 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 29 July - 4 August 1999 Issue No. 440 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 29 July - 4 August 1999 Issue No. 440
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Travel Living Sports Time Out Chronicles People Cartoons Letters A subtle change in policy
By James Zogby *
President Bill Clinton's position on Jerusalem -- i.e., that the United States would take no unilateral action that prejudges the final status of the city, since its future can only be decided in direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians -- has now become a fixed pole representing one side of a policy debate.
Clinton's position is shared by US Vice-President Al Gore. Recently, both the vice-president and his top foreign policy adviser have publicly reaffirmed Gore's commitment to the president's stance.
Facing off against the president and Gore are several aggressively pro-Israel members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, and the chairman of the Republican National Committee, who recently attacked the Clinton position on Jerusalem. Echoing their party's leader, most Republican presidential challengers have called for an "immediate" move of the US embassy to Jerusalem.
For the first time, there is a debate underway, and there are some changes taking place. Take Mrs Clinton's controversial and wrong-headed letter stating her "personal belief" that "Jerusalem is the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel". Toward the end of that letter, there is an important caveat, cleverly worded so as not to alienate the hard-line New York Jewish groups she was addressing: "Of course, the timing of such a move must be sensitive to Israel's interest in achieving a secure peace with its neighbours. I will never countenance any action that would endanger Israel's security." In other words, Israel's security requires completion of the peace process; therefore, she will not support moving the embassy unless it is agreed upon by the parties to the peace negotiations.
Herein lies the essence of the subtle shift in the way the issue of Jerusalem is being framed by some politicians. For those who support the peace process, a negotiated peace has become a goal in itself. The definition of what is meant by "completion of the peace process" is still unclear -- other than that it will require the "agreement of the parties" -- but it is presented as a desirable end which now competes with hollow provocative promises about Israel's sole claims to Jerusalem.
This change is almost imperceptible, but it does present the possibility that for the first time there may be a debate, albeit a limited one, about Jerusalem and Middle East peace. In the past, no such discussion was possible.
Behind the changes in the policy discussion now taking place are two events: the Oslo Accords, signed by Israelis and Palestinians in 1993; and the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Bill of 1995, which many viewed as a Likud/Republican attempt to disrupt the process.
Under Oslo, the Israelis and Palestinians were to move toward a phased implementation of a permanent peace, leaving discussion of the most critical issues (Jerusalem, settlements, borders, sovereignty and refugees) until the end of the process. Those who support Oslo have taken the position that, because a comprehensive peace is so important, no action should be taken that interferes with the ability of the Israelis and Palestinians to resolve these critical "final status" issues.
Enemies of the peace process, however, have sought to sabotage the accords by attempting to provoke debates on these same issues. The pro-Likud US lobby, working with the Republican majority in Congress, succeeded in 1995 in getting the US Senate to pass a bill that would move the US Embassy to Jerusalem and therefore predetermine the final status of the city in Israel's favour.
According to the legislation, the administration was required to take measures to move the embassy or face a congressional sanction. The only option left to the president was to use a "national security waiver" provision -- i.e. to stipulate that, should he order the transfer of the embassy, US national security would be jeopardised. Since the president has declared that the peace process is in the national security interests of the United States and that moving the embassy would interfere with the peace process, he has repeatedly used the waiver to delay action.
When the president used his waiver this year, Congress threatened to pass new legislation that would remove the waiver option. It is in this context that the shift in favour of the peace process has become important.
Two other recent developments also bode well. Recent polls show that most Americans would not support any stand that would compromise Middle East peace; a plurality support the division of Jerusalem.
According to the results of a recent poll of American Jewish opinion taken by the Israeli Policy Forum (IPF), a mainstream pro-peace American Jewish organisation, 52 per cent of American Jews supported Clinton's decision to postpone moving the US embassy, while only 30 per cent opposed his decision.
In response to a related question, 25 per cent opposed moving the embassy at all, while 34 per cent said it should only move after peace. Only 26 per cent of American Jews favoured an immediate move to Jerusalem.
Possibly the most important recent development came during the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Barak to the US. During a meeting with 30 Jewish members of the US Congress, one leading congressman began to circulate a letter calling on the president to move the embassy. Another Jewish congressman asked Barak whether he supported this action. Barak made it clear that he did not support"ill-timed" initiatives that would frustrate the peace process. "What I want most," he reportedly told the congressman, "is to complete the peace process." Barak also told the Jewish groups "not to get out in front of him" and interfere with his effort to achieve a comprehensive peace.
While efforts by right-wing opponents of the peace process will no doubt continue, some real change has occurred in the way Jerusalem will be discussed.
Being pro-Israel has, for some leading politicians, become synonymous with being pro-peace process. This, in turn, has come to mean that taking provocative moves that would disrupt talks on final status issues are anti-peace and, therefore, politically wrong.
The change may be slight, but it is real. If the parties maintain their positions, the debate that will follow will be quite intense.
*The writer is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute.
