
Former Israeli Ambassador Yoram Ettinger suggests that “in facing Obama’s pressure, Israel should follow in the footsteps of all Prime Ministers from Ben Gurion to Yitzhak Shamir.” All of them acted to advance “Israel’s national security while fending off U.S. presidential pressure….”
After declaring independence in the face of the U.S. Secretary of State’s strong opposition, Ben Gurion then brought Israel into the nuclear world over President Kennedy’s objections. Levy Eshkol and Golda Meir built the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Ramot, Neve Yaakov and Gilo despite U.S. disapproval; and Menachim Begin took out Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirik, which didn’t make the Reagan Administration happy at the time. Begin also reached out to Egypt directly for bilateral talks, instead of acquiescing to President Carter’s pressure to convene international talks.
Israel again is at odds with prevailing opinion in Washington. The precedent of looking first to her own interests is well established, and the United States ought not be surprised if she does so again.

-nrg

Comments are closed.