In the eleventh hour of his Presidency, facing a legacy of failed policies in Iraq, George W. Bush has undertaken a mission to achieve a comprehensive Middle East peace treaty before leaving office. Toward this end, President Bush embarked on a whirlwind nine-day tour of the area. After three days of shuttling between Israel and the Holy Land and meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahud Abbas, interspersed with visits to the Holocaust Museum and a few other sites, he made rapid-fire stops in Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. The diplomatic effort was intended to follow up on whatever progress may have been achieved at the Annapolis Conference on November 27, 2008.
Meanwhile, armed conflict remains a fact of life for this tiny state, its roots going back six thousand years. While Israel is generally considered the closest friend and ally of the United States in the Middle East, significant points of dispute remain between the two countries. Moreover, the newly-inaugurated Bush Mideast mission must contend not only with the residue of many centuries internecine struggles, but also with the aftermath of decades of sporadic peace overtures.
1. Democracy Under Siege.
Despite the continuing threats to its existence, Israel has managed to maintain a thriving parliamentary democracy (albeit with some relatively fragile coalitions) and a market economy. Most recently, in the Knesset (national legislature) elections on March 28, 2007, the new Kadima Party came out first with a plurality, followed by the Labour Party, with a major loss for the Likud Party. Prime Minister Olmert formed a four-party coalition government, which has since been enlarged to include an additional, rightist party.
(a) Constant Siege.
Since gaining independence on May 14, 1948, Israel has been under siege. After the 1948-49 War of Independence, there followed the 1956 Suez/Sinai Campaign against the Arab states, 1967 Six-Day War against Egypt, Jordan and Syria, 1973-74 Yom Kippur War against Egypt and Syria, 1978 Operation Litani against the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in southern Lebanon, 1981 PLO rocket attacks and Israeli bombing of PLO targets in southern Lebanon, 1982 Peace in Galilee offensive into Lebanon in response to terrorist attacks, 1993 Operation Accountability (called the "Seven Day War" by the Lebanese) week-long military campaign directed at Shiite Muslim Hezbollah, 1996 Operation Grapes of Wrath fighting with Hezbollah and 2006 Israel-Lebanon Hezbollah War, with continuing clashes with Hamas and other Palestinian groups in the Gaza Strip. Moreover, this list omits more surgical strikes, such as the 1976 commando raid rescuing about 100 hostages held by pro-Palestinian hijackers at Entebbe Airport in Uganda or 1981 Operation Opera in which Israel took out the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor. Nor does it include Israeli participation in broader conflicts, including the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War.
(b) Peace Process.
Following the famous visit by Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and to address the Knesset on November 19, 1977 and the Camp David Accords signed by the two leaders on September 17, 1978, Israel concluded a Peace Treaty with Egypt on March 26, 1979. Fifteen years later, this was followed by the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty on October 16, 1994. There has, however, been no such accord with either of Israel’s other two immediate neighbors, Syria and Lebanon -- both of which, like Iran, continue to support Hezbollah and Hamas. Progress along these lines, including peace agreements with remaining Arab state neighbors, appears to be stymied by the continuing state Israel-Palestinian conflict. The First "Intifadah" (Arab uprising) broke out in 1987 and was accompanied by waves of violence in the Occupied Territories for several years.
In October 1991, just after the First Gulf War, a breakthrough appeared to be occurring. President George H.W. Bush, apparently feeling obliged to recent Arab allies, pressured a reluctant Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir into opening negotiations with the Palestinians and the Arab states at a multilateral conference convened in Madrid, Spain. Israeli conditions, in which the United States acquiesced, were exclusion of the PLO from the talks and omission of direct discussion of Palestinian independence and statehood. After the Madrid Peace Conference, negotiations continued in Washington, D.C., but they became stalemated after December 1992, when Israel expelled over 400 Palestinian residents of the occupied territories accused of being radical Islamist activists.
Thereafter, the formal negotiations were replaced by a series of "back-channel" discussions between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators under the good offices of the Norwegian government, which talks ultimately produced the 1993 Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (DOP or "Oslo Accords"). In essence, the Oslo Accords provided for phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank and affirmed the Palestinian right to self-government within those areas through the creation of the Palestinian National Authority (PA). They did not deal with such crucial questions as permanent borders, the status of east Jerusalem, the right of return of Palestinian refugees and a number of other vital topics. On September 13, 1993, signature of the Oslo Accords took place on the White House lawn (the occasion of the famous handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yasser Arafat before a beaming President William J. Clinton).
Following the Oslo Accords and at least five subsequent interim agreements, Israel undertook major redeployments from the West Bank. Still, the parties remain far from a permanent settlement.
The election of Ehud Barak as Prime Minister of Israel in May 1999 raised hopes that permanent status negotiations would move forward rapidly, and they were indeed inaugurated on September 13, 1999. Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat agreed to "conclude a framework agreement on all permanent status issues in five months" and to reach a final agreement ending the 51-year old dispute within a year. The status negotiations were, however, derailed by a Second Intifadah ("al-Aqsa Intifada") that broke out a year later, in September 2000. They were jumpstarted again in April 2003, when the Quartet (the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nation) drew up A Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (the "Roadmap"), which called for "a final and comprehensive settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict by 2005." Israel accepted the Roadmap with fourteen reservations, and the PA agreed to it. Nevertheless, the proposed date for a permanent status agreement has been postponed indefinitely, due to violence and accusations that both sides have not followed through on commitments.
After the death of President Arafat on November 11, 2004, Mr. Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen) was elected PA President in January 2005. A month later, in February 2005, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, PA President Abbas, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah II of Jordan met in Sharm el-Sheikh Summit to work towards ending the Second Intifadah, with both Israel and the PA agreeing to the Sharm el-Sheikh Commitments. Accordingly, in September 2005, Israel withdrew all its soldiers and settlers from the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the northern part of the West Bank, but continued to control access by sea, air and land to the Gaza Strip. Two months later, the PA and Israel agreed to reopen the Rafah border crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt under joint PA and Egyptian control.
(c) Hamas.
In January 2006, the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC, legislature of the Palestinian Authority) held elections. HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement), which is classified by the United States and the European Union as a terrorist organization, won by a substantial majority. On formation of a Hamas-led government, Israel began withholding the tax and customs revenues it collects on behalf of the PA, and the Quartet members declared they could not work with the Hamas government unless it renounced violence, recognized Israel and adhered to previous agreements. Donors cut off international aid to the PA (although humanitarian aid to Palestinians may actually have increased), and the peace process was stalled.
(d) Hezbollah.
In the summer of 2006, active hostilities broke out between Hezbollah (or "hizballah," meaning in Arabic "party of God") and Israel in southern Lebanon, which conflict became known in Israel as the "Second Lebanon War" and in Lebanon as the "July War"). The conflict began when Hezbollah militia fired rockets and mortars at Israeli military positions and border villages, while another Hezbollah unit crossed the border and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and killed three others. After unsuccessfully attempting to rescue the abducted soldiers, Israel launched massive airstrikes and artillery fire on targets in Lebanon and a ground invasion of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah retaliated with more rockets and guerilla incursions into northern Israel. The conflict killed over 1,200 people, most of whom were Lebanese, severely damaged Lebanese infrastructure, displaced nearly 975,000 Lebanese and 300,000 Israelis, and destroyed normal life on both sides of the border.
On August 11, 2006, the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 1701 in an effort to end the hostilities. The resolution, which was accepted by the governments of both Lebanon and Israel, called for disarmament of Hezbollah, withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon, and deployment of Lebanese soldiers and an enlarged United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in the border area. The Lebanese army began deploying in southern Lebanon on August 17, 2006. Since Resolution 1701, both the Lebanese government and UNIFIL have stated that they will not disarm Hezbollah. Israel, in response, has indefinitely postponed plans unilaterally to withdraw from most of its remaining West Bank positions.
(e) Israel Today.
The present state of Israel encompasses territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The recognized borders of Israel enclose about three-quarters of the area. The remainder is land added since the 1967 6-Day War -- the Golan Heights, part of the West Bank, east Jerusalem and part of the Gaza Strip (the Sinai having been returned to Egypt as part of the peace process). Most of the Gaza Strip is currently under the control of the Palestinian Authority, as is most of the Palestinian population in the West Bank. For the past several years, Israel has been constructing a West Bank barrier consisting of a network of fences mainly surrounding Israel West Bank territories and partly along the 1949 Armistice line between Israel and the West Bank ("Green Line").
2. Issues.
Between the United States and Israel, the overriding issue is foreign assistance. The relative urgency of various perennial issues has fluctuated over time, the current focus of special attention being Iran.
(a) Foreign Aid.
Since the War of Independence, in the period 1949 through 2004, the United States provided $100 billion dollars in foreign assistance to Israel, $64.4 in military and $35.6 in economic aid. This total includes three special allocations, $10 billion in loan guarantees (spread over five years) approved in 1992, a variety of other smaller assistance-related accounts (for example, for refugee resettlement, totaling nearly $1.5 billion) and cooperative development programs (amounting to $186 million since 1981). It does not include funds for joint military projects like the Arrow missile (more than $1 billion in grants to Israel since 1986), $53 million for the Boost Phase Intercept program and $139 million for the Tactical High Energy Laser (complement to the Arrow), which are provided through the Defense budget. For Fiscal Year 2005, the total aid was $2.6 billion, composed of $2.2 in military assistance and $360 million for economic aid; for FY 2006, the total was $2.5 billion, with $2.3 billion military and $240 million economic; and the Foreign Aid Bill for FY 2007 as passed by the House of Representatives included $2.4 billion, $2.3 billion and $120 million.
After Iraq, Israel has been the largest annual recipient of direct United States foreign aid since 1976 and the largest total recipient since World War II. For more than half a century, United States Presidents of both major parties and successive Congresses have consistently supported substantial military and economic assistance packages for Israel, amounting to as much as half of all United States foreign aid. Rather than altruism, this is generally considered a critical and cost-effective means for serving U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East and elsewhere. Enabling Israel to survive and to remain militarily and economically strong helps the United States to combat terrorism, weapons proliferation and other threats to our own national security. Israel also contributes to U.S. security by sharing vital intelligence and defense technologies. Moreover, more than 75 percent of our military aid to Israel is spent within the United States, thus helping boost our economy as well. Overall, although not technically true, Israel is widely regarded as our closest ally in the Middle East.
In addition to a consistent supporter, the United States is also Israel’s largest trading partner. In 1985, the U.S. Israel concluded a Free Trade Agreement with Israel, eliminating customs duties between the two trading countries. Israeli exports to this country have grown 200% since the FTA became effective.
(b) Iran.
Iran and the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are of critical concern to both the United States and Israel. Apart from the fact that Iran is generally suspected of supplying weapons and otherwise aiding Shia insurgents in Iraq, President Ahmadinejad has set Iran on a course of nuclear development. He also remains the Middle Eastern Leader most vocal in seeking the destruction of Israel.
The United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution imposing sanctions against Iran for failing to halt its uranium enrichment program. The resolution and its economic sanctions are, however, weak, having been considerably watered down at the insistence of Russia and China. Their attitudes may derive from the facts that Russia is building a nuclear power station in Iran and has other major business ties with that country, and China has significant oil interests there. In any event, Iran has vowed to persist in its enrichment program.
Adding insult to potential injury, in December 2006 Iran sponsored an International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, which was broadly condemned by the rest of the world. At the conference, President Ahmadinejad not only labeled the Holocaust a "myth," but also renewed his repeated calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. Indeed, since advocating that Israel be "wiped off the map," in a speech to a World Without Zionism Conference in October 2005, the Iranian President has been accused of advocating genocide.
Meanwhile, Israel may be taking matters into its own hands. On January 7, 2007, the Sunday Times of London reported that Israel is preparing a strike on the Iranian nuclear program at several bases scattered throughout the country. The Times claimed that the attack would be carried out with tactical nuclear "bunker busters" supplied by the United States. Israel quickly denied the report. But whether or not the article is correct as to actual plans, the basic idea has a ring of truth, particularly remembering the Israeli destruction of the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. Moreover, in light of the failure of diplomacy by the United States and the European Union and the weakness of the United Nations sanctions, it is hard to imagine that Israel is not at least developing contingency plans for stopping acquisition by Ahmadinejad of nuclear weapons.
(c) Settlements.
Today, more than 270,000 Israelis live outside the Green Line. The Israeli government is under great pressure to evacuate settlements beyond its original borders.
As already mentioned, in September 2005 Israel withdrew more than 9,000 settlers from the Gaza Strip and four northern West Bank settlements, the first time in more than two decades that Israel had voluntarily relinquished territory. In the permanent status negotiations, the evacuation of Gaza was supposed to be the first step in "disengagement" from the Palestinians, and it was anticipated that additional withdrawals from settlements in the West Bank would follow. Then came the Hamas election and the Second Lebanon War, and such plans were put on hold. The future of the permanent status negotiations and an eventual "two-state" resolution as envisioned in the Roadmap is contingent on further withdrawals.
Meanwhile, Israel seems to be transmitting mixed signals. On December 23, 2006, Prime Minister Olmert held a first-ever formal meeting with PA President Abbas. At the meeting, Israel pledged to release $100 million (about 20%) of the Palestinian funds frozen by Israel, to allow forces loyal to Prime Minister Abbas to deploy in the Gaza Strip, to reactivate a joint committee to discuss the issue of about 10,000 Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, to upgrade the crossings between the Gaza Strip and Israel, and to dismantle 27 of the approximately 400 or so checkpoints in the West Bank. Three days later on December 26, however, the Israeli government announced approval of construction of a new settlement in the occupied West Bank for the first time in a decade. The approval of the settlement, to be called Maskiot, was widely condemned, including by the United States and the European Union, as diverging from the Roadmap. Three weeks after that, on January 19, 2007, Israel announced cancellation of the project.
(d) Refugees.
All told, some 4.4 million Palestinians – close to half of the estimated worldwide Palestinian population —are now United Nations registered refugees. Of these refugees, 1.3 million live in 59 camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and Gaza.
The main issue with the Palestinian refuges is the "right of return." Perhaps 700,000 or more Palestinians were driven from their homes during the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence. There is also the question of return to PA-controlled territories of an estimated 400,000 or so Palestinians and their descendants expelled from the West Bank in the 1967 Six-Day War.
Israel argues that the absorption of several million Palestinian refugees and their descendants would destroy the character of the Jewish state, whose population of about seven million people is already about 20% Arab. Other potential host countries have likewise rejected the Palestinian refuges. In January 2003, Lebanon refused to accept Palestinian refugees permanently, fearing that settlement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would jeopardize its own demographic balance. Nor are Syria, Saudi Arabia or Egypt willing to absorb large numbers. Most recently, King Abdullah said that he would not allow a massive influx of Palestinian refugees into Jordan as part of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.
(e) Jerusalem.
Soon after independence, in 1950 Israel proclaimed Jerusalem to be its capital. At that time, the proclamation related only to West Jerusalem, since the eastern part of the city was part of Jordan. After taking over East Jerusalem in the Six Day War in 1967, however, Israel passed legislation incorporating it. In response, non-binding United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 declared the Israeli law "null and void" and advised U.N. member states to withdraw their diplomatic representation from the city as a punitive measure. With few exceptions, the countries with embassies in Jerusalem did so, relocating to Tel Aviv. All branches of the Israeli government, including the Knesset and the Supreme Court, however, are located in Jerusalem.
The status of Jerusalem has long been central to peace negotiations between Israel and both the Arabs and the Palestinians. As already indicated, for more than half a century Israel has had its capital in Jerusalem, and for forty years the whole of the city. The PA, for its part, asserts that the capital of a future Palestinian state will be East Jerusalem. The Oslo Accords basically said no more than that the final status of Jerusalem should be determined by peaceful means.
Meanwhile, Israel continues to seek recognition of its choice of a capital city, among other ways by relocation of embassies there. As far as United States policy is concerned, the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, overwhelmingly passed by both Houses of Congress, recognized that "[e]ach sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital" and that "[s]ince 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel." The United States Embassy has, however, never been moved from Tel Aviv (although we do have a consulate in Jerusalem). Based on legal arguments that foreign policy is the Constitutional prerogative of the President and the fact that the Embassy Act itself provides that President can postpone the move every six months due to national security interests, both Presidents since 1995 have repeatedly issued waivers. On the occasion of the most recent such action by President George W. Bush on December 18, 2006, an anonymous "White House official" explained that "[m[oving our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem now would complicate our ability to help Israelis and Palestinians advance toward peace and the president's two-state vision." Meanwhile, there has already been introduced in the 110th Congress a bill which, while not purporting to require the immediate move of the embassy, would require the consulate in Jerusalem to be "under the supervision of the United States Ambassador to Israel" and mandate that "any official document of the United States Government which lists countries and their capital cities shall identify Jerusalem as the capital of Israel."
(f) Boundaries.
The issues of settlements, refugees and Jerusalem are, of course, inextricably combined with the question of borders. Due to recent activity, one border issue should perhaps be specifically reviewed here.
Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War (and again in the 1973 Yom Kippur War). The area was under military administration from 1967 until 1981, when the Knesset passed the Golan Heights Law applying its "laws, jurisdiction and administration" to the area (similar to the 1967 measures for Jerusalem). There are currently about 18,000 Israeli settlers and 20,000 Syrians (mostly Druze) living in the Golan Heights. Rising from 400 to 1700 feet above neighboring lands in the three bordering countries, the Golan Heights have obvious strategic significance, and under Syrian possession they were frequently used to launch attacks against Israel. Perhaps equally importantly, the area is the source of about one-third of the fresh water supply for all of Israel (collecting in body of water known as Lake Kinneret or the Sea of Galilee), and in 1964 Syria undertook a damming project to divert critical headwaters.
According to a report first appearing in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, between September 2004 and July 2006, private Israeli and Syrian negotiators engaged in secret discussions leading to a tentative agreement (a "non-paper") with the knowledge of senior officials in both governments. The attempt to end the decades-long conflict between the feuding neighbors reportedly stagnated, however, following opposition by Israel to raising the talks to an official level and a Syrian refusal to restrict them to an "academic level" similar to the precursors to the Oslo accords. The effort collapsed during the July 2006 Second Lebanon War.
From a United States perspective, the very fact that these back-channel communications took place (assuming the Haaretz leak to have been correct) between Israel and Syria is intriguing. The Report of the Iraq Study Group (ISG or "Baker-Hamilton Commission "), released in December 2006, called for a broad "diplomatic offensive," including direct talks with Iran and Syria and a renewed commitment to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. Israeli Prime Minister Olmert took strong exception to the recommendations, particularly the idea of opening direct negotiations with Syria, and a number of American Jewish groups followed suit.
(g) Cluster Bombs.
Another Israel issue that has recently been addressed in the United States Senate is the use by Israel of cluster bombs in areas with civilian populations in Lebanon in July 2006. In August, the United Nations Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs accused Israel of the "immoral" firing of hundreds of these munitions. He warned that up to 100,000 bomblets remained unexploded, causing a quarter million Lebanese refugees to be unable to return to their homes because of fear of injury by the unexploded ordinance. The non-governmental public interest group Human Rights Watch has, in turn, charged that Hezbollah also fired Chinese-made cluster bombs into civilian areas in northern Israel during the same conflict. While the U.N., the United States Department of State, human rights groups and other groups have been investigating, a proposal to prohibit the use of cluster bombs "in or near" civilian areas was introduced in the Senate and defeated by a vote of 30 to 70.
(h) Magen David Adom.
At least one issue with Israel was recently resolved. On June 21, 2006, Magen David Adom (MDA), the official Israeli emergency medical, disaster, ambulance and blood bank service, was finally accepted as a full member of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).† MDA was long denied full membership on the ground of use of a Red Star of David (the Magen David) as its emblem. Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, IFRC members must "[u]se the name and emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent." At a diplomatic conference of all states party to the Geneva Conventions in December 2005, the Red Crystal was adopted as a third, neutral emblem, paving the way for MDA membership in the IFRC. The matter was put to a vote after certain Arab and Muslim countries rejected compromise proposals aimed at achieving consensus, and the vote was 237 to 54. Since 2000, at the instruction of Congress, the American Red Cross has withheld $25 million in IFRC dues and voluntary contributions to protest the failure to admit MDA.
Protect Israel with Safe and Secure Borders.
Much as all concerned may wish, no one is going to solve the problems of six thousand years of history, or even of the sixty years since Israeli independence, with a magic gesture. There have, however, been some dramatic benchmarks that may ultimately mark the path to long-term peaceful relations in the Middle East – the 1977 visit by Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat to Israel, the Camp David Accords, the Oslo Accords, the 1993 handshake between Israeli President Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat on the signing of the Oslo Accords, and some others; and there have also been multiple setbacks -- usually in the form of open warfare. But what is clear is that the progress that has been made has required unwavering commitment, persistence and courage.
Continuing military assistance from the United States is obviously a vital factor. On February 5, 2007, President George W. Bush requested $2.4 billion in military aid to Israel as part of his Fiscal Year 2008 budget submitted to Congress. There was no provision for economic aid (although the budget does include another $40 million to help Israel absorb refugees from the former Soviet Union and other countries). The all-military request was pursuant to a 1997 bilateral agreement, which provided for civilian aid to be cut by $120 million a year until elimination in 2008, while military aid increased by $60 million a year to a ceiling of $2.4 billion (down from a high of $3 billion a decade ago). As Congress after Congress has recognized, sufficient military aid is not only crucial to the survival of Israel, but represents a cost-effective investment in United States strategic deterrence and anti-terrorism.
Beyond direct assistance, there have also been several successful joint military projects. The most notable is the Arrow Missile Program (the current version being the Arrow 2). The Arrow interceptor is classified as a theater (medium-range, between strategic and tactical) missile defense system. It is the only anti-ballistic missile system capable of intercepting targets high in the stratosphere (others operating in outer space or the lower atmosphere). The Arrow project got underway after the United States and Israel agreed jointly to fund it on May 6, 1986, and the actual design and construction work was done in Israel with U.S. financial backing (said to be as much as $2 billion) and joint management. On February 11, 2007, Israel successfully conducted its first nighttime test of the Arrow system (the tenth test of the entire system and the fifteenth of the interceptor). The test was characterized by Israeli public television as a "message to Iran," since the missile was fired at and destroyed a target similar to Iran’s long-range Shahab-3 missile and the test itself took place on the anniversary of the success of the Islamic revolution with the collapse of the Pahlavi dynasty.
There are various other potential avenues for United States Israel collaboration. The Promoting Antiterrorism Cooperation through Technology and Science Act ("PACTS Act"), which was reintroduced at the beginning of the 110th Congress, provides that "[p]artners may include Israel, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Singapore, and other allies in the global war on terrorism, as appropriate." Also, during the second session of the 109th Congress, the House of Representatives passed by voice vote the United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Act, which authorized $20 million a year through 2012 for joint ventures for the development and commercialization of alternative renewable energy sources, and this bill is expected soon to be reintroduced in the 110th. There are other anticipated areas of future cooperation, and Congress also again has before it proposed legislation reaffirming recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
The overriding concern of both countries at the moment is Iran and in particular its developing potential to acquire nuclear weapons. More broadly, one thing the United States has unquestionably accomplished by becoming mired in the protracted war in Iraq is to shift the balance of power in the Middle East region so as to enhance the threats posed by Iran and Syria to both this country and Israel. Recently, in order to resolve the explosive situation in Iraq, the Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton Commission or ISG) appointed by Congress recommended a regional diplomatic conference, specifically to include Iran and Syria. The ISG report is deserving of careful consideration, by virtue of the caliber and experience of its members and the experts consulted. It remains, however, difficult for outsiders to comprehend what Iranian and Syrian participation may be expected to accomplish, particularly since the interests and policies of Washington (and Jerusalem) diverge so radically from those of the current regimes in Tehran and Damascus. In any event, the price of cooperation from these countries cannot be any easing of pressure on the Ahmadinejad regime over its nuclear ambitions or the Syrian government over its role in Lebannon. Assuming that they do not serve as a distraction from other efforts, talks with either of these countries, particularly Syria, should still not be dismissed out-of-hand (particularly if the Syrian government has indeed recently be entertaining overtures from Israel).
For more than a decade, renewed efforts through the Oslo Accords and later the Roadmap appeared to be showing some promise toward achieving peace in the area if not a lasting two-state solution to the chronic chaos in the Middle East. With Hamas in control of the Palestinian legislature and the Lebanese government and others unable or unwilling to restrain Hezbollah, however, the prospects are clearly not promising for the near future. This is neither to concede the hopelessness of the peace and status negotiations, nor to discourage the initiative of members of the 110th Congress who support a resolution urging the President to appoint a new Middle East Peace Envoy.
Finally, from the point of view of Israelis, they live in a "bad neighborhood" in the middle of peoples who have vowed to annihilate them and repeatedly tried to wipe their country off the map. No proposed solution will be acceptable to Israel unless it not only achieves recognition of the right to exist, but also ensures lasting safety and security. If those conditions can be met, the hope still remains that, even if Israelis and Palestinians cannot live together peacefully, perhaps they can at least live apart in two states in peaceful proximity.
All that having been said, one can only welcome the belated Bush Middle East.
|
|
