US in cash threat to halt West Bank fence

[Tinoire]

UK Telegraph

((Goodness! Read the entire story))

By Inigo Gilmore in Jerusalem
(Filed: 04/08/2003)


The US State Department has drawn up a proposal to cut loan guarantees to Israel in an attempt to halt ever-expanding construction work on a controversial security fence, Israeli media reports said yesterday.

According to the Haaretz newspaper, the proposal would aim to cut loan guarantees on the basis of what Israel spends on the construction of the security fence east of the Green Line in Palestinian territory that is the subject of negotiations.

The State Department views the fence expansion and continued expansion of bypass roads for settlers as an effort by Israel to establish "facts on the ground" while the two sides are negotiating the "road map" peace plan.

Though the State Department is formally in charge of American foreign relations, it is regarded by Mr Sharon and his conservative allies in Washington as insufficiently supportive of Israel's security concerns.

<snip>

[WheresWaldo]

1. i'm surprised...

this ought to be posted in the FA - Israeli/Palestinian forum to get more responses (i dont think too many regulars over there get out much, somewhat one track minded).

[Tinoire]

2. I posted it here because it's not I/P

US policy and anything US/Israel can be posted up here until it turns into an I/P flamewar.

I also think this is important up here because most posters never go to I/P thus never see these US policy related stories that affect our politics.

But I hear you Waldo- just duck and cover if need be! :)

[jfxgillis]

4. LAUGH OUT LOUD!!!!

So true. I really did laugh out loud.

I've been a close observer of the Arab/Israeli Conflict for 35 years, and that I/P Forum scares me ....

[Tinoire]

5. Scares you? Lucky you! Hell it practically pushed me to madness! n/t

[bemildred]

3. Interesting, thanks Tinoire.

Let me go make some popcorn.
They are going to have to do more than cut the cost of the
fence out. I can hear the whining and gnashing of teeth in
Congress already.

[Tinoire]

6. Nah- nothing to worry about... Same old, same old

After the meeting, Mr Bush described the fence as a "problem" for Middle East peace and asked Mr Sharon to halt work on it. Mr Sharon shrugged off the request and vowed that the work would continue.

Mr Bush appeared to back down when he said he realised that the issue was sensitive and made no firm commitment to try to influence Israel's thinking on the route.

[bemildred]

7. Yeah, but I'll bet we get the theatrical performance anyway.

[Tinoire]

11. Yepper. Lights, Camera, Action

Neither Bush nor Sharon wants Peace.

What a friggin shame that evil old men determine the fate of innocents!

[Julien Sorel]

8. Same old same old is right.

This is just a ploy on the part of the U.S. to seem 'evenhanded,' by the way. The way the game works is, you up the total amount of aid given to Israel, but then include provisions that money spent on the settlements, or in this case, the fence, be subtracted from the amount. So the net amount of aid remains constant, or increases over time. If you were going to give them, say, 3 billion, you increase it to 3.25 billion, but then subtract the money spent on the fence from the 3.25 billion dollar amount, and Israel gets our money, anyway. Nothing actually changes, but the U.S. gets to claim it 'penalized' Israel for the fence construction, or the expansion of the settlements. Nobody ever seems to point this out, though.

Just another speedbump on the Roadmap to Apartheid.

[jfxgillis]

9. I THINK I disagree this time.

Ordinarily, I'd agree on the "same old, same old" reading, but I think circumstances are different now.

The advent of "Christian Zionism" means that Bush is threatening a core issue for a core constituency in his base IF he were to smack down Sharon on the fence.

A little wrist slap for Israel always before just meant a little wrist slap. If a Dem did it, he might lose a few Jewish votes; if a Repub did it, he might not win a few Jewish votes he might have competed for otherwise. But now that Israel in general and Likud in particular is a solid brick in the fundamentalist worldview, there's a lot more consequences for Bush than there might have been.

[Tinoire]

10. I think we agree though

What I mean by same old same old is that we will pretend to be shocked to find out that there's gambling going on...

Protest a little, make just enough of a show that we can always say we didn't agree while keeping the Likud and the Christian Fundies happy.

We son't cut off a single dime or fail to gaurantee a loan. We'll still have OSP passing on special intel, new settlements going up while a big show is made of a few "illegal" outposts being torn down.

My point is Bush isn't going to do shit.

I am well aware of the co-habitation between the Likud and the fundies. Been watching the Likud emissaries fly over here to meet with the fundies and rile them up against the road map, rile them up to support Sharon in anything and everything Sharon wants to do (Gee what a surprise, right-wing fundies supporting a right-wing government) but Bush knew all of this before hand.

He never had any intention of seeing this road map implemented. Perle calls his good friend Eilam in Israel about once a week to reassure him that the road-map is just a joke and they don't have to follow it.

The Quartet nowhere to be seen because they refuse to isolate Arafat saying he's still the legally elected leader and the one they'll deal with and that Mazen is mostly a US puppet (though he's showing more back-bone than either Israel or the US had imagined he would). The Quartet also isolated because they want Sharon held as responsable for the Israeli breaches as the Palestinians are...

No one's fooling anyone. People are just pretending to be fooled. All over again.

Do we agree? Disagree? Or do I not understand your point?

Thanks

[jfxgillis]

12. Hmmm. I think we largely agree, except--

--we disagree on the American domestic political consequences.

Always before the stakes here had to do with Jewish votes and support, and the approach was ultimately nation-to-nation contacts.

What's new is that an AMERICAN domestic political faction is now committed to an ISRAELI domestic political faction as never before. Sure, most Jews in the USA were Dems, but they were also willing to support pro-Israel Repubs and they were for the most part unconcerned with which party won the Israeli elections.

Now, however, a core constituency here is committed to one of the two major coalitions over there, and seriously committed, at that. If Bush "backstabs" Sharon on the Security fence, there'll be right-wing hell to pay for Bush here.

Our conclusions are identical, though, despite slightly different premises. I think Bush won't withold a dime anyway. It would be nice if he did though, because it would eventually help the Democrats defeat Bush here while simultaneously helping Labor defeat Likud over there. What's not to like?