The unreservedly warm welcome President Clinton gave to visiting Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin this week sent a strong signal to Israelis and Palestinians alike, whether intended or not.
To the Israelis, Clinton seemed to be saying, as Rabin himself put it, Israel again “has a friend in the White House” that it can trust when the time comes to make the difficult sacrifices that will be required to make peace with the Arabs.
And to the Palestinians, the message seemed to be: Don’t count on us to twist Israel’s arm for you. If you want to make peace with Israel, come to the bargaining table; otherwise you may find yourselves left by the wayside.
The president’s rhetoric this week suggested that the new U.S. administration would not only be supportive behind the scenes but would have no qualms about voicing strong support for Israel publicly.
Indeed, Clinton seemed this week to be pushing all the buttons designed to please Israel’s supporters, much as he did on the campaign trail.
At a news conference with Rabin on Monday, the president called for a continuation of Israel’s $3 billion annual installment of U.S. aid, reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to preserving Israel’s qualitative military edge and urged an end to the Arab boycott against those doing business with Israel.
By contrast, the president seemed to offer little to please the Palestinians.
He pointedly noted that he and Rabin had not discussed the fate of some 400 Palestinian fundamentalists whom Israel deported to Lebanon in December, saying the matter had been settled when Secretary of State Warren Christopher worked out a compromise agreement with Rabin in January.
The Palestinians never accepted that deal and have vowed not to return to the peace talks with Israel, scheduled to resume here April 20, until all the deportees are returned.
By appearing to back Israel’s position on this issue, the Clinton administration has taken a markedly different approach than the more even-handed strategy favored by the Bush administration.
‘IT GIVES ISRAEL CONFIDENCE’
While some analysts believe this tack runs the risk of alienating the Palestinians altogether, others feel the approach will bear fruit.
“The peace talks will flourish to the extent that, first, the U.S. government has a solid relationship with Israel, and second, that the U.S. government keeps putting pressure on the Arab parties to deal directly with Israel, and not get the U.S. to deliver Israel,” said Daniel Pipes, director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia.
Pipes said he sees the current U.S. approach as positive. “It’s good news for the peace process,” he said. “It gives Israel confidence, and they’re the ones taking the risk.”
Many who follow U.S.-Israeli relations have argued that Israel must feel confident in order to make the concessions necessary to push the peace process along.
And some in the Jewish community say that by sticking with the agreement on the deportees and not pushing Israel to make further concessions, Clinton is demonstrating something positive to the Arab parties: that his administration stands by agreements it makes.
The signal Clinton is sending them is that “there was an agreement, and you stick to your commitments. It’s the most important message you can send,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
Hoenlein said the ball is now in the Arabs’ court. “It’s up to them to decide” whether or not to be “in or out of the game,” he said.
Both Israeli and American officials have spoken about the benefits to the Palestinians of returning to the talks, indicating that the Palestinians would have a great deal to gain from participating, and much to lose by staying home.
While not veering into actual impatience, the United States has not been solicitous of the Palestinians over the past weeks. Rather, the administration has adopted a matter-of-fact tone, saying it hopes the Palestinians will return, but apparently not offering additional concessions to lure them back to the table.
Some long-term observers of the State Department feel that Christopher, a cautious diplomat, would not have put the United States in the position of extending invitations to the talks that would be rejected.
These observers think that Christopher may have been given some form of assurance by the Palestinians that allowed him to feel confident enough to announce the resumption of the talks.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
