Israel — America’s deadly messenger By Shmuel Rosner

www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/739976.html

It’s not just Israel’s security that the decision-makers in the Bush administration have in mind in their decisions to back its actions, but also America’s.

WASHINGTON – Across from UN headquarters in New York, Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) stood at a small podium adorned with the symbol of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations to give a speech in praise of Israel. Behind her and at her sides – a group of men in gray: Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Danny Gillerman, the chairman of the Conference of Presidents, Malcolm Hoenlein, the Israeli Consul General in New York, Arye Mekel. Mummified in their neckties in the sweltering heat of the east coast, serious of mien, nodding. “We will stand with Israel, because Israel is standing for American values as well as Israeli ones,” Clinton said. Here you have it – the whole foreign relations Torah on one slightly perspiring foot.

Much was said here on Monday about the American secretary of state’s forthcoming trip to the Middle East, a trip that her spokesman promised in the daily briefing to journalists. However, it isn’t the trip that is the story, but rather its absence, its postponement to an unknown date. And when it comes, the spokesman said, the secretary will deal with the causes of the crisis – the violent actions of the Hezbollah in the area of the border and beyond it. President George W. Bush, who with his typical Texan charm was caught cussing into an open microphone, also did not leave much of an opening for interpretation: Not only is America not opposed to the Israeli attack, but also it is encouraging it. And for a reason that connects well to the one that Clinton mentioned: It represents a clear American interest.

“The world,” said president Woodrow Wilson in one of his better-known utterances, “must be made safe for democracy.” And the Bush administration, which has put the democratization of the Arab world at the top of its agenda, has recognized in Lebanon potential that has not yet been fully realized. “The Cedar Revolution,” which brushed Syria over the border, was perceived here as an American achievement. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice celebrated it in visits to Beirut and solemn declarations about a promising future.

In UN Security Council Resolution 1559, the administration linked up with the French – the latter contributed its first part, which distances Syria, and the former its second part, which demands the disarming of Hezbollah. But the Americans encountered a hitch. The French part was carried out, the American provision was neglected, postponed and melted away – but nevertheless, they knew that its day would come, because without it there will not be a Lebanon that is safe for democracy. The American experiment in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon has given rise to a new, unsuccessful variety of the democratic format: an elected government that is legitimate, but too weak to deal with the armed militias that do what they like in its territory under the guidance of outside elements like Syria and Iran.

If this hitch is not set right, Bush’s campaign for regional reform will not succeed. Therefore, he has sworn to keep on fighting in Iraq, but in Palestine and Lebanon, he has entrusted the keys to a loyal neighbor that shares common values with America – even if not necessarily the sweeping enthusiasm for the vision of democratization. In any case, it’s not just Israel’s security that the decision-makers in the administration have in mind in their decisions to back its actions, but also America’s.

The Israeli action in Lebanon is not a nuisance, but rather an opportunity. A democratic Lebanon – truly democratic, without a Hezbollah hump – is litmus paper for the realization of Bush’s vision. Deterring Syria and returning it to its natural, miserable dimensions is also a continuing American aspiration, given the provocations and obstacles that Syrian President Bashar Assad is putting in the administration’s way on every front, in his assessment that America’s arm is too short to harm him at this time. So much so, that it is even possible to find people in Washington who are slightly disappointed by Israel’s decision not to attack Syria at the same time.

The United States, explained former undersecretary of state in the Clinton administration and former ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, to Haaretz yesterday, has no leverage on Hezbollah except “through Israel’s use of force.” Therefore, the way has been found for Israel to recompense the administration for its supportive attitude during the six years of the Bush administration and to prove what in certain circles has almost been forgotten: the regional power’s importance for the great power. What president John F. Kennedy did reluctantly when he threatened an Israeli whip to restrain the raging Egyptian-Syrian pan-Arabism in the 1960s, Bush is now doing without pangs of conscience in a Middle East that is hardly less stormy and dangerous.

Is it a problem – to be a tool like this – an Israeli official was asked yesterday. Does Israel really want to be the deadly messenger of the American interest? First of all, he replied, there also is an Israeli interest here – so that a real dilemma doesn’t exist; and second, it is better that Israel be made use of in this way, which ensures that it isn’t only Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s enchanting smile that is motivating the American support for Israel that it will also need in the future.

© Copyright 2006 Haaretz. All rights reserved