Rice and Sharon - American pressure?
Photo: Avi Ohayon, GPO
Deciphering U.S. intentions
In long run, American foreign policy hinges on oil
Those who want to, have been able to recently detect some clouds in the clear blue skies of Israeli-American ties. For example, the U.S. Administration delayed its announcement regarding the “Disengagement Grant,” – which will reportedly be about half the sum Israel requested.
On another front we have the uncompromising stance adopted by Washington regarding security ties between Israel and China. Indeed, despite the close strategic Israeli-American ties, Washington does not hesitate to undermine them if it appears other interests it holds dear are being undermined.
Zalman Shoval is a former ambassador to the United StatesIs it a diplomatic act hinting at American expectations for the post-pullout period, or “merely” another proof that Israel has not yet learned the complex rules of requests for special American aid?
United States
By Yoram Ettinger
In many ways, Israel is the giver and the U.S. is the receiver, Yoram Ettinger writes
And yet another cloud: The artificial scandal created around the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the exaggerated publicity given to it by American officials. Does it hide an intention to hurt Israel’s friends, who are overactive in the eyes of some elements in the Administration?
The name of the game is oil
One can argue, of course, that we are talking about separate incidents that should not be interpreted as a trend, and that all of the above is largely meaningless in light of the sympathetic position adopted by Washington in almost every area.
Yet what should stimulate deeper thought here are possible trends in long-term American foreign policy.
The name of the game is oil. If Washington had any hopes that its military victory in Iraq would guarantee regular supply of the so-called black gold, those hopes have been shattered. Moreover, China’s rapid economic growth leads to increased demand for Middle Eastern oil and to more active diplomatic maneuvering on the part of Beijing in our region – a reality Washington cannot ignore.
We should see American efforts to lead to democratization of the Arab world in that light – efforts that create complications and contradictions in Washington’s relations with Saudi Arabia, one of the least democratic countries on earth but also owner of the world’s largest oil reserves.
Washington’s increasing involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, alongside the genuine aspiration to promote peace, is also motivated by the American desire to maintain its hegemony in the region.
What did Rice mean?
When U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice discusses the disengagement in a New York Times interview and says it marks a “first step,” one can wonder what she means.
It is possible, of course, that she was talking about trust-building measures, such as easing West Bank travel restrictions and the handover of more towns to Palestinian hands – issues that American representatives never tire of raising.
The Palestinians, on the other hand, interpret the remarks in a completely different way: Not only are they still far away from the “first step” required of them, namely a strong action against terror groups, they also view the Gaza withdrawal as a first step in the complete removal of the Jewish presence, first in the “West Bank” and east Jerusalem, and later in all of Palestine.
In the current situation, we must give greater weight to the opinion that now of all times, in the wake of the departure from Gaza, we must reinforce our hold on settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria.
What will the Americans say? We will likely witness criticism, but perhaps we shall have to remind them that we possess an explicit commitment from President George W. Bush, endorsed by the two houses of Congress, which means those blocs will remain in Israeli hands.
