During a visit to Israel yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the new American administration believes that "moving toward the two-state solution, step by step, is in Israel's best interests…But obviously, it is up to the people and the government of Israel to decide." While it is true that the onus always falls most heavily on the involved parties, Secretary Clinton and President Barack Obama's administration should be wary of taking a position that negates a strong American role in the determination of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
The United States has a long history and close ties with Israel based on shared ideals and strategic importance. While we at the Daily do not deny that the United States' Middle East policy depends in part on a close relationship with the Israeli government, the United States cannot be seen as beholden to the Israelis, for two reasons. First of all, it sows a great deal of distrust on the side of the Palestinians and diminishes the Obama administration's ability to act as an honest broker in the peace process. Secondly, it gives the administration less authority in situations where it may be necessary to support the Israeli Prime Minister's policies instead of those of his critics.
The first point is rather self-explanatory; after all, former President George W. Bush's perceived unflinching support of Israel was part of what made his modest Middle East policy impotent. The second is somewhat more complex, but no less important.
The Israeli government is currently in a state of flux. Though right-wing Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu appears to be the country's next Prime Minister, Tzipi Livni's recent refusal to join the government makes it less likely that Israel will be able to forge a more moderate Likud-Kadima coalition. Therefore, it is probable that Netanyahu will be forced into a rather unstable right-wing coalition of smaller hard-right parties. In these circumstances, Netanyahu—who is more of a pragmatist than an ideologue, no matter his reputation—will have to make undesirable concessions to the extreme fringes of his alliance simply to keep its various members from bolting the government and forcing new elections.
In a situation like this, Netanyahu will need the United States to stand up to the extremists in his government; though far-right fringes will have bargaining power with Netanyahu, they will have none with the Obama administration, and the Israeli Prime Minister will need the American government to be able to invoke its own (and Netanyahu's) priorities when he is unable.
The oversimplification of the American-Israeli relationship does a disservice to the complexity of nations and politics in general, and by deferring to the Israeli government on all matters, America would lose its ability to serve as loyal opposition to errant policy. That's not the kind of special relationship that Israel needs.
The American public is strongly supportive of the state of Israel, and the government no less so. Still, Secretary Clinton and the Obama administration must take care to ensure that this support is intelligent, precise and coherent. To do otherwise would damage our ally and our friend.
