home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <text id=90TT0996>
- <title>
- Apr. 23, 1990: America Abroad
- </title>
- <history>
- TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1990
- Apr. 23, 1990 Dan Quayle:No Joke
- </history>
- <article>
- <source>Time Magazine</source>
- <hdr>
- WORLD, Page 50
- AMERICA ABROAD
- Why Israel Should Thank Bush
- </hdr>
- <body>
- <p>By Strobe Talbott
- </p>
- <p> George Bush has overthrown two foreign governments since
- becoming President. Toppling the dictatorial regime of Panama in
- December required 24,000 U.S. troops. Sending Israel's
- overwrought democracy into a nervous breaklast month took only
- four words from Bush's lips.
- </p>
- <p> Actually Israel was asking for it. Its political system has
- long been based on the adage that the enemy of my enemy is my
- friend, or at least my coalition partner. Since 1984 Israel has
- claimed to have a government of national unity, a misnomer if
- ever there was one. The odd couple of Likud and Labor never had a
- unified position, or even reconcilable differences, on the most
- important issue of national security and national identity: What
- are the boundaries of the Jewish state?
- </p>
- <p> Likud's Yitzhak Shamir believes that Israel should include
- the West Bank captured from the Arabs in 1967--and still
- heavily populated by Arabs in 1990. Labor's Shimon Peres
- believes in trading land for peace. The territory traded would
- become part of a Palestinian "entity," a cryptogram that many
- predict will someday be decoded to mean a Palestinian state.
- While opposing that particular outcome, Lais at least willing to
- begin negotiating with the Palestinians and see where the
- process leads. Likud seems not to be, which is why Shamir did
- everything he could as Prime Minister to delay the opening of
- peace talks.
- </p>
- <p> Getting those talks started is the central goal of the
- U.S.'s efforts in the region. George Bush was understandably fed
- up with Shamir's twin tactics of stalling on the diplomatic
- front while claiming that the influx of Soviet immigrants
- justifies a "big Israel." So the President said on March 3 that
- he was opposed to new settlements in the West Bank "or in East
- Jerusalem."
- </p>
- <p> It is hard to imagine four more explosive words in the
- semantic minefields of the Middle East. Most Israelis consider
- East Jerusalem liberated, not occupied. Even the most dovish
- government would insist on an undivided Jerusalem as the
- permanent capital of Israel.
- </p>
- <p> Bush did not mean to equate the Holy City with the West
- Bank or to prejudge its ultimate status. Rather, he was
- expressing his impatience with Shamir's settlement policy. But
- Bush's comment was read in Israel as a signal that the U.S.
- might be hardening its own policy. Israelis resent American
- pressure in part because they are so vulnerable to it. The body
- politic, which was already in a state of paralysis, suddenly
- went into spasm. Within 13 days the government collapsed.
- </p>
- <p> The pro-Israel lobby in Washington howled in protest, and
- First Friend James Baker, though hardly an apologist for Shamir,
- privately told his boss in the bluntest terms that he had better
- learn to choose his words more carefully.
- </p>
- <p> Yet it may turn out that Bush did Israel a favor. However
- inadvertently, he helped expose the Likud-Labor coalition for
- what it was--a government of national disunity and incapacity.
- The crisis he sparked underscored the need for a new electoral
- system that will yield a Prime Minister who is free of crippling
- alliances. To their credit, many Israelis were in the streets
- last week, venting their exasperation with deadlock democracy.
- From now on, the U.S. Government should encourage not just
- diplomacy between Israel and its Arab neighbors, but political
- reform within Israel as well. So should the American Jewish
- community--including the one in Brooklyn.
- </p>
-
- </body>
- </article>
- </text>
-
-