ACCENT ON "SPECIAL RELATIONS"

The "special relations" between the United States and Israel are going through an endurance test of sorts for the first time in history.  And although it is unlikely that the two countries, which have been the closest of allies for six decades, will now fail the test, some differences in the approaches of Washington and Tel Aviv to fundamental issues of international and regional policy, such as regulation of the Near East and the Iran problem, certainly mark some changes to the almost idyllic picture of US-Israeli relations.

Two opinions on "two states"

The differences became manifest during the first meeting between US President Barack Obama and new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  The meeting made it clear that they had differing opinions on the format for coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians.

The US leader urged the parties to the conflict to seize an historic opportunity to sign a peace agreement as soon as possible.  At the same time, he noted the need to observe the principle of "two states," that is to say, not only Israel, but also Palestine.  "Regulation of the conflict on the principle of two states is in the interests of not only the Israelis, Palestinians and Americans, but also of the entire international community," Obama said.

Then the US President went on to demand that Netanyahu stop further expansion of Jewish settlements in occupied Arab territories and to return to dialogue with the Palestinians.  But, what is even more noteworthy, Obama urged the signing of an agreement on the creation of two states now, rather than after Israel has won the fight against terrorism, which is the position of the leaders of the Jewish state.

For the new Prime Minister of Israel, a country which very rarely receives criticism from the United States, Obama's position was an unpleasant surprise.  Netanyahu had no other choice but to voice his readiness to coexist "side by side" with the Palestinians, and to promise to resume talks immediately.  Understandably, he stipulated the recognition by Palestinians of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state as a condition for signing an agreement.  However, Netanyahu remained obstinate on the main issue of the recognition of Palestinians' right to have their own state.  At the meeting with Obama, he avoided the phrase "Palestinian state" as much as possible and spoke only in support of autonomous self-governance for the Palestinians.  He justified his position by saying that a "Palestinian state is the same as dictatorship by Hamas" and that the Palestinians cannot create a unified state at present without outside help.

However, Obama's persistence played its role.  Already upon his return to Israel, Netanyahu had apparently thought through all the possible consequences of opposing the United States' position and agreed after all that the creation of a Palestinian state was inevitable.  Therefore, there is a chance that Obama's plan for regulation of the Near East, which he intended to implement during his visit to Egypt, scheduled for early July, will be implemented.

The new peace initiative envisages the creation, on the border of Israel, of a united demilitarized Palestinian state which will incorporate both the Left Bank of the Jordan River and the Gaza Strip.  Palestinian refugees will either receive citizenship of the Arab state in which they currently reside or move to the Palestinian state.  In fact, the Palestinian-Israeli talks which followed the peace conference in Annapolis, that is, in the last year of George Bush's presidency, were based upon the same principles.  Thus the US Democratic Administration has decided to continue Republican policy on the Near East conflict.  The differences lie only in emphasis which, however, might significantly influence further progress in the process of regulation.  One of them - the departure from a policy of unconditional support for Israel - Obama demonstrated during his meeting with Netanyahu.  The other important nuance is that Obama's peace plan was co-authored with King Abdallah II of Jordan, who visited the White House recently.  This fact enabled Israeli politicians to claim in displeased tones that the Obama plan is almost identical to the peace initiative proposed by Arab states back in 2002.

The Iran barrier

However, while on the issue of a Palestinian state, Obama promised Israel the prospect of normalization of relations with the entire Arab world in return for loyalty, Netanyahu was very disappointed with the US President's position on Iran.  The Israeli Prime Minister said that his country had every right to defend itself against the threat of a nuclear Iran and said that this was a priority of his policy.  In this way, Netanyahu effectively confirmed the Jewish state's desire to stop Iran at all costs in the very near future and asked Obama for support.

However, the US President was much more reserved and forbade Israel to take any independent measures to address the Iran issue before the end of 2009.  Obama noted that, by the end of this year, he would evaluate the "prospects of his initiatives" regarding Iran and decide what to do in case it does not suspend the uranium enrichment process.  The US President did not hide his hopes that Iran would change its policy after the country's presidential elections on 12 June.

The noticeable softening of the position of the United States, which, at least for now, prefers a peaceful solution to the problem of Iran's nuclear programme, arouses mixed reactions in Israel.  In contrast to the US special services, which claim that Iran is capable of developing a threatening nuclear potential within the next 5-7 years, Israelis argue that Iran will be able to create a nuclear bomb - if it is not stopped - by as early as 2011.  This is why in Israeli political circles the idea has gained currency that the Jewish state should carry out a military strike on Iran, even despite the warnings of the United States.  Knesset member Aryeh Eldad said, for example, that the "United States has reconciled itself to a nuclear Iran" and that Israelis have no other way out but to "destroy Iranian nuclear infrastructure facilities on their own, regardless of the price they might have to pay for it."

However, the political leadership of the Jewish state must realize that the abovementioned price might be catastrophically unacceptable to Israel itself.  In addition, Israel has been warned against military action by not only the United States.  IAEA head Muhammed El Baradei noted:  "Attacking Iran would be a foolish step by Israel.  This would turn the region into a ball of fire and put Iran on a crash course for nuclear weapons with the support of the whole Muslim world."

So Israel is unlikely to defy its powerful ally from across the ocean.  In addition, The Washin-gton Times has reported that the United States and Israel agreed to create a working group on the Iran issue, and an evaluation of the pace of implementation of Obama's initiatives and exchanges of intelligence on Iran's nuclear programme will take place within the framework of that group.  For the US Administration itself, the creation of this group means also the opening of a convenient channel of communication with the Israeli government and the tracking of plans, which Israel has still not abandoned, to use armed force against Iran.

The Jerusalem issue

The US-Israeli differences, which clearly manifested themselves during the talks between Obama and Netanyahu, indicate at the same time the difficulty of the situation in which the leaders of the two allied nations find themselves.

Not having time to establish himself firmly in the office of Prime Minister of the Jewish state (which he is occupying, incidentally, for the second time after a 10-year break), the leader of the Likud party, who positions himself as a "hawk", has immediately come up against serious pressure from the international community.  And Obama's demands are just one link in the "global chain."

The Washington talks were preceded by a European Union statement which issued a threat to revise its relations with Tel Aviv if the Benjamin Netanyahu government raised objections to the idea of creating a Palestinian state.

Then a statement was adopted by the UN Security Council in which Israel is urged to take efficient measures towards the creation of an independent Palestinian state and the achievement of full peaceful regulation in the Near East.  "All parties to the conflict and the international community should work towards a solution which would ensure the peaceful coexistence of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine," the document stresses.

Pope Benedict XVI also expressed a position on this issue.  During his pilgrimage to the Holy Land, he called for the creation of a Palestinian state "within secure and internationally recognized borders."

International pressure has yielded results and Netanyahu had to admit the necessity of the creation of a Palestinian state.  Now, however, the key issue for Near East regulation appears to be the status of Jerusalem.  The United States and the international community are for an independent Palestine with its capital in east Jerusalem.  However, the Israeli leader resolutely denied this possibility, calling Jerusalem the "indivisible capital of the Jewish state."  At a ceremony to celebrate the 42nd anniversary of the city's unification under Israeli jurisdiction during the Six-Day War, which took place after the Washington talks, Netanyahu stated categorically:  "Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people, a reunified city which will never again be divided."

Israeli President Shimon Peres subscribes to this point of view:  "Jerusalem has never been the capital of anyone but the Jewish people."  For his part, Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin stressed that Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem is "not to be negotiated" and the "world must recognize our sovereignty, just like the priority right of the Jews in holy places, as our inalienable right."

So, recognition by Israel of the Palestinians' right to their own state may be viewed as a diplomatic trick of sorts, which, however, cannot address the nub of the problem.  It is clear, after all, that the Palestinians will never accept "statehood without Jerusalem."  And, expecting attempts by the US President to put pressure on Israel on this issue, the Jews give broad hints that he risks losing his office.  Israelis are certain that Obama, as the Cursor periodical reports, can strain relations with Netanyahu only to a certain limit, "which is set by the votes and financial support of the US Jews."

In the mean time, Obama is also criticized by Palestinians, who are displeased that the president does not take effective measures to punish Israel for continuing to occupy Arab territories and build settlements on the West Bank.  So further steps by Barack Obama, who has found himself in "crossfire," towards finding a solution to a situation which has a thousand nuances, including, among others, the peculiarities of US domestic politics, will be the main intrigue of the new phase of Near Eastern regulation.