Israel's Search for a New Patron Is No Alternative to Making Peace

By Leon Hadar

The crisis in the U.S.-Israeli relationship, and the growing sense in Israel that both the American government and public are questioning the foundations of the "special relationship," has created despair within the Israeli foreign policy establishment, and a search for possible new foreign alliances.

Things Change

The fear that Israel can no longer count on receiving a U.S. diplomatic and financial blank check was created by the collapse of the Cold War "strategic alliance" rationale for the relationship between the two countries. It intensified following the defeat of Israel's Washington lobby on the issue of the loan guarantees.

"Israel has become a burden on the shoulders of its supporters in Congress," according to a secret report prepared by Judith Varnai, the Israeli Embassy's liaison to the House of Representatives. Her report, leaked to the Israeli daily Ma'ariv, said Israel's congressional supporters are finding it difficult to justify to their constituents their past backing for huge sums of aid to Israel.

Israel will face an even less sympathetic Congress after next fall's elections, concluded Veram Etinger, the Israeli Embassy's Senate liaison, according to Ma'ariv. Etinger pointed to the decisions by such pro-Israel figures as Representatives Larry Smith (D-FL) of the House Foreign Relations Committee and Dante Fascell (D-FL), the committee's chairman, not to run again. "In the next Congress we will see fewer and fewer of the friendly faces we know," Etinger noted. "Instead, we will see a lot of new faces—black, brown and feminine faces—who are less supportive of foreign aid in general, and to us, in particular."

The fact that scandals, reapportionments, and anti-incumbency sentiment are combining to shake out a record number of pro-Israel lawmakers is only one element in the deterioration in the relationship between the two countries. The end of the Cold War and the long-term economic problems in the United States have produced an isolationist trend in America, which is less tolerant of foreign aid and what has become an annual entitlement program for the Jewish state. The continued occupation of the West Bank and the tarnishing of Israel's image as a result of the intifada have only helped to erode whatever is left of public support for the Jewish state.

Likud leaders and their supporters in Washington have attributed the changes in the Israeli-American relationship to the supposedly "anti-Israeli" Bush and Baker team and prayed for a November victory of the Democratic challenger. But, deep in their hearts, most of them know that a President Clinton or, for that matter, a President Perot, would make very little difference as far as mending the ties between the two countries. At most, a change in the White House would perhaps delay by a few months the continuation of the peace process.

The good old days of the Reagan years are finished for good.

Notwithstanding his pro-Israel rhetoric, Clinton, like Bush, has criticized Israel's settlement policies. Some of his advisers, including his top national security aide, Anthony Lake, a former aide to Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, belong to the more progressive wing of the Democratic party's foreign policy establishment (referred to by critics as the "McGovernite" wing), with its commitment to human rights. Hence, a Clinton administration could become even more critical of Israel's West Bank policies than the Real-politik-oriented Bush foreign policy team, whose efforts to advance the peace process stem more from strategic and oil calculations than from concerns for Palestinian rights.

Israeli and American Jewish newspapers are playing up stories about Perot's Jewish lawyer and adviser, Mort Meyerson, who arranged Perot's trip to Israel a few years ago. It is clear, however, that the Texan businessman, who has no ties to Jewish contributors and Jewish political supporters in the two parties, would be less susceptible to pressure from the Israeli lobby. Nor is his populist and somewhat isolationist message going to turn him into an enthusiastic supporter of large aid programs for Israel.

Ironically, Bush, an internationalist who is not philosophically opposed to foreign aid, but only unconditional aid that undercuts U.S. policy, could turn out to be a more pragmatic Israel's best hope in this election year in which U.S. politicians are facing angry and frustrated voters.

In any case, it is clear to most Israelis that the good old days of the Reagan years are finished for good. Leaks from the administration criticizing secret Israeli sales of U.S. military technology to Third World countries, and the suggestion raised by the State Department spokeswoman that Washington supports the inclusion of the Palestinian "right of return" in the peace talks, have had a traumatic affect on Israelis.

They recognize that current tensions between the two countries go beyond the problem of this American president or that Israeli prime minister. There is even a concern (shared, interestingly enough, by leaders of the pro-Western Arab states) that an isolationist America might disengage from the Mideast.

Most Israeli observers agree that only a more conciliatory posture on the Palestinian issue on Israel's part, and a successful conclusion of the peace process, could insure at least in the short run the maintaining of ties with Washington, albeit on a lower level than in the Cold War years. The Likud government and Greater Israel advocates, who are opposed to any concessions on the issue, are gradually coming to the conclusion that there is an incompatibility between their agenda and the effort to secure the connection with Washington.

Looking for New Friends

Likud leader and top government propagandist Benjamin Netanyahu has given up on Washington. "The divorce between the U.S. and Israel is inevitable and would occur sooner than we expect," Israel's deputy foreign minister explained to Amonon Barzilay, the diplomatic correspondent for the daily Hadashot. Like other Likud figures, Netanyahu talks about replacing the United States with a new and more reliable patron.

He "talks of Israel's hitching itself more closely to Germany," according to Geraldine Brooks, former Wall Street Journal Middle East correspondent. Brooks reports that "Bibi" told one of his friends that the Germans "owe us" and would be willing therefore to become Israel's new source of military and financial aid.

Israeli analysts also have suggested that Israel might reorient its relationship to such global players as China, Russia, Japan and even India, all of whom have improved their ties with the Jewish state. But as Avner Vaniv, a top Israeli political scientist, wrote recently in Ha'aretz, these and other countries (including members of the former Yugoslav federation) have been expanding ties to Israel because of their perception that "the road to the heart and the pocketbook of Washington leads through Jerusalem."

A divorce between Israel and the United States is therefore going to reduce Israel's ability to sell its services as a matchmaker. Nor, in any case, are Moscow or New Delhi financial alternatives to Washington.

China and Japan have been flirting with Israel to get a foot in the door of the Arab-Israeli peace process. China hopes to break its diplomatic isolation. Japan wants to reap some of the economic benefits of an Arab-Israeli peace. Their opening toward Israel stems from its willingness to negotiate with the Palestinians. An Israeli government that attempts to sabotage the peace process is not going to win their support.

Europe Returns to the Middle East

Hence, only one international player seems to fit, at least in theory, the role of a new Israeli benefactor: the European Community (EC) and, especially, its most powerful state, Germany. Despite the recent setback in Denmark, the EC is emerging as a new political and economic entity.

Israelis believe the U.S. and a United Europe could clash over global issues, including the Middle East and the region's oil resources. According to Netanyahu's brainstorming sessions, Israel, which is critical of America's Middle East policies, could offer to help Europe challenge a Pax Americana in the region. Germany, with its own Holocaust-driven "special relationship" with the Jewish state, could emerge as the most important link between Israel and the EC, which already is the Jewish state's most important trading partner.

The European powers, who because of their military and economic weakness had to let Washington fill the vacuum as they gave up their leading role in the Middle East following World War II, might be tempted to challenge the position of the U.S. there. With rising trade battles between Washington and Brussels, the Europeans find it difficult to accept the idea that their U.S. competitor controls the Gulf oil resources on which they depend.

For a while, however, the Gulf war seems to have formalized America's dominant position in the Middle East, with Europe playing the role of a junior partner both in the Arab-Israeli arena and in the control of the Persian Gulf. The EC, despite initial protests, accepted the role assigned to it by the United States and Israel as "observers" in the Madrid Peace Conference—and agreed to the idea that Europe (and Japan) will help finance the economic reconstruction of the region after Washington succeeds in making peace between Israelis and Arabs.

While Netanyahu is right that Europe feels marginalized in the peace process, it is not clear why, to improve its position, it would turn to Israel. Two former presidents of the EC Council of Ministers, Hans van den Broek of the Netherlands and his predecessor, Foreign Minister Gianni de Michelis of Italy, have suggested that Israel enter the planned 19-nation "European Economic Area" which the non-EC countries of the European Trade Area have negotiated with the Community.

However, the Europeans made clear, any agreement to link Israel Permanently to the EC would be contingent upon conclusion of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement that would include Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The association with Europe would be part of the development of a tariff-free zone in the region linking Israel with its neighbors.

Israel could offer to help Europe challenge a Pax Americana.

While the Likud government's French-speaking Foreign Minister David Levy supported a more forthcoming attitude toward the Europeans, his colleagues, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and Defense Minister Moshe Arens, were less supportive. Only after pleading from Levy did they agree to allow the EC to participate in the multilateral talks on disarmament and security in Washington. However, they vetoed Israeli participation in the multilateral talks on economic development in Brussels because of the EC's decision to invite Palestinians from outside the occupied territories.

A Tougher European Position

Europeans emphasize that one of the positive elements in Washington's current Middle East policy is the Bush administration's willingness to put pressure on Israel to make concessions. In many ways, the EC view on the final shape of the Palestinian-Israeli peace is more tilted toward the Palestinians than that of Washington. In case of a U.S. failure to move the peace process ahead, one can expect the EC, and especially France, to exploit potential anti-American feelings in the region by proposing a peace agenda that will be more critical of the Israeli position.

Contents of a 14-page internal working paper prepared by its policy experts for the decision-making European Commission were leaked to British newspapers. The study recommended full-scale economic sanctions unless Israel freezes settlements.

"We are suggesting the Community and its member-states should formally declare that all loans, credits or grants to the government of Israel from individual member-states or from European Community banking institutions should be fully scrutinized, warranting that those monies will not be employed or in any way diverted to settlement activities in the occupied territories," stated the authors of the paper.

It also demanded a central role in the peace process, comparable with that of the co-sponsors, emphasizing that Europe "cannot restrict itself to being a mere bystander." It characterized the current Arab-Israeli talks as "fake meetings" and blamed Israel for failure to make progress.

Hence, hopes by Netanyahu and others that Europe would replace the United States as Israel's patron seem nothing more than wishful thinking. If Israeli intransigence and the rising costs of military and diplomatic intervention in the Middle East drive the United States out of the region, Israel will be alone in facing a new power, Europe, that will be less sympathetic to its concerns.

A Cold Shoulder from Germany

Moreover, a Likud attempt to play the "German Card" led nowhere. After Bush rejected Israel's request for $10 billion in loan guarantees, Israel tried to convince Bonn to offer a substitute package. In rejecting the request, the government of Helmut Kohl made it clear that it shares the U.S. view of Israel's settlement policies, and would withhold German loan guarantees until Israel reaches an accommodation with Washington.

Contrary to Netanyahu's expectations, the government of reunified Germany, while continuing to emphasize German responsibility for the Nazi Holocaust, seems to have decided that Germany does not need any more legitimacy from Israel in order to win the respect of the world.

Kohl, by meeting with former Austrian President Kurt Waldheim and by attacking the World Jewish Congress for allegedly trying to prevent the reunification of Germany, has indicated that the new Germany will no longer always accede to Israeli pressures. Nor does this policy differ from the general EC consensus on Middle Eastern issues.

Israeli analysts will, no doubt, continue to look for pies in the sky, as in their current discussion of a Turkish-Israeli alliance against Islamic fundamentalism. In fact, however, no new Israeli government will have a chance of finding new global benefactors. Instead, it will be facing an international consensus, this time including the U.S., for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. Until it moves toward peace with its neighbors, Israel will find it more and more difficult to maintain the support either of its current patron or of the rising Europe.

Leon T. Hadar's book, Quagmire: America in the Middle East, will be published this month by the Cato Institute.