|
|
November 5, 2004/Cheshvan 21 5765, Vol. 57, No. 10
Will Bush change course on Israel?
LESLIE SUSSER
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
JERUSALEM - The Israeli establishment is delighted by the re-election of President Bush.
His Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, may have been seen as a good friend of Israel, but Israeli officials speak of an ideological meeting of minds between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Likud-led govern-ment and Bush's neoconser-vative-dominated milieu.
Both put a premium on the war against terror and the creation of democratic institutions as a means to world and regional peace.
Moreover, Bush's record on Israel as president is seen as impeccable, and there was some anxiety that, if elected, Kerry might have been inclined to follow a more coordinated internationalist policy leading to pressure on Israel to make concessions on the Palestinian track.
But there are concerns about pressure on Israel from a second Bush administra-tion, too. Some suggest that Bush may seek improved ties with Europe, and that that could spell new demands on Israel.
Israeli officials hold that Bush's overall worldview, dividing the world into good and evil protagonists, allies and enemies, with Israel on the side of the steadfast allies, is a huge bonus.
Kerry, the Democrat, would probably have been more inclined to turn to the international community, and international institu-tions like the United Nations and the International Court at the Hague, to resolve global problems.
And that, the officials maintain, might have been detrimental to Israeli in-terests.
They also make much of Bush's letter to Sharon last April, in which they see a significant upgrading of the strategic understand- ing between Israel and the United States on the Pal-estinian issue.
The letter underscores agreement that the Pal-estinians would not have the right to return to Israel proper in a final peace settlement, that Israel would be able to keep large settlement blocs in the West Bank, and that the United States would not support any international peace plan other than the "road map," which both Israel and the Palestinians have approved.
In addition, they say, Bush, who refused to have anything to do with Yasser Arafat because of his perceived implication in Palestinian terror, would be less likely to deal with his successors unless they carry out road map reforms.
Kerry, if elected, they say, might not have stuck to the road map or to its demands for Palestinian reform.
Still, there is a mainstream assessment in the Israeli Foreign Ministry that American policy on the Israeli-Palestinian issue even under Bush will be become more proactive and more closely coordinated with Europe.
A ministry position paper warns of a possible American deal with Europe over Iraq and Iran, in which Israeli concessions to the Pale-stinians are the payoff for European support for Wash-ington in Iraq and the Gulf.
There are two schools of thought on a new Bush administration in the Foreign Ministry: One expects more of the same, with Bush feeling that he now has an overwhelming mandate from the American people to continue the war on terror, as well as his policies in Iraq and on the Israeli-Pal-estinian conflict.
The opposing view holds that Bush's first order of business will be to start cleaning up the mess in Iraq, and that he will need European and Arab support.
"He won't go to them cap in hand," an official told JTA. "But he will be ready to coordinate moves with them on the Israeli-Palestinian issue in return."
What this will mean on the ground, the official said, is American insistence that immediately after its planned withdrawal from Gaza and part of the West Bank next summer, Israel be ready to enter into negotiations with the Palestinians, based on the road map, with the Europeans playing a key role.
|
|
