|
Jewish World Review /Dec. 30, 1998 /11 Teves, 5759
Jonathan Tobin
Memo to Bubba: Israel ain't Monica, keep yer hands off!
WITH NEW ELECTIONS IN ISRAEL now set for May 17, 1999, many questions about
the vote remain to be answered. But from an American frame of reference, the
big question is not which candidates will emerge as serious rivals to
embattled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The great unknown of the
coming campaign is to what extent will the government of the United States
seek to involve itself in the election.
The posture of the United States has played a crucial role in at least the
last two Israeli elections.
In 1992, the intense open hostility of the Administration of President George
Bush and his Secretary of State James Baker toward Yitzhak Shamir’s Israeli
government nearly ruptured the U.S.-Israel alliance. The late Yitzhak Rabin
and Labor benefitted mightily from the perception that Washington's abhorrence
for Shamir and Likud might permanently alienate Israel's sole ally. Given the
razor-thin edge in Knesset seats that was the margin of Rabin's victory, the
U.S. stand has to be considered crucial.
Clinton and his entire foreign policy team went out of their way to bolster
Peres as Prime Minister after terrorist bombings and the behavior of the
Palestinian Authority’s Yasser Arafat fatally undermined the Labor government.
Indeed, as some observers said at the time, Clinton campaigned harder for
Peres (and against Likud challenger Netanyahu) than he did for many a
Congressional Democrat.
But unlike 1992, the results were not what Washington intended. However much
they may have liked President Clinton, Israelis did not care for the banana
republic treatment accorded their country. The president's propping up of
Peres carried little weight. Peres was hopelessly tied to Arafat and that
trumped Clinton’s endorsement.
When contrary to Clinton's hopes, Benjamin Netanyahu became the first Israeli
premier directly elected by the people, the United States was left with egg on
its face. Over the course of the following 30 months, the Netanyahu and
Clinton relationship has rarely risen above the animosity engendered during
that election.
Netanyahu will have his hands full dealing with revolts in Likud and the
emergence of possible centrist options as well as with Labor. Dissatisfaction
with the prime minister’s halting attempts to advance the Oslo process (from
both the right and the left) as well as disgust with Netanyahu's treatment of
colleagues seems to have irrevocably broken the coalition that won the last
election. But with nearly six months to go before the balloting, anything,
including a Netanyahu comeback , is possible.
With Netanyahu’s demands for reciprocity from the Palestinians still a thorn
in the side of Clinton's Middle East policy, it is no secret that the State
Department and the White House is openly rooting for the prime minister’s
defeat. The question is, are they wise enough to back off and let Israel’s
voters make their own decisions?
At the moment, Clinton may be too preoccupied with his own impeachment crisis
and the ongoing confrontation with Iraq to have much time to monkey around
with Israeli politics. But as May approaches, the temptation to intervene may
prove irresistable. Especially if Netanyahu or another Oslo opponent appears
to have a strong chance of victory.
The leadership of the organized American Jewish world, who have been known to
intervene in Israeli politics themselves, need to tell the Administration in
no uncertain terms that in 1999, America must stand aside and let the people
of Israel choose.
Whether Israelis opt for a candidate who is more committed to Oslo than
Netanyahu, for a leader who’s an outright Oslo critic or even someone like
Amnon Lipkin-Shahak — who keeps his opinions to himself — it is their choice
and their future, not ours, that’s at
But that intervention paled before President Clinton's all-out effort to
ensure the election of Shimon Peres as Prime Minister in 1996.
Don't touch that flag, Bubba!
JWR contributor Jonathan S. Tobin is executive editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent.
12/22/98 Calling Things by Their Right Names
12/12/98 Good news...and bad news
11/05/98 What price free-speech?
10/30/98: Haunted by the past
10/23/98: American Jewry: Ethnicity or faith?
10/15/98: Converts, saints and Jews:
Confronting the story of Edith Stein
10/02/98: Bibi: No Messiah, just a politician
9/11/98: Politics ‘98: By their enemies shall ye know them
9/04/98: Pro-terror groups' cry of discrimination rings hollow
8/28/98: Defending the undefendable;Or, the AJCongress should stop wasting Jewish resources
8/21/98: Is 'Jewish journalism' an oxymoron?
8/14/98: Holding on to our heroes
8/07/98: Three strikes, but they continue to play
7/23/98: Zionist vs Zionist
7/17/98: Summer news stories: Large and small
7/13/98: A step closer to school choice
6/26/98: The Holocaust Museum and Mort Klein
6/12/98: What price Jewish education?
6/5/98:
Ten books for a long, hot summer:
A serious vacation reading list for Jewish history lovers
5/29/98:
Double standards here and there:
Hypocrisy raises its ugly head in Israel and the U.S.
5/26/98: Hartford Seminary tangle points to bigger issues
5/22/98:The importance of being Bibi
5/14/98:
The ‘dream palace' of the anti-Zionists:
Hartford Seminary controversy has historic roots
4/26/98: All-rightniks versus the alarmists:
Focussing on the Jewish bottom line
4/13/98:Of ends and means and victims
4/5/98: Hang up on Albright
3/29/98: Bigshots or activists?: Clinton's three clerics return from China
3/27/98: Will American Jews help Clinton push Israel into a corner?
3/22/98: Anti-Semitism then and now
3/15/98: Still searching for Jews at the opera
3/11/98: Remembering Eric Breindel
3/8/98: Getting lost in history
3/5/98: Follow the money to Hamas
2/22/98: Re-writing "Anne Frank" - A distorted legacy
2/15/98: Religious persecution is still a Jewish issue
2/6/98: A lost cause remembered (the failure of the Bund)
2/1/98: Economic aid is not in Israel's interest
1/25/98: Jews are news, and a fair shake for Israel is hard to find