Summit May Signal U.K.-U.S. Split Over Israel

Summary

Official statements following the recent meeting between U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair focused primarily on the need for military action in Iraq, but a joint statement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was conspicuously absent. This could betray a deeper disagreement between the two countries over how to deal with Israel, further sidetracking Washington from its pursuit of al Qaeda.

Analysis

The recent meeting between U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in Crawford, Texas, initially was supposed to focus on ways to help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead, post-meeting statements by both heads of state focused primarily on Iraq.

The two leaders needed to end the summit in agreement -- given that Washington needs a foreign policy boost from its closest European ally and Britain always benefits from publicly reinforcing its relationship with the United States -- and they did. In order to do so, however, they fell back an old, reliable enemy: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The post-summit emphasis on Iraq and the failure to endorse a common approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may mask a more fundamental disagreement over Israel.

A rift with London over Israel would create problems for Washington on two levels. First, the Bush administration has been trying to avoid getting bogged down in Israel because this would detract from its primary foreign policy objective of rooting out al Qaeda. Second, lacking widespread international support for its agenda, Washington can hardly afford a disagreement over Israel with its primary international ally, especially since it relies on London's unconditional support to promote its foreign policy agenda within Europe.

The long-planned summit initially was meant to focus on the war against terrorism and particularly on Iraq. However, the rapidly escalating Israeli-Palestinian conflict put those discussions on the back burner.

A Blair spokesman made clear before the prime minister's departure for Texas that efforts to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace dialogue would dominate the summit. "At Crawford we will try to work out a way to get the political process restarted," the spokesman said, Agence France-Presse reported April 5. Blair himself set the stage for a joint announcement on the Middle East, telling reporters aboard his plane that, "we will obviously be looking at ideas that can lead to a cease-fire," according to the Associated Press.

But after two days of meetings, no such plan or announcement came. The emphasis -- at least publicly -- was on Iraq instead, with Blair making his strongest statement to date in support of a regime change.

Government spin-meisters clearly wanted coverage to focus on what Bush and Blair agreed to regarding Iraq, rather than what was not agreed regarding Israel. That focus was evident in subsequent headlines: "Blair Warns of Regime Change in Iraq," The Independent trumpeted, while in the Financial Times an April 8 headline read, "Bush and Blair say Saddam must be removed."

Immediate action on Iraq is clearly not on the table, however. In a pre-summit interview with British ITV, Bush said there were "no immediate plans" for action against Iraq and that no action is being contemplated until late 2002 or early 2003, The Guardian reported. Although Washington has refused to link action in Iraq with a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Bush did say that any action might have to be further put off unless the Israelis and Palestinians begin negotiating. Blair too has emphasized the need to quiet the storm in Israel before any action can be taken in Iraq.

The divide between the European and U.S. approaches to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been growing over the last two weeks, with European leaders criticizing perceived waffling by Washington or complaining that Sharon has been given too much leeway in the occupied territories. This was punctuated April 2, when European Commission President Romano Prodi called U.S. mediation efforts a failure and urged Washington to step aside, allowing an international coalition to take the lead. Though Blair has been more constrained, he too has called for a tougher line against Israel.

Blair de-emphasized the Israeli conflict in his keynote speech April 7, avoiding the issue until more than halfway through his speech and mentioning it only after first discussing the need for a regime change in Iraq. And though he backed Bush's decision to send U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to Israel, he also offered more nuanced comments on the need for more direct and sustained involvement by the United States.

"Engagement in the world … not isolationism from it, is the hardheaded pragmatism for the 21st Century," Blair said. The prime minister spoke of the success in Kosovo and the need for "sustained focus, effort and engagement" in Kashmir.

These statements seem to carry an implicit warning that the United States must insert itself more forcefully to halt the Israeli advance into the territories -- a message that would be supported by the rest of Europe but not well received by Washington, especially coming from Blair.

So now the Brits are getting like the French and starting to hate Israel too.

Actually, it is much worse than that. If you check out what the British did in Palestine before Israel became a nation... it is atrocious!

For example, they would disarm the Jews, but would do nothing to the Arabs displaying weapons.

Or after the Arabs would ambush and massacre some jewish town or neighborhood, they would restrain the Jews, but do nothing to discourage the Arabs...

ummm... how come this history sounds so familiar? In any case, what the Brits and the rest of the EUroweinies are doing now is nothing new... it seems the Arabs have just given them a good excuse to let them fondly remember the "good old days" of Europe!

Unfortunately, you are right... and not only Russians... Poles, Ukrainians, Baltic republics...

One begins to wonder... why such hatred for the Jews?

You would think there would be 10X the hatred for the Arabs!!! They are cruel, ignorant, merciless...

And then you realize... the envy of the Jews is just too much to the ignorant mob... and so it goes.

What is more worrisome, is why the Jews continue to make the same mistakes over and over as the centuries go by?

Pretty discouraging, if you ask me.

Of course I did not mean only Russians, I meant on the whole territory of the Russian Empire before 1917.

But I don't agree that mistakes were being repeated. Not much you can do when you are powerless as it was before creation of Israel. Look at Kurds today, 50 million in an everyday struggle for survival, no state, no autonomy, not even basic rights, nowhere to practice their language or preserve their culture: on one side Iraq on the other Turkey - choose your poison. Where did they make a mistake? Similarly, when you have a small state surrounded by enemies and the rest of the world is against you politically, you are in trouble. Without the military and political U.S. support, I don't think Israel would have been able to make it this far. However, Cold War played a big part in making U.S. position so strongly pro-Israel. With its end and it started with Baker's anti-Israel policies the U.S. position became much less pro-Israel. In the current situation with Europe (I guess those sissies solved all their similar terrorist problems already by "restraining themselves": Northern Ireland, Basque country, etc, or wait did they restrain themselves?) taking very much pro-Arab position for one due to demographic changes in Europe itself, for another due their inherent sissiness and anti-semitism (IMHO, only in Germany one more generation left to go) you can see Israel getting much more isolated politically and under increasing pressure. The last hope is the strong U.S. support (always has been the case), which Israel currently at this very crucial moment isn't getting.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.