"Condemn" is not a word that rolls trippingly
off the tongue of a U.S. politician addressing anything having to do
with actions, however objectionable, by Israel.
So it was no
surprise that close observers of U.S. Middle East policy sat up a lot
straighter in their seats when Vice President Joseph Biden used the
word not once, but twice, during his visit to Israel this week in
reference to the Israeli Interior Ministry's announcement that it
intends to build 1,600 new housing units for Jews in an Arab
neighbourhood of East Jerusalem.
"I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance
planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem," said Biden,
considered among Israel's staunchest supporters during his several
decades in Congress.
"The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly
with the launching of (U.S.-mediated) proximity talks (between Israel
and the Palestine Authority), is precisely the kind of step that
undermines the trust we need right now...," noted Biden.
In a remarkable show of displeasure, he subsequently kept
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu waiting 90 minutes before joining him
for an official dinner and, according to Israeli press accounts, gave
top Israeli officials a private tongue-lashing over how such actions by
the Jewish state incite Islamic extremism across the Arab world and
beyond.
Forty-eight hours later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
clearly rejecting Netanyahu's apology over the unfortunate coincidence
of the Ministry's announcement with Biden's arrival, joined the fray.
According to her spokesman, P.J. Crowley, Clinton called the
right-wing leader Friday morning "to re-iterate the United States'
strong objections to Tuesday's announcement, not just in terms of
timing, but also in its substance."
"The secretary said she could not understand how this had
happened, particularly in light of the United States' strong commitment
to Israel's security," Crowley told reporters. "And she made clear that
the Israeli government needed to demonstrate not just through words but
through specific actions that they are committed to this relationship
and to the peace process."
The rebukes, which some Mideast veterans described as the
harshest directed toward Israel by senior U.S. officials since the
presidency of George H.W. Bush almost 20 years ago, have revived
questions over whether the administration of President Barack Obama is
prepared to get tough with the most right-wing government in Israel's
history, particularly over the issue of settlements.
Early in its tenure, the administration demanded a halt to all
new Jewish settlement activity on Palestinian territory in order to get
serious peace talks with the PA underway.
That demand, however, was rebuffed by Netanyahu, who,
encouraged by the right-wing leadership of the powerful "Israel Lobby"
here, countered with a partial 10-month settlement freeze that
explicitly excluded East Jerusalem whose "annexation" by Israel in 1967
has been rejected by all other members of the United Nations, including
the U.S.
The administration's acquiescence in - indeed, praise for - Netanyahu's
"restraint" lost it a considerable amount of credibility, particularly
in the Arab world where hopes for a more even-handed U.S. approach to
the Israel-Palestinian conflict had been running high, especially since
Obama's speech in Cairo last June.
This week's contretemps with Biden and now Clinton, however,
has moved the settlement issue - and particularly the fate of East
Jerusalem, whose status as the capital of any future Palestinian state
is widely considered a pre-condition for any viable two-state solution
- front and centre once again.
"It is now abundantly clear that with or without a formal
declaration from Netanyahu, getting events in Jerusalem under control -
which includes a de facto full-stop settlement freeze in Jerusalem - is
no mere discretionary gesture but a political imperative," according to
Lara Friedman and Daniel Seidemann of Americans for Peace Now (APN).
"Failing that, this political process will be stillborn."
But it is not only the peace talks, which Obama's special
envoy, George Mitchell, had laboured long and hard to convene, that
this week's incident has put into question. In the words of one veteran
U.S. Mideast hand, Aaron David Miller, it also raised new questions
over "the degree to which Israel is willing to take into account U.S.
interests."
Indeed, while Biden's mission was originally aimed at publicly
reassuring Israelis of Washington's "absolute, total, unvarnished
commitment" to their security, as he put it immediately after his
arrival, the private message, especially in light of the Interior
Ministry's announcement, was that Israel should reciprocate, according
to an account published in Yedioth Ahronoth.
"'This is starting to get dangerous for us,' Biden castigated
his interlocutors," the newspaper reported. "'What you’re doing here
undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq,
Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional
peace.'"
"The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many
people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel’s
actions and U.S. policy, any decision about construction that
undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on
the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic
terrorism," the paper continued.
Any assertion, particularly from a recognised "friend of
Israel" like Biden, that Israeli actions against Palestinians have a
negative impact on the U.S. position in the larger region - let alone
the safety of U.S. troops - has long been anathema to Likudist
neo-conservatives and the right-wing leadership of the "Israel Lobby".
But, as Biden himself said in his departure speech in Tel Aviv Friday,
"quite frankly, folks, sometimes only a friend can deliver the hardest
truth."
Washington's harsh condemnation of Israel's behaviour comes
just days before the lobby's biggest event of the year here - next
weekend's annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC).
The meeting's organisers and Netanyahu, who will address the
conference, had hoped to focus on the necessity of confronting the
"existential threat" posed by Iran. But they may now find themselves in
a more defensive position regarding settlements, East Jerusalem, and
Israel's alleged failure to take account of the implications of its
actions on U.S. interests.
Indeed, Israel's actions had the virtue, according to former
Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy, of clarifying the strength of the
settlement movement in Israeli politics.
"The momentum they can now generate ...is stronger than Israel's
demographic concerns, is stronger than fear of Israel acquiring an
international pariah status, and as was proven this week, is stronger
than the needs of the U.S.-Israel relationship," he wrote in 'The
Guardian'. "America's vice-president has just seen this dynamic first
hand and up close."
That clarity could spur Washington to take stronger action in
concert with its Quartet partners, which met in New York Friday and
joined the U.S. in condemning the latest settlement announcement.
"Perhaps America will present Israel with a real choice and
with consequences for recalcitrance," Levy wrote. "Thus far, that has
not been the case." But, "in the absence of decisive American
leadership, Israel is likely to dig itself deeper into a hole, burying
the last vestiges of home for pragmatic Zionism."
Miller is even more sceptical. While the latest provocation
"managed to elicit Washington's strongest words about Israel in years,"
he wrote in 'Politico' Friday, "...for this very busy president, the
Arab-Israeli issue now has little to do with his stock at home."
Still, Clinton's strong public backing for Biden and her own
dig at Netanyahu Friday hint of a tougher public stance. Another hint
could come next week when she keynotes the AIPAC conference.
Inter Press Service