OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, 23 September 2003 — While Israel has found it easy to ignore US pressure on a number of issues in the past, cutting up the future Palestinian state with a security barrier is putting increasing strain on its relations with Washington. Several hawkish ministers in Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s Cabinet want the wall, which is being erected in the West Bank to prevent infiltrations by Palestinian militants, to include the Ariel settlement about 20 kilometers across the Green Line, on the Israeli side.
But US President George W. Bush has repeatedly voiced his displeasure with the whole project, which he fears will complicate future negotiations over the borders of a Palestinian state. The first section of the barrier, which was completed in July, already chops large swathes of fertile land off the West Bank, but the Ariel loop appears to be the straw that could break Washington’s back.
Sharon’s top aide Dov Weisglass and Defense Ministry Director General Amos Yaron flew to the United States on Saturday to convince US officials of the need to include Ariel. For the first time, Sharon or his envoys could return from Washington empty-handed. The Israeli delegation yesterday sought to head off any proposed deductions from US loan guarantees over the barrier fence. Weisglass met with Bush’s National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice.
The United States has threatened to deduct from $9 billion in loan guarantees for Israel due to the fence. The Israeli delegation’s goal was to persuade the White House to be more flexible on the routing of the fence in order to minimize possible US deductions from the loan guarantees approved last spring by the US Congress.
The object of any cuts would be to ensure no US money funds settlements. White House officials said such deductions were not unusual and were done annually from 1992 to 1998. Congressional sources said the administration was considering a range of options, including deducting $200 million to $250 million for fence-related spending. But Bush is under pressure from congressional leaders not to make any deductions for the fence.
Ministers from Sharon’s Likud party meeting last week failed to reach an agreement on the issue, but according to the Yediot Ahronot daily, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom put things very clearly. “Either Ariel stays on the other side of the fence or we will take the risk of losing our alliance with the United States,” he reportedly warned his colleagues.
Although a defiant Sharon reiterated Sunday night that he would make no compromises with Israel’s security, many commentators argued that leaving Ariel outside the fence might be the price to pay for Washington’s favors.
“Anyone who expects America to continue to veto anti-Israeli resolutions in the UN ... anyone who continues to stick out his hand to receive billions of dollars in loan guarantees to save the Israeli economy also has to understand that there are no free meals in America,” Yediot wrote in an editorial.
Meanwhile, three Nobel Prize winning statesmen said here yesterday the Israeli government must look to forge a broader internal political consensus to resolve its conflict with the Palestinians. Speaking at a conference to mark former Israeli Premier Shimon Peres’ 80th birthday, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, ex-South African leader F.W. de Klerk, and David Trimble, leader of Northern Ireland’s Ulster Unionist party, each offered insights from their experience in conflict resolution.
All three were sharing the stage with Peres, who was jointly awarded a Nobel Peace Prize with Arafat and former Israeli Premier Yitzak Rabin for their roles in crafting the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords.
De Klerk, who presided over the end of apartheid after he released ANC leader Nelson Mandela and then joined him in government, stressed the importance of political inclusivity in peace negotiations. “Is there sufficient consensus among the leaders of Israel about what they want? Is there sufficient inclusivity?” he asked.
“Can Israel afford not to be represented by both in negotiations? Can a man like Shimon Peres sit on the side-lines of such negotiations?
“This all-important issue should be lifted out of the party political arena. It should be seen and dealt with as a matter of national interest.” His comments about Peres’ role in the negotiating process were echoed by Gorbachev, who addressed the delegates through an interpreter.
“We all understand how difficult it is for Israel and the Palestinians and we would like to see the framework of these negotiations broadened,” he said, without elaborating further. “The experience of Shimon Peres is so necessary in this arena.”
Trimble, who helped broker Northern Ireland’s Good Friday peace agreement, also outlined the need for a clear political strategy to end violent conflict.
“We learned that we had to have a political strategy as well as a means of dealing with violence. The way to solve violence is within the context of a political strategy,” he said.
