http://www.salonmagazine.com/news/1998/07/28news.html
Why Clinton caved in to Israel
By Jonathan Broder
SALON MAGAZINE July 28, 1998
The Lewinsky scandal has claimed one of its
first big victims by ruining the Middle East
peace process.
If you want to watch the
chickens of the Monica Lewinsky and campaign
finance scandals coming home to roost, keep an
eye on the Middle East.
In May, it should be recalled, Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright tried to revive the
gasping Middle East peace process by delivering
a clear and unambiguous ultimatum to Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
Either accept a U.S. proposal for a modest
Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank or the
Clinton administration would "re-examine our
approach to the peace process" and go public
with its disagreements with Netanyahu's
ultra-right-wing government. Albright and her
aides made a point of reiterating that the
American proposal, which calls on Israel to
surrender 13 percent of the territory in return
for concrete Palestinian steps to bolster
Israel's security, would not be "watered down."
The peace process stalled because Netanyahu was
offering only a 9 percent withdrawal.
Albright's threat to go public meant that for
the first time Netanyahu would have been forced
to explain to Israeli voters -- two-thirds of
whom support continued negotiations -- why the
other 4 percent of territory was worth killing
the peace process and straining relations with
the country's chief ally. It would have meant
exposing the damaging role played by his
obstinate coalition partners, most of whom
refuse to relinquish one more inch of West Bank
territory to the Palestinians.
The administration's tactic struck a nerve,
sending Netanyahu, his American Jewish
supporters and their amen corner in Congress
into a froth. On Netanyahu's instructions, the
powerful pro-Israeli lobby complained to
members of Congress about the administration's
tone, with the lobby's well-known ability to
influence Jewish campaign donations for the
midterm elections an unspoken but unmistakable
threat. As a result, 81 senators signed a
lobby-dictated letter to Clinton, warning him
not to go public with his differences with
Netanyahu.
Though Albright, at least publicly, stuck by
her refusal to dilute the American proposal,
Netanyahu's tactic of facing down the
administration through Congress was working.
The first sign was an extension of the two-week
deadline that Albright set for an Israeli
response. Then the deadline was extended again
as the Israelis played for more time.
Then, in a hopeful sign last week, senior
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met in Tel
Aviv for the first time in 16 months. The
Israelis agreed to a further 1 percent
withdrawal in addition to their original offer
of 9 percent, but demanded that the remaining 3
percent of territory under the American
proposal be turned into a "national park," upon
which the Palestinians would be forbidden to
build. The Palestinians refused, and the talks
ended in deadlock, with both sides urging the
Clinton administration to step in to help.
Then came the shocker. The Clinton
administration, mediators of the Middle East
peace process since the Oslo Accords of 1993,
refused to mediate. "They should stay engaged,
and they should continue to work," said White
House spokesman Michael McCurry. "There's no
progress to report, true. But that doesn't mean
that they can't make progress. And they ought
to try harder."
The Clinton administration's refusal to
intervene masked a much more craven cave-in.
According to American, Middle Eastern and
European sources, Albright's ultimatum to
publicize its differences with Netanyahu has
been dropped altogether, on order from the
president himself. Undermined by her boss, the
gutsy and sharp-tongued secretary of state now
appears to be what Texans would call "all hat
and no cattle."
Why the cave-in? First of all, the Lewinsky
scandal has so weakened Clinton that he is
perceived by Israeli leaders as wearing an
empty holster. Prominent Israeli
parliamentarians from Netanyahu's ruling Likud
Party openly deride Clinton as "up to his neck
in scandal." Therefore, the reaction in
Jerusalem to his "accept or else" bluster goes
something like: "Or else what? We have 81
senators on our side. How many troops do you
have, besides your loud-mouthed secretary of
state? Moreover, at this -- ahem -- delicate
time in your presidency, do you really want to
get into a fight with Israel over our security
needs? No? We didn't think so."
If the Lewinsky scandal has tied one of
Clinton's hands behind his back in the Middle
East, his Democratic campaign finance concerns
have tied the other. As Democrats prepare to
recapture the House this fall, and as Vice
President Al Gore gears up for his presidential
run in 2000, the party depends heavily on a
small number of wealthy Jewish donors. No one
likes to admit that fact, but the nation may
learn more about this dependence if Attorney
General Janet Reno recommends an independent
counsel to investigate campaign finance abuses
during the 1996 election.
Their donations underscore the corrosive effect
of money on politics. Despite recent polls that
show 80 percent of American Jews favor more
administration "pressure" on Netanyahu to move
the peace process forward, the small inner
circle of Democratic Jewish donors do not.
Their message to Clinton is simple: Take your
hands off Israel, or take your hands out of my
pocket. Clinton, knowing where his bread is
buttered, has withdrawn the ultimatum that led
so many to believe that he meant business in
the Middle East.
There was a time, not so long ago, when the
right-wing policies of Israel and its U.S.
lobby were met by firm American resolve. In
1991, President George Bush refused to give
Israel $10 billion in loan guarantees until
Jerusalem pledged not to use the money to
settle Russian immigrants in the occupied
territories.
Outraged, Jewish lobbyists swarmed over Capitol
Hill, three quarters of the Senate signed a
letter warning Bush to stand down and American
Jews even branded the president an anti-Semite.
But Bush refused to stand down, and in the end
he prevailed. The tension in American-Israeli
relations caused Israelis to think twice about
their right-wing leaders, and in 1992, they
elected Yitzhak Rabin as prime minister.
Clinton and his aides are fond of boasting how
little the Lewinsky scandal has affected his
job performance, how he's able to
"compartmentalize" and filter out the
background noise of the scandal to focus on the
important policy issues at hand.
If ever there was a need to demonstrate that
ability, it's now. If the Middle East peace
process dies -- and make no mistake about it:
It is very close to death -- renewed fighting
between Israelis and Palestinians is as certain
as the sunrise. This is not a good time to let
things slip. Jordan's King Hussein, 62 years
old and perhaps the most moderating figure in
the Arab world, is ill. Despite Jordan's peace
treaty with Israel, Hussein's successor may not
have the stature to prevent the country's
majority Palestinian population from joining
the fight. The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty
could snap as well, causing two decades of
American peacemaking in the Middle East to
unravel in an instant. And to punctuate that
threat, Iran recently tested a medium-range
missile capable of hitting Israel. For the
United States, the consequences of such a war
would be incalculable.
"Lame duck" is a term that doesn't even begin
to capture the result of Clinton's Monica and
money scandals. "The Cowardly Lion" would be
more like it, accent on the lyin'.
