Skip to comments.

Posted on 10/31/2001 6:26:38 PM PST by CommiesOut

Sharon talks Israel into trouble Sunday Business Post - Ireland; Oct 28, 2001 BY RICHARD DELEVAN Dublin, Ireland, 28 October 2001 Newspaper headlines over the last few weeks might have suggested that a serious rift was brewing between the United States and Israel, its most steadfast ally in the Middle East. Washington and Tel Aviv have exchanged some extraordinary rhetoric since September 11 -- rhetoric all the more striking when compared with the well-choreographed diplomacy in the Gulf War, when Israel refrained from retaliating as Scud missiles rained down on its cities. The most recent rhetorical climax came when Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon invoked the pre-World War II memory of Munich appeasement. Sharon's public relations advisors explained that it wasn't meant to suggest that the US was an appeaser but, according to sources close to the US administration, in private President George W Bush and his advisers were enraged. Bush called the comments "unacceptable". "Sharon only opens his mouth to change feet," said one Congressional source, who asked not to be named. "So far, everyone is taking this in their stride but unless Sharon shuts up and stops making unhelpful noises, the damage to the relationship isn't going to be temporary." Last week, the unhelpful noises included Israeli tanks moving into another Palestinian town on the West Bank, in a campaign that followed the assassination of Israel's tourism minister. Bush and US Secretary of State Colin Powell demanded last week that Israel immediately withdraw from Palestinian areas. Israel responded by sending tanks into Beit Rima, a village of 4,000 on the West Bank which it claimed harboured suspects in the assassination. According to Dr Martin Slann, chair of the political science department at Clemson University and an expert on US foreign policy, US-Israeli relations haven't been this tense since the October 1973 war. At that time, the US demanded that Israel should not destroy the 60,000-strong Egyptian third army, which was cut off on the Sinai peninsula and could have easily been annihilated by Israel. Many in the Israeli military, including Sharon, felt America was denying them a decisive victory. Influential New York Times columnist Tom Friedman this week summed up the frustration building in Washington. A fictional memo from Bush to Sharon and Arafat stated: "For so many years, boys, it's always been about you. Well, now it's about us. I need you both to postpone your war now. If you won't do that for us, we'll assume you're against us." "Sharon's outrageous statements have come at the worst possible time," said Slann. "The US has warned Sharon that he's gone too far, and domestic forces like Peres will restrain him." The main leverage the US has over Israel is the threat, never made in public, to cut or eliminate the more than $3 billion in economic and military aid sent to Israel each year. While some have begun to question the nature and size of the package, few believe it will change. "The aid will not change appreciably, up or down," said Slann. "It is in the American national interest to support an ally, however annoying, in a region where we have very few friends. Moreover, if the US reduced the aid now, it would send a signal to undemocratic regimes in the region, and Sharon would actually be not too far off about Munich." Sam Gedjenson, a former member of Congress who served for 20 years as the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, agreed. "Aid to Israel will not go down, though even [former Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu was exploring ways to reduce the aid package. I'd like to see us at the same time increase aid to Egypt and Jordan." Indeed, a policy of increased aid to moderate Arab regimes is already under way. Days after September 11, the US ratified a free-trade agreement with Jordan that had been stalled for nearly a year. Support for Israel has never been uniform across the American government. The State Department has never been as pro-Israel as Congress, most presidents or the intelligence community. Its calculations are simple: is it better to be on very good terms with six million Israelis or 300 million Arabs? But most other parts of the US government -- in particular the CIA, which relies on the Israeli Mossad for intelligence about Middle Eastern terrorists -- are resolutely in favour of continuing the strong relationship. For the moment, the American public agrees, and recognises the price it is paying for that support. According to a poll published by Newsweek magazine on October 8, the day the US airstrikes began in Afghanistan, more than 58 per cent of Americans felt that the country's strong relationship with Israel was a contributing factor to the September 11 attacks. Nevertheless, just 46 cent supported changing US policy in the Middle East and more than 60 per cent opposed a reduction of US ties to Israel. It remains to be seen whether support will remain strong for Israel if Sharon continues his rhetoric and military operations in Palestinian territory, especially if it results in a splintering of the American-led coalition. If that happens, Americans may well re-examine the costs and benefits of that support. All Material Subject to Copyright

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.