 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 28 Jan. - 3 Feb. 1999 Issue No. 414 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 28 Jan. - 3 Feb. 1999 Issue No. 414
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Focus Economy Opinion Culture Features Living Travel Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Cash, campaigning
By James Zogby *
and quite a few cooksFor US policy-makers, the upcoming elections in Israel pose a serious dilemma, because as the campaign in Israel heats up, the Middle East peace process has been put on the back burner. This displeases the Clinton administration both because they invested significant political capital in attempting to put the process back on track and because they are acutely aware of the dangers posed by a stalled peace.
Although he signed the agreement at Wye, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has appeared to have little interest in seeing the agreement implemented. No sooner had he returned to Israel upon completing the negotiations with the United States and the Palestinian Authority, than he began to add new conditions to and reinterpret the pact unilaterally. Despite Netanyahu's rhetorical prevarication (as in "If the Palestinians implement, I'll implement"), no one in Israel or in the United States seriously believes him any more. In fact, as if to make clear his refusal to implement the pact's most basic provisions, i.e. Israel's withdrawal from additional West Bank land, Netanyahu's election campaign has unfurled a new slogan for use against his Labour Party opponent Ehud Barak: "Barak will hand over, Likud will keep".
In the face of this blatant obstructionism, the United States appears to be in a quandary. On one hand, it is no secret that the United States would prefer to see a new government elected in Israel, one that is committed to a comprehensive peace. There is, however, an obvious hesitation in making this preference public for fear that it will backfire and be used to incite Likud supporters. Those in the United States who express this view point to two additional concerns. In 1996, the Clinton administration showed preference for Labour's Peres over Netanyahu. They fear not only that their intrusion into Israeli politics backfired, but also that it has made the past two and a half years of dealing with Netanyahu more difficult.
Then there is the issue of domestic US politics. American Jewish public opinion, while strongly supportive of the administration's peace efforts, is not of one mind in the matter of the US publicly attacking the government in Israel. The Republican majority in Congress has been especially clear about its support for Likud and its leader. That majority, and a number of Democrats as well, would not hesitate, if pushed, to pass hostile legislation making the administration's Middle East diplomacy even more difficult than it already is.
Despite this quandary, the administration has not hesitated to make its views known. While in Israel and Palestine, President Clinton was confronted at each turn by Netanyahu's anti-peace rhetoric. In each instance, Clinton, while refusing to respond in kind, did make a determined effort to reassert firmly the fundamental principles underlying the peace process. When, a few weeks ago, the Israeli ambassador to Washington published an editorial denouncing the Palestinians for their failure to comply with the terms of the Wye Accords, he was rather sternly rebuked by the State Department's spokesperson, Jamie Rubin. Rubin, in no uncertain terms, stated that it is the Palestinians who have implemented most of what is required of them and Israel that has not fulfilled its obligations. And just last week, US Vice-President Al Gore, one of Israel's strongest supporters, gave an exceptionally balanced presentation of the administration's goals in the Middle East peace process in a speech to a pro-Labour Party American Jewish organisation. The speech, which was criticised by a pro-Likud US group for its "implicit criticism" of the Netanyahu government's policy, stated clearly that Wye must be implemented in full by both parties, "with no new conditions".
Together with these policy statements, there are also other actions being pursued by the administration designed to move the process forward during the Israeli elections. A State Department team has just returned from a visit to the region where they made clear that they expect movement to continue on all phases of the agreement. Early next month the US-Palestinian bilateral commission will meet in Washington to cement ties and advance Palestinian economic and political concerns. And the administration is actively pushing for congressional passage of a supplementary aid package to Israel and the Palestinian Authority that it insists at this point will only be made available to the party or parties that implement their obligations outlined in the Wye Accord.
It is not only the administration that is engaged. The American Jewish community is involved in activities related to the Israeli elections as well. For example, as in the past few elections, major American Jewish donors have played a significant role in funding Israeli candidates. In 1996, for example, more than $8 million was sent from US Jewish donors to Israeli parties and their candidates. This year, the amounts may be higher despite a new Israeli law that was designed to limit such outside funding. Irving Moskowitz, the notorious right-wing provocateur (infamous for funding the tunnel opening and Ras Al-Amoud settlement) just visited Israel with a group of wealthy extremist US Jews to pledge financial backing to hard-line candidates who oppose concessions to the Palestinians. Benny Begin, son of the former prime minister, has reportedly received $1 million from Moskowitz to fund his right-wing challenge to Netanyahu. Next week, the new Israeli centrist party leader Amnon Shahak will be in the United States, ostensibly to speak to a few policy groups, but in reality to raise money for his campaign.
If US money is funding the campaigns, then US strategists will be directing them. Netanyahu has already retained his electoral guru Arthur Finklestein, a New York Republican who has managed a number of leading US Republican campaigns. Labour's Barak has hired James Carville and Stanley Greenburg, the US team that played a role in President Clinton's 1992 victory. In a weird chain of events in the past few weeks, the offices of five of Barak's campaign aids in Israel have been subjected to mysterious break-ins and robberies. During the same period, on two occasions, Stanley Greenburg's Washington offices' were also broken into. All that was reported stolen in both instances were materials relating to the Barak campaign. In Israel this is being reported as a "Watergate"-style affair.
In all of these ways, there is significant US involvement in this year's Israeli elections. The outcome, of course, could be quite serious for the future of peace in the region. Hence the intense involvement of so many. Whether or not the outcome of the election will be positive or decisive, given the fragmentation of Israeli politics and the intense discussions in Israeli society, is another matter.
*The writer is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute.
