Israel Matzav

The rewards of greed

The Olmert-Peretz-Livni government is willing to do anything to keep itself in power.

A week ago, in a bid to distract the Israeli public and appease the United States for having totally bungled the war in Lebanon, the Olmert-Peretz-Livni government revived the 'road map,' so as to have a way of giving an illusion of progress on the 'Palestinian' front. The 'road map,' had been declared dead with the unilateral disengagement surrender and expulsion of the Jews from the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2005, and was buried by most Israelis along with the prospect of 'peace' with the 'Palestinians' in our time when the two-front war was started by Hamas and Hezbullah this past summer. But last week, the Olmert-Peretz-Livni government decided to 'revive' it.

Now, the government's efforts are 'paying off.' In a speech given by Philip Zelikow, a senior adviser to Secretary State Condoleezza Rice, at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on Friday, we were given the message that the United States is making a connection between efforts to block Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and progress in the diplomatic front between Israel and the Arab world - especially along the 'Palestinian' track. That's just what we didn't needed.

In an address that opened the institute's annual conference, Zelikow said that American policy was undergoing changes that have not been sufficiently acknowledged by the international community.

A special adviser to Rice and a consultant on major foreign policy issues, Zelikow gave his address at a time when America is making efforts to convince UN Security Council members of the need to impose sanctions against Iran in order to force it to meet UN demands to freeze its uranium enrichment program.

The senior State Department official explained that the United States must ensure progress in the Israeli-Palestinian track, so that it can preserve a coalition of Arab and European states that are interested in containing Iran and international terrorism.

In the absence of such progress, Zelikow argued, these states will find it difficult to support America in its policies vis-a-vis Iran. Preserving this coalition is also an Israeli interest, he added.

U.S. and Israeli sources did not agree with some of the implications Zelikow mentioned, however, most did say that if he made these statements, then he is expressing the views of the administration. This suggests that U.S. policy may be embarking on a significant change of direction.

Israel's ambassador to Washington, Danny Ayalon, described Zelikow's statements as "an intellectual exercise."

Following consultation with senior administration officials, Ayalon said that he believes "that there will be no change in American policy in the Middle East," and that "there will be no linkage between the Iranian issue and the Palestinian one."

In contrast, American sources were careful in their analysis. They said that behind closed doors, there is a struggle being waged over the administration's diplomatic agenda, and senior officials - like Zelikow and perhaps even Secretary Rice - would like to see greater U.S. involvement in the Middle East conflict.

The same sources say that these officials are faced with an array of opponents who maintain that there is no Palestinian partner for negotiation, and therefore any efforts on that track would be wasted.

An American source said last week that the United States and Europe will find it difficult to formulate a position concerning the Palestinians until the nature of the new government of national unity in the Palestinian Authority becomes clearer.

Meanwhile, President George W. Bush is due to address the UN General Assembly tomorrow. His speech will mostly concentrate on Iran and international terrorism.

There are a number of points that are worth noting here. First, the claim that "the United States must ensure progress in the Israeli-Palestinian track, so that it can preserve a coalition of Arab and European states that are interested in containing Iran and international terrorism," is a bunch of nonsense. It is the same claim that excluded Israel from participation in the "war on terror" in 2001, and brought about Ariel Sharon's Czechoslovakia speech. The truth is that there is no coalition of Arab and European states that are interested enough in containing Iran to do anything about it - and there won't be one, regardless of what Israel or anyone else does. Moreover, the idea that 'progress' in the Israeli-'Palestinian track' has anything to do with maintaining coalitions to fight Islamic facists is complete and utter nonsense - a myth invented and perpetuated by the Arabists in the US State Department. When the world wants to make a coalition (Iraq - 1991), no such 'progress' is necessary.

Second, the claim that it is in Israel's interest to maintain such a coalition is only valid if one believes that sanctions are going to keep Iran from going nuclear. That's also not going to happen. Iran is within a few months of going nuclear - it's too late for sanctions. Either the US and/or Israel is going to get the job done militarily, or we are going to be facing a nuclear Iran within a year. Suggestions that sanctions or dialogue are going to do the job ignore reality.

Third, Ambassador Ayalon's dismissal of Zelikow's speech as an "intellectual exercise" either shows how little he understands of how the United States works, or is an effort to prevent the Israeli public from realizing where the Olmert-Peretz-Livni government is leading us. If the former, Ayalon should be replaced as soon as possible, while if it's the latter the government should be replaced as soon as possible. I vote for both of the above!

Fourth, it sounds like what's going on behind closed doors is yet another war between the State Department and the Administration. For most of the last six years, George Bush has wanted a much more pro-Israel policy than his State Department was willing to give him. For those who are unfamiliar with how the American bureaucracy works, it is important to realize that the President cannot just give orders or set policy direction and expect his wishes to be carried out. The bureaucracy in Washington is entrenched; it preceded Bush and will be there long after he retires. Often, the bureaucracy does what it wants to do, regardless of the President's wishes.

Fifth, the 'Palestinians' may yet bail us out by once again not missing the opportunity to miss an opportunity. It is noted above that "the United States and Europe will find it difficult to formulate a position concerning the Palestinians until the nature of the new government of national unity in the Palestinian Authority becomes clearer." There may not be a new government. Yesterday, reports indicated that 'unity government' talks between 'moderate Palestinian President' Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen and 'Palestinian Prime Minister' Ismail Haniyeh had been frozen. Today, a report in the 'Palestinian' newspaper el-Ayam indicates that the 'Palestinian unity government' is "clinically dead," that there are serious differences of opinion between Abu Mazen and Haniyeh over the basic principle of a unity government, and that contacts between the two leaders have been "indefinitely frozen." If the 'unity government' is off, that would be good news.

The greed of Olmert, Peretz and Livni has endangered Israel's well-being. If we dodge the bullet that the three of them have set out against us, it will be due to circumstances beyond their control.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:29 PM