 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 15 - 21 July 1999 Issue No. 438 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 15 - 21 July 1999 Issue No. 438
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Features Travel Living Sports Time Out Chronicles People Cartoons Letters Hillary's change of heart
By Lamis AndoniOpposing Palestinian rights to appease pro-Israeli Jewish votes has always been part of the rules of the campaigning game for the majority of American political candidates. However, Hillary Clinton's declaration that Jerusalem is "the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel", in her bid to win New York Jews for a possible run for the US Senate, raises serious questions about the administration's position on this sensitive issue.
To begin with, administration officials so far have not criticised the content of Mrs Clinton's statements but rather "the timing" that coincided with hopes for a revival of the stalled Middle East peace process. More significantly, Mrs Clinton's promise to support Israeli claims underscores a disturbing fact that has been ignored by many proponents of the US role in Middle East peace: i.e. that the Clinton administration, in its two terms, has never clarified its position on the status of East Jerusalem.
For while it is true that the Clinton administration has never, at least publicly, supported Israeli claims in East Jerusalem, it has yet to produce one unequivocal statement declaring the city as part of the occupied Arab territories. As many observers of American foreign policy realise, the last former Secretary of State James Baker made just such a statement.
Ever since, the standard American position has been a vague "refrain" -- that both parties should avoid steps that could prejudice the final status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. At the same time, the administration has been conspicuously lame regarding the expansion of Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem while blocking efforts at the United Nations to stop, or even condemn Israeli actions.
Mrs Clinton's statements combined with the absence of a clear official position on East Jerusalem do not suggest necessarily that a final policy shift has been made. However, it does suggest that the administration will not challenge Israeli-imposed facts on the ground that are rapidly changing the demography and the geography of the city.
As evidence of her fealty to Israeli claims over Jerusalem, Mrs Clinton vowed to support the transfer of the American embassy from Tel Aviv to East Jerusalem. "As you know I am now considering entering the race to represent New York in the United States Senate, to succeed Senator [Daniel] Moynihan. If I am chosen by the New Yorkers to be their senator, or in whatever position I find myself in the years to come, you can be sure that I will be an active, committed advocate for a strong and secure Israel, able to live in peace with its neighbours, with the US embassy located in its capital Jerusalem," she said in a letter to the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.
The letter, published in the organisation's newspaper, came as a clear response to criticism by Republicans and some Jewish leaders in New York of Mrs Clinton's declared support, last May, for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Senator Moynihan, a staunch supporter of Israel, has emerged as the most crucial campaigner for Mrs Clinton's exploratory bid for the Senate seat in a state of which she has never been a resident.
In 1974, as the then US ambassador to United Nations, Moynihan declared that the date that the resolution that equated "Zionism with racism" passed was a "black day in human history." More recently, however, Moynihan was one of the co-sponsors of the 1995 Senate decision to move the American embassy to East Jerusalem by May 31 of this year.
Mrs Clinton's public expression of empathy for Palestinian aspirations and her most recent change of heart are consistent with the Clintons' reputation for political opportunism. There is more to the matter than crude political expediency, however. Ultimately, Mrs Clinton's apparent about-face within the space of six months are indicative of the Clinton administration's support for the policy of the Israeli Labour party. Apart from scathing attacks by pro-Israeli right-wing Republicans, Mrs Clinton's expression of support for a Palestinian state provoked concern even among the "moderate" trend within pro-Israel circles in the US. The reason for worry was that her statement was worded in such a way as to imply the recognition of a Palestinian right to sovereignty and independence.
For "moderate" pro-Israeli circles in the US there is a world of difference between stating that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations should lead ultimately to the establishment of a Palestinian state, one the one hand, and to recognise the Palestinians right to self-determination on the other. For while the latter implies sovereignty and independence, the former suggests that the Israeli government has the right to define the boundaries and nature of the future Palestinian entity.
In this light, Mrs Clinton's recent statements are effectively a clarification of her first, more impromptu, support for a Palestinian state. This, in fact, is the position of the US administration and of the new Israeli government; conceding a Palestinian state that measures up to Israeli notion of security requirements.
