Testifying before Congress last week, Secretary of State James Baker said publicly what the administration had long indicated in private: if Israel insists on building new settlements, it cannot have the $10 billion in loan guarantees it has requested from Washington to help settle Jews emigrating from the former Soviet Union. Baker added that if Israel wants to use its own funds to finish settlements already under construction, the United States will guarantee loans in some lesser amount-$l billion a year for five years, he told Israeli Ambassador Zalman Shoval. But every dollar Israel spends on finishing settlements will be deducted from the guarantees, a stipulation that could eat up almost the entire loan. Israel’s hard-line Likud government would have to choose between two of its most cherished goals: absorbing the Soviet Jews or gobbling up the occupied territories. “The choice is Israel’s,” Baker said.
“We will not halt building in the territories for even one day,” declared Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who faces a tough re-election campaign of his own. His justice minister, Dan Meridor, called the U.S. demand for a settlement freeze “racist.” His deputy foreign minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, accused the United States of “wanting to push us back to the borders of Auschwitz.” Both sides were looking for a compromise, but Bush didn’t seem likely to bend. The last six U.S. administrations have regarded Israeli settlements as obstacles to peace. “I’m not going to shift the foreign policy of this country because of political expediency,” the president said.
Over the years, what Israelis call “The Relationship” has had its difficult moments. There was Ronald Reagan’s heavy pressure to stop the Israeli assault on Beirut in 1982. There was Henry Kissinger’s pointed “reassessment” of U.S. Mideast policy in 1975, aimed at disengaging Israeli forces in the Sinai. If the current game of diplomatic chicken continues, U.S.-Israeli relations could hit their lowest point since 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower pulled Israel back from the Suez Canal by threatening to cut off U.S. aid. Bush and Baker have no intention of withholding the $3 billion in assistance that Israel normally receives from the United States each year. But they are playing the aid card more openly any administration in 35 years.
Bush adamantly opposes Israeli settlements. “It’s been an obsession with him,” says a State Department official. Last year, when Baker visited Israel half a dozen times to drum up support for a Mideast peace conference, the Israelis embarrassed him by launching a new settlement on nearly every visit. Now, with peace talks underway, the Palestinians are telling Baker they cannot continue if Washington condones settlement building by paying for it, even indirectly. Although Baker’s aides say he has made no promises, his ultimatum to Israel looks to the Palestinians like a reward for their forbearance.
Some U.S. officials think Shamir is in a no-win position; they say he will either have to soften his stand on the occupied territories, enhancing the prospect for a negotiated solution, or put Soviet immigration at risk-and possibly his own re-election chances as well. But so far, most Israelis seem to approve of his intransigence on the settlements issue. In an opinion poll last week, 56 percent opposed a freeze. Shamir may even be calculating that Bush will back down, or be replaced by a more accommodating Democrat. “Shamir’s way of thinking is that Bush is a weakened president, almost a lame duck,” says Gabi Sheffer, a political scientist at Hebrew University.
Israelis are famously resentful of American pressure. In the campaign for the June 23 election, Shamir’s Likud will present itself as the only party that can stop Bush from controlling Israel. His Labor Party adversary, former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, takes a more flexible stand on the settlements question. He supports construction in East Jerusalem and along a “defense line” that includes the Jordan River, opposing “political settlements” in areas densely populated by Arabs. But no Israeli politician can afford to be too flexible on settlements. “I will not accept in principle that Israel cannot settle beyond the [pre-1967] Green Line,” Rabin insisted last week. In any care, U.S. officials are not counting on a Labor victory. At best, they hope Rabin will be a moderating influence in a coalition government with Shamir.
As for Bush, a stand against Jewish settlements is almost cost-free in the primary campaign. Few Jewish Republicans are likely to support challenger Pat Buchanan, who opposes foreign aid and has been accused of anti-Semitism. In a very tight general-election race, Bush could be hurt in states with high concentrations of Jewish voters if enough of them resent his tough handling of Israel. Already, some Jewish leaders have been shaken by a tirade from Bush last September, when he heatedly complained about pro-Israeli lobbying.
But many Jewish-Americans are uncomfortable with Shamir’s aggressive settlement policy. A major lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is no longer pushing hard for the loan guarantees. “It’s a no-win situation for the Jewish organizations,” says Edgar Bronfman Jr., president of the World Jewish Congress. In Congress, many ardent defenders of Israel are equally disinclined to fight. “In their heart of hearts, they’re opposed to the settlements,” says Jerome Segal of the Jewish Peace Lobby, which also opposes them. “They’ll never come out and say that. But now they can simply say to AIPAC: ‘We can’t win on this’.”
The world has changed in ways that have weakened Israel’s influence over American politics. With the end of the cold war, Israel is no longer a vital bastion against Soviet encroachment in the Middle East. With America’s economy in trouble, foreign aid is under bitter attack from both the left and the right. And after a generation as an occupying power, Israel’s moral advantage over its neighbors is somewhat diminished. “Israel is not the country we remember from seeing ‘Exodus’,” says a highly placed congressional aide who happens to be Jewish. “The Golda Meir generation is dead, and the Israeli government is run by some pretty unappealing characters.” As long as that is the case, the Israelis may no longer be able to demand U.S. support on their own terms.
title: “Bush Bashes Israel” ShowToc: true date: “2023-01-19” author: “Donna Townsend”
Testifying before Congress last week, Secretary of State James Baker said publicly what the administration had long indicated in private: if Israel insists on building new settlements, it cannot have the $10 billion in loan guarantees it has requested from Washington to help settle Jews emigrating from the former Soviet Union. Baker added that if Israel wants to use its own funds to finish settlements already under construction, the United States will guarantee loans in some lesser amount-$l billion a year for five years, he told Israeli Ambassador Zalman Shoval. But every dollar Israel spends on finishing settlements will be deducted from the guarantees, a stipulation that could eat up almost the entire loan. Israel’s hard-line Likud government would have to choose between two of its most cherished goals: absorbing the Soviet Jews or gobbling up the occupied territories. “The choice is Israel’s,” Baker said.
“We will not halt building in the territories for even one day,” declared Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who faces a tough re-election campaign of his own. His justice minister, Dan Meridor, called the U.S. demand for a settlement freeze “racist.” His deputy foreign minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, accused the United States of “wanting to push us back to the borders of Auschwitz.” Both sides were looking for a compromise, but Bush didn’t seem likely to bend. The last six U.S. administrations have regarded Israeli settlements as obstacles to peace. “I’m not going to shift the foreign policy of this country because of political expediency,” the president said.
Over the years, what Israelis call “The Relationship” has had its difficult moments. There was Ronald Reagan’s heavy pressure to stop the Israeli assault on Beirut in 1982. There was Henry Kissinger’s pointed “reassessment” of U.S. Mideast policy in 1975, aimed at disengaging Israeli forces in the Sinai. If the current game of diplomatic chicken continues, U.S.-Israeli relations could hit their lowest point since 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower pulled Israel back from the Suez Canal by threatening to cut off U.S. aid. Bush and Baker have no intention of withholding the $3 billion in assistance that Israel normally receives from the United States each year. But they are playing the aid card more openly any administration in 35 years.
Bush adamantly opposes Israeli settlements. “It’s been an obsession with him,” says a State Department official. Last year, when Baker visited Israel half a dozen times to drum up support for a Mideast peace conference, the Israelis embarrassed him by launching a new settlement on nearly every visit. Now, with peace talks underway, the Palestinians are telling Baker they cannot continue if Washington condones settlement building by paying for it, even indirectly. Although Baker’s aides say he has made no promises, his ultimatum to Israel looks to the Palestinians like a reward for their forbearance.
Some U.S. officials think Shamir is in a no-win position; they say he will either have to soften his stand on the occupied territories, enhancing the prospect for a negotiated solution, or put Soviet immigration at risk-and possibly his own re-election chances as well. But so far, most Israelis seem to approve of his intransigence on the settlements issue. In an opinion poll last week, 56 percent opposed a freeze. Shamir may even be calculating that Bush will back down, or be replaced by a more accommodating Democrat. “Shamir’s way of thinking is that Bush is a weakened president, almost a lame duck,” says Gabi Sheffer, a political scientist at Hebrew University.
Israelis are famously resentful of American pressure. In the campaign for the June 23 election, Shamir’s Likud will present itself as the only party that can stop Bush from controlling Israel. His Labor Party adversary, former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, takes a more flexible stand on the settlements question. He supports construction in East Jerusalem and along a “defense line” that includes the Jordan River, opposing “political settlements” in areas densely populated by Arabs. But no Israeli politician can afford to be too flexible on settlements. “I will not accept in principle that Israel cannot settle beyond the [pre-1967] Green Line,” Rabin insisted last week. In any care, U.S. officials are not counting on a Labor victory. At best, they hope Rabin will be a moderating influence in a coalition government with Shamir.
As for Bush, a stand against Jewish settlements is almost cost-free in the primary campaign. Few Jewish Republicans are likely to support challenger Pat Buchanan, who opposes foreign aid and has been accused of anti-Semitism. In a very tight general-election race, Bush could be hurt in states with high concentrations of Jewish voters if enough of them resent his tough handling of Israel. Already, some Jewish leaders have been shaken by a tirade from Bush last September, when he heatedly complained about pro-Israeli lobbying.
But many Jewish-Americans are uncomfortable with Shamir’s aggressive settlement policy. A major lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is no longer pushing hard for the loan guarantees. “It’s a no-win situation for the Jewish organizations,” says Edgar Bronfman Jr., president of the World Jewish Congress. In Congress, many ardent defenders of Israel are equally disinclined to fight. “In their heart of hearts, they’re opposed to the settlements,” says Jerome Segal of the Jewish Peace Lobby, which also opposes them. “They’ll never come out and say that. But now they can simply say to AIPAC: ‘We can’t win on this’.”
The world has changed in ways that have weakened Israel’s influence over American politics. With the end of the cold war, Israel is no longer a vital bastion against Soviet encroachment in the Middle East. With America’s economy in trouble, foreign aid is under bitter attack from both the left and the right. And after a generation as an occupying power, Israel’s moral advantage over its neighbors is somewhat diminished. “Israel is not the country we remember from seeing ‘Exodus’,” says a highly placed congressional aide who happens to be Jewish. “The Golda Meir generation is dead, and the Israeli government is run by some pretty unappealing characters.” As long as that is the case, the Israelis may no longer be able to demand U.S. support on their own terms.
