US - Israeli crisis over US national interests
Israel, Analysis, 12/10/1997

For the first time in recent history, we find a United States President openly refusing to receive an Israeli Prime Minister at the White House. And the question is what provoked President Bill Clinton into making such an unprecedented action.

The answer is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's determination to continue with his plans to establish more Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories, to undermine the peace process which sabotage America's credibility in the Middle East and wholly damage its interests there.

President Clinton preferred to send his Secretary of State Mrs Madeleine Albright to meet the Israeli leader instead and to see whether Israel persists in escalating the effects of its dangerous policies. But Netanyahu's recent statements in Paris indicate that he will not budge in his intransigent policies. His meeting with Mrs Albright should have affirmed to the Clinton administration that he will not yield and will continue defying American initiatives and proposals.

In Washington a US spokesman has recently admitted the existence of differences between the US and Israel -- notably over Israel's settlement policy. This was in response to Netanyahu's announcement that he totally rejects US proposals to stop the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories and to resume talks from the point they stopped at with Syria. But what is more perplexing is repeated American admissions that Washington will not exert any pressure on Israel.

Few men's anger is more calculated than that of the US President. When he snubbed the Israeli Prime Minister he was acting as almost no American President has dared to do since 1956, and thus delivered strong leadership and respectability to the American attitude. This is good for America, for peace and even for the Israeli people who look for peace.

What is more important in this respect is that the Clinton administration should seek strong support for Europe, the UN and the international community in addition to its attempts to sustain its own role in the peace process.

This turnabout in the US attitude is due to being rebuffed by Arab states in its efforts to win support for the MENA economic conference and the lack of backing for military action against Iraq. The US has seen that the Arab states can actually force enough pain on Washington in terms of regional US interests, that the US was forced to reassess its position. Now the questions is, will the US act concretely, that is with results, or will it simply be another public show.

Israel has only the US vote to protect it at the UN, and the US is the sole military provider and guarantor of its security, as well as the main economic engine of its development and aid. If the US cannot force Israel to act in accord with US interests, and stand up to the Israeli narrow interest proponents in the US congress, then there is not much hope of the Arabs counting on the US semi-impartiality, even when it is in the US and Arab interest.

The Arab states have clearly and with a unified voice called for peace as a strategic way of life for the region. The Arab states desire good relations with the US. This relationship between the USA, the Arab states, and Israel is about to be tested for its potential.

Previous Stories:
  Heated debate or Netanyahu's credibility   (12/5/1997)
  Israel criticizes Clinton: We will not submit to U.S will   (11/27/1997)
  PNA disappointed at US reluctance to pressure Israel   (10/29/1997)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search