¿Final de las relaciones cordiales entre Estados Unidos e israel?, escribe Shamuel Rosner
Rosner's Blog
Shamuel Rosner Chief U.S. Correspondent www.haaretz.com/rosner 
Posted: April 25, 2007
The end of the era of perfect coordination
"The paradox of the Bush presidency," William Quandt wrote in his book "Peace Process," was that its "initial agenda was probably more consonant with Israeli views than that of every previous administration. And yet this same administration was soon widely viewed as the most hostile ever to Israel." Quandt, a former member of the National Security Council in the governments of Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, describes in these sentences the dramatic change that overtook the Bush administration - Bush Sr., that is, and not the current Bush administration.
Nonetheless, even those who do not believe that the current administration will ever be like that of Bush Sr. cannot help but wonder about a somewhat similar change it is experiencing. Bush Sr. and his secretary of state, James Baker, began their jobs without any special expectations about the Arab-Israeli peace process, and without the intention of making a special effort to push it forward. The war in Iraq, and the strategic changes that came in its wake, are what changed their outlook.
True, Bush-Baker's coolness toward Israel is anything but similar to the Bush-Cheney team's great fondness for it. Thus, one does not anticipate an angry confrontation with the current Bush administration like the one that occurred between the Bush Sr. administration and the government of Yitzhak Shamir. Nonetheless, the changes that the current administration has experienced - ironically enough, the byproduct of a war in Iraq - are similarly influencing America's policy plans. The feeling that there is perfect policy coordination between Israel and the U.S. is slowly eroding. And that is precisely what the Americans want to happen.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans to visit the region "every five to six weeks," Assistant Secretary of State David Welch explained last week. At this rate, she could break Baker's record. And he said another thing, in a meeting with a group of reporters, mainly Arabs: Sometimes there are differences in the positions of the U.S. and Israel. It was clear that he wanted the reporters to make note of this. The U.S. is not flaunting coordination with Israel at this point, but rather the disparities between the two.
Rice already shattered this coordination when she decided to speak with ministers in the Palestinian unity government and met last week with Finance Minister Salam Fayyad. The visit of Defense Secretary Bob Gates to Jerusalem - an ostensibly welcome visit after a seven-year U.S. hiatus from sending its defense secretaries to Israel - also came with a bitter pill: The administration decided to execute the plan to sell state-of-the art weaponry to the Saudis. What about consideration for Israel? Perhaps another time, or on other issues, Gates said. The American "regional interests," as he emphasized, make the deal necessary. Israel will need to keep quiet, or cry out. There will be no easy consensus on this matter.
In any case, two years remain for the Bush administration, and as the president becomes weaker, Rice and Gates are gaining prominence: She is building up experience and confidence, including international amity, and he is being viewed as a savior following the term of his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld. In Israel, no great fondness or strong emotional attachment has been detected in them. They look at Israel through different eyes than those of Bush - more similar to those of Bush the father. They also identify the weakness of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as an opportunity: even if he wants to, it is doubtful whether he would dare or be able to stand in their way.
Therefore, Rice and Gates are less concerned about whether disagreements with Israel come to fore. Moreover, when disagreements do surface, they will serve their purposes well: to strengthen trust in the Arab world in order to mobilize assistance for America's No. 1 mission: to depart from Iraq, but not with its tail between its legs and without intolerably strengthening Iran. And if a Palestinian state results from this, it would also be okay from their perspective.
comnetar 25 Abril 2007
