|
|
March 2, 2001/Adar 7, 5761, Vol. 53, No.22
Little things mean a lot in U.S.-Israel partnership
MITCHELL BARD
Special to Jewish News
President George W. Bush has come to office with very low expectations from the Jewish community. But he has the chance to do a variety of small things to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship, many of which his predecessor, President Clinton, the "best friend Israel ever had," never did.
He also could move on a few major decisions that would make a dramatic difference.
The best part of the opportunities the president has is that they have nothing to do with the peace process and therefore are dependent primarily on his goodwill rather than the actions of others.
One of the easy ways for Bush to shore up the relationship is to expand existing relations between the American and Israeli government bureaucracies. Few people are aware that agreements exist between virtually every U.S. agency and its Israeli counterpart.
Frameworks for cooperation, what I call "Shared Value Initiatives," cover everything from space research to education to fire fighting. The president can encourage the agencies to continue and expand existing projects. More importantly, he could seek small amounts of money specifically for implementing the bilateral agreements that otherwise become moribund from lack of funding.
The two nations also benefit from several bi-national foundations that provide grants for joint research in science, agriculture and commercial technology. The acronyms BSF, BARD and BIRD may not mean much to most of you, but it means tens of thousands, sometimes millions of dollars, to academic institutions and companies around the country and in Israel.
Nearly 400 American institutions in 47 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have received funds from these foundations, financed primarily by the interest on endowments created by both governments more than 20 years ago. The projects funded through these foundations have produced dozens of scientific breakthroughs, many with important practical applications.
Again, an infusion of new money, a few million for each foundation, would have an exponential impact not only in terms of benefits to the recipients here and Israel, but to people around the world who benefit from the fruits of the joint research.
One of Clinton's few innovations in the U.S.-Israel relationship was the creation of the U.S.-Israel Science and Technology Commission. Unfortunately, after being announced with some fanfare in 1993, it was neglected and never fulfilled its potential. President Bush should rejuvenate the USISTC to promote development of agricultural and environmental technologies and assist in the adaptation of military technology to civilian production.
Other little-known programs such as the Cooperative Development Research Program, the Middle East Regional Cooperation Program and the Cooperative Development Program, which help Israel assist other developing countries, are also important to the overall goals of the United States and should be continued and strengthened.
These programs are vital to the overall U.S.-Israel relationship and demonstrate the depth and breadth of a friendship rooted in the values our nations share.
The other pillar in the alliance is our common interest. This administration, which is far more strategically minded than its predecessor, should be especially appreciative of Israel's role in the Middle East as the most reliable supporter of American national security concerns. Bush can help Israel fulfill this role, as well as give it the confidence it needs to make the sacrifices for peace that no doubt will also be expected, by enhancing the level of strategic cooperation.
The United States and Israel already have a series of cooperative arrangements that make Israel something just short of a formal ally. Before Clinton left office, negotiations were being conducted to move a little closer to a formal alliance, but the talks foundered because of U.S. reluctance. Hopefully, Bush will renew these talks and finally recognize Israel as a full ally with all the rights and obligations that entails.
Clinton also told Israel just before leaving the White House that he would recommend allowing Israel to buy America's most sophisticated fighter plane, the F-22. This is the next generation aircraft that will not even be available to the U.S. Air Force until 2005. Bush should implement this recommendation.
Earlier, Israel agreed to a reduction in economic aid in exchange for increases in military assistance. Everyone recognizes that Israel no longer has the same need for economic assistance it once did. But the necessity for Israel to maintain its qualitative military advantage, combined with the cost of hardware (one F-22, for example, costs $85 million), makes it vital that the U.S. provide greater aid to make Israel's arms purchases (most of which are made from U.S. contractors) possible.
For all the credit given to Clinton during his term, he did little to strengthen U.S.-Israel ties in the long term. If Bush chooses to move on these suggestions, most of which cost little and are uncontroversial, he could leave a truly lasting positive legacy on the nations' special relationship.
Mitchell G. Bard is a foreign policy analyst in Maryland. His most recent book is "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Middle East Conflict." He is the webmaster for the Jewish Student Online Research Center, www.jsource.org.
|
