Maneuvering the US-Israel Relationship

Recent efforts have been made by the Obama administration to strengthen US ties with Israel.

Itamar Eichner in Yedioth Ahronoth reports that President Obama sent letters to seven Arab leaders in the Middle East, pressuring them to take more steps to progress the peace process.  These letters requested that the Arab leaders improve their relations with Israel, as well as avoid any statements that may setback negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis. The motivation behind these changes allow for Obama to exert more pressure on Israel to freeze settlement construction.

Eichner reports:

Among the states to which Obama appealed: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Morocco. In tandem with the letters, George Mitchell also left for meetings with several Arab leaders, in which he put pressure on them to take steps.

Along with applying more pressure on the Arab countries, Special Envoy George Mitchell also insured that the US's support for Israel has not diminished.

Mitchell praised Israel for the positive steps it had taken to improve movement in the West Bank and for opening crossings. He said he hoped these steps would significantly improve movement and the potential for growth in the West Bank.

Mitchell also thanked Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and other leaders with whom he met in recent weeks and promised that the American commitment to Israel's security was stable and unshakeable and would not change.

Although the events reported above show an increased stability in US-Israeli relations, the settlement freeze and the Iran issue still remain major obstacles for the peace process. With the arrival of the secretary of defense, the National Security Council adviser, and envoys Dennis Ross and George Mitchell to Israel this week, these two issues will need to be discussed.

David Newman in the Jerusalem Post addresses the settlement freeze, and the issues that the four American guests to Israel will confront when trying to advance the peace process.  Newman comments that there are many myths associated with the idea of the settlement freeze. Although a settlement freeze has been included in many previous compromises, settlements continue to grow.  This is largely because Israel views a settlement freeze as only applying to the creation of new settlements, not the growth of already existing ones. Whether or not the previous US administrations have verbally agreed on natural growth is currently irrelevant; a new US administration brings new US policy.

Newman discusses in detail the two major ways that the Israeli government has managed to side-step a settlement freeze: through the term natural-growth, and the evacuation of "illegal outposts".

David Newman in the Jerusalem Post comments:

The term "settlement freeze" has since been inserted into numerous government coalition agreements, but it has never hindered rapid population growth and infrastructural expansion. Some of the most rapid expansion, ironically, took place during Yitzhak Rabin's tenure in the early 1990s. Freeze has always been applied, in Israeli terminology, to the establishment of new settlements, never to the expansion of existing communities. The fact that the Obama administration has finally cottoned on to this is the main reason behind the current political tension. The myth has been exposed.

Another myth is the concept of "illegal outposts." The small prefabricated huts set up on hilltops throughout the region by a young, even more radical group of settler activists are now differentiated from the main settlement network. These are "illegal," while the existing permanent communities are "legal." Not only is this a convenient way around the prevention of new settlements being established (because of the so-called settlement freeze) but it also provides convenient locations for the Israeli government , every so often, to demonstrate its determination to forcefully remove these few huts under the eyes of the international media, while not touching the main settlement network.

Giora Eiland in Yedioth Ahronoth reports that while the Palestinian issue is largely responsible for the weakening US-Israeli relations, the more imminent problem is the Iranian nuclear issue.

Israel is fearful of any policy that permits Iran to enrich uranium, and believes that the stability of the Middle East depends on Iran not being permitted to create nuclear weapons. If necessary, Israel is willing to use military action in order to ensure her safety, along with the safety of the region. The Obama administration, on the other hand, believes, "it is Iran's right to develop nuclear capability for peaceful purposes," and does not demand Iran to cease uranium enrichment as a precondition for negotiations. The Obama administration also does not view Iran as the most important problem in this region, but rather focuses on Afghanistan and Iraq. These differences in opinions are widening the gap between Israel and the US's relations, and need to be addressed immediately.