TITLE: The Clinton Years: U.S. Policy Toward Israel and Palestine

AUTHOR: Cheryl A. Rubenberg*

PUB:

DATE: January 23, 2001

Overview: The key characteristic of U.S.-Israeli relations since 1967 has been steadfast U.S. political, diplomatic, military, and economic support for Israel. Regardless of how egregious Israel's behavior, and despite the occasional, highly publicized U.S. "wrist-slaps," Washington has been consistent in providing Israel economic and military aid and defending it in international venues. The Clinton administration has been no exception. Clinton's Middle East Team: When President Bill Clinton assumed office in January 1993, he signaled his position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through his high level administrative appointments. Martin Indyk, a former head of the pro-Israel think tank the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), was positioned as senior Middle East advisor on the National Security Council (later serving as two-term ambassador to Israel and assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs). Prior to serving at this post, he worked as an advisor to former Israeli Likud Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. Although Indyk was an Australian citizen, he was sworn in as a U.S. citizen in an act of peremptory executive privilege at President-elect Clinton's express wishes. Dennis Ross, who served temporarily as interim director of WINEP after Indyk, was given the post of special Middle East coordinator. At the time of the Al-Aqsa intifada, some of the original players remained-most notably, Ross. (The Washington Institute announced on January 16 that Ross will return to WINEP as counselor and distinguished fellow on March 1.) Early Support for Israel's Harsh Policies: In December 1992, Israel expelled 400 Palestinians for allegedly being Hamas supporters. Despite outrage from every quarter of the international community, Clinton refrained from criticizing Israel and worked closely with Tel Aviv to develop a face-saving device for then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The U.S. solution, announced by the State Department, involved the return home of just 100 of the deportees in "a timely fashion;" half of the rest were to return in September, and the remainder in 1994. In March 1993, Rabin declared "emergency measures," including the closure of the border between Israel and the Occupied Territories. This policy of closure has remained in effect since then, although in varying degrees of intensity, severely damaging the Palestinian economy and in other ways injuriously affecting Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Clinton, however, never condemned the closure. Six months after the "emergency measures" went into effect, on September 13, Clinton presided over the signing of the Declaration of Principles. Clinton thereafter acted as Israel's handmaiden in the endless negotiations that followed, while simultaneously beguiling the Palestinian leadership with pledges of U.S. neutrality and evenhandedness as an "honest broker." Camp David: Nearing the end of his presidential tenure and concerned that history credit him with some genuine success, Clinton convened a summit in July 2000 at Camp David in the hopes of concluding a final Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. Yet, adhering to previous efforts to broker such a deal, the U.S. presented the Israeli agenda to the Palestinians as a fait accompli. When, for the first time, the Palestinians did not accede to the U.S.-fronted Israeli proposals, Clinton and his aides harshly blamed Arafat for the failure of the summit. Shortly thereafter, Clinton appeared on Israeli television in a strong show of support for the Jewish State, repeating his guarantees of military aid, an upgrading of the strategic relationship, and consideration of moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Support of Israel During the Intifada: This ongoing demonstration of Washington's partisanship, combined with former Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon's arrogant visit to the Haram al-Sharif on September 28, were the sparks that ignited a tinder box built upon seven empty years of negotiations and broken commitments. For the Palestinians, these were years of growing frustration, hopelessness, and despair at the worsening situation. Palestinians have faced tremendous unemployment, poverty, continued land confiscation, and house demolition. Due to the closure, most could no longer access employment, education, medical care, and holy sites in Jerusalem. Israel's response to the resulting intifada was swift, brutal, and lethal. Within three months, over 350 Palestinians were dead and more than 10,000 injured, many severely. Using tanks, helicopter gunships, assassinations, and starvation, Israel has laid siege to the Occupied Territories. While the rest of the world denounces Israel's draconian measures, the United States maintains its unswerving support. At the outset of the violence, France and Germany both initiated an undeclared embargo on Israel of military equipment and materials. In stark contrast to French and German policies, U.S. arms deliveries to Israel increased. Amnon Barzilai reported in the October 3 issue of Ha'aretz on "the largest purchase of military helicopters by the Israeli Air Force in a decade." The report cited "an agreement with the U.S. to provide Israel with 35 Blackhawk military helicopters and spare partsalong with jet fuel, following the purchase, shortly before, of patrol aircraft and Apache attack helicopters." On November 14, Clinton asked Congress to grant $450 million in extra aid to Israel in addition to the astronomical amounts it already receives annually. For example, in fiscal year 1997, Israel received $3 billion from the foreign aid budget; $525 million from other U.S. budgets; and $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. Under the new request, the U.S. would give Israel $250 million to defray the cost of the Lebanon withdrawal, and $200 million to develop new weapons such as the Arrow anti-missile shield. The request also included a suggestion that Israel's military aid next year include an extra $350 million. The U.S. Congress declined to approve Clinton's request. Support at Sharm el-Sheikh: Under the October 17 Sharm el-Sheikh agreement, the president provided cover for Israel's desire to return to the status quo ante and revitalize the Oslo process, while also exerting heavy handed pressure on Arafat to "stop the violence." Moreover, Clinton oversaw a secret agreement at Sharm el-Sheikh between Palestinian Preventive Security head Jibril Rajoub and Israel's General Security Services head Avi Dichter for resumption of their cooperation in "counter-terrorist" activities. These included the re-arrest of Hamas and Islamic Jihad activists, disarming the Tanzim militias, joint operations to preempt the creation of "terror cells," and other shared actions. (By the end of December, a special Israeli military unit had assassinated eight senior Fatah leaders.) Implementation of the deal would be overseen by CIA chief George Tenet and the CIA representative in Tel Aviv. It is worth recalling that a major aspect of the Oslo Accords involved the CIA training Palestinian policemen to become Israeli surrogates-informants and enforcers of "order" in the West Bank and Gaza. The U.S.-Israeli Partnership: It is the "full partnership" of the U.S. and Israel in the sham of Oslo that is responsible for the inevitable uprising of the Palestinians against the new, and more onerous, form of occupation that the so-called "peace process" has attempted to impose. The real purpose of the Oslo Accords was to provide the Palestinians limited autonomy. Their areas of control would be segregated into non-contiguous enclaves and would be surrounded by Israeli-controlled borders, with settlements and settlement roads punctuating and essentially violating the territories' integrity. During the past seven years, land expropriations, bypass roads, and new settlements (three official and 42 unofficial) have mushroomed, while the demolition of Palestinian homes has risen dramatically to over 2,000. These developments have occurred amidst ever increasing U.S. economic and military support, and barely a word of objection from Washington. On October 19, the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) condemned Israel's excessive use of force. The UNHRC also called for a commission of international inquiry. Israel, however, adamantly refused to cooperate. Nevertheless, international support for such a commission was strong, as were criticisms of Israel's inordinate violence, from Amnesty International, the Israeli human rights organization B'tselem, and, according to a December 12 Haaretz article by Amos Harel, "even key members of the [Israeli] defense establishment are increasingly convinced that Israel has been frequently using excessive force against the Palestinians." Despite overwhelming evidence of Israel's unwarranted use of deadly force and continuous demands by top Palestinian officials for the creation of a commission of inquiry, former President Bill Clinton acceded to Israel's wishes and worked hard to ensure that only an innocuous, symbolic committee would be formed. Moreover, the "Clinton Plan" he put forth in December for a conclusion of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not a just solution. His proposals are overly sympathetic to Israel, and are far short of what Palestinians could accept. Undermining the UN Inquiry: On November 7, the U.S. preempted movement at the UN for an international commission of inquiry by convening its own "international" commission. The five member, U.S. led committee would be chaired by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell. Mitchell has been a strong supporter of Israel and a top recipient of pro-Israel PAC money. He also waged a vicious campaign in the Spring of 1990 against Secretary of State James Baker, when Baker accurately stated that the settlements ringing Jerusalem were in the Occupied Territories. In addition to Mitchell, the commission is composed of former U.S. Senator Warren Rudman, former Turkish president Suleyman Demirel, Norwegian Foreign Minister Thorbjorn Jagland, and European Union representative Javier Solana. Such a commission is unlikely to be balanced. On a December visit to the region, Mitchell and other commission members reassured Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak: "We're here to help, not to pass judgments." They avowed that the commission's purpose was to restore calm and restart negotiations. The Israeli government was not entirely pleased, but expressed its gratification that the committee would not be taking a judicial approach and had no intention of serving as a tribunal. Of even greater satisfaction to Israel was Mitchell's decision that the committee would conduct its work entirely from Washington, relying on material submitted to it by Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). It would have no local headquarters, and carry out no investigations on the ground. Israeli journalist and author Meron Benvenisti aptly termed it a "committee of moral disgust," and wrote: "The committee will become one more instrument for stifling any initiative for examining the actions of Israeli security forces and for uncovering the truth lurking behind the propaganda smokescreen." Still not sufficiently content, Israel went to great lengths to dissuade the United States from allowing the Mitchell commission to begin its work before Israel had an opportunity to "calm" the situation. Once again, Washington assented to Israel's wishes and sent it a series of soothing messages regarding both the role of the commission and its terms of reference or official mandate. Moreover, Washington exercised its muscle in the UN to prevent the passage of a Security Council resolution that would have created a genuine commission of inquiry. In addition, on December 18, the U.S. "persuaded" six other Security Council members to abstain on a pending resolution for 2,000 unarmed UN observers to be deployed in the West Bank and Gaza. This victory prevented the minimum of nine "yes" votes required to pass a resolution, and at the same time absolved the U.S. of the need to exercise its veto and risk antagonizing the Arab states. Yet despite all of these efforts, on January 21, Israel temporarily froze its cooperation with the comparatively watered down and weak Mitchell commission. The "Clinton Plan": On December 19, senior officials from both sides were seated at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington with the date of January 10 (ten days prior to Clinton's last day in office) hanging over their heads for a conclusive settlement. Concerned about his historical legacy and hoping to preside over a final agreement, Clinton made a last-ditch effort to bring Israel and the Palestinians back to the "peace process." As an inducement to the Palestinians-and for the first time since the signing of the Declaration of Principles in 1993-Clinton presented an "American plan" for a final status agreement between the sides. The December proposal, however, preserves Israel's basic "red lines" and appears as little more than another U.S. front for Israel's interests. It falls far below what the Palestinians could reasonably be expected to accept, and in fact is little different than the U.S. and Israeli proposals at the Camp David summit. Nevertheless, the United States offered the "bridging" proposals as a "take it or leave it" diktat. Many points in the proposal are ambiguous and it leaves large lacunae on a number of issues. It also clearly provides room for Israel's manipulation after the fact. Examining Clinton's Proposals: Several areas of Clinton's plan require clarification. The concept that Israel would give 94-96 percent of the West Bank to the Palestinians is utterly misleading. To quote journalist Robert Fisk from a December 29 article in The Independent: "With the Dead Sea waters that would become Palestinian 'territory,' with the Israeli army 'buffer zones,' with the 'rental' of the Kiryat Arba settlement, with the exclusion of the West Bank land illegally annexed into Jerusalem by the Israelis (including the massive Maale Adumim settlement), [Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser] Arafat was still likely to get no more than 64 or 65 percent." This issue has been apparent for quite some time, but most analysts have preferred to overlook it. Moreover, Clinton's plan states: "The land annexed by Israel should be compensated by a land swap of one to three percent in addition to territorial arrangements such as permanent safe passage." The "land swap" in this plan, however, involves a small piece of barren desert in the Negev. Additionally, according to Clinton's proposals, "The general principle [regarding Jerusalem] is that Arab areas are Palestinian and Jewish ones are Israeli. This would apply to the Old City as well." Yet to anyone who has visited Jerusalem, it should seem quite clear that this would not be a simple process. There is hardly a Palestinian neighborhood in which Israeli settlers have not implanted themselves. It is inconceivable that these settlers-or the government that has permitted their illegal, often violent activities-will give these neighborhoods over to Palestinian control easily. Finally, regarding Israel's allowing "some number" of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes through family reunification: On 1 January 2001, the Knesset discussed legislation (ahead of the bill's second and third reading) to ban the right of return of Palestinian refugees to what is now Israel. The legislation would allow the return of a maximum of 100 refugees annually on a case by case basis. This bill would define refugees as persons who left their homes and land in wartime and who are not citizens (excluding their descendants). Clearly, whether or not this particular bill passes, Israel is extremely unlikely to permit a meaningful right of return to Palestinian refugees. Israel, naturally, evidenced more willingness than the PA to accept this plan. Regardless, now that President George W. Bush has taken office, it is apparent that he will not take as much interest in what he would term a "local conflict." His foreign policy team has made it clear that they are concerned only with American "national interests" in the region, which have always been related to the issue of oil and focused on the Gulf countries. Bush will therefore pay far less attention to Israel and the Palestinians than Clinton did, for better or worse. *Cheryl A. Rubenberg is Associate Professor of Political Science at Florida International University. The above text may be used without permission but with proper attribution to the author and to the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine. This Information Brief does not necessarily reflect the views of CPAP or The Jerusalem Fund. This information first appeared in Information Brief No. 62, 23 January 2001 END top