Washington, March 17: The Obama administration’s row with Israel over illegal settlements inside the Palestinian territories has prompted some pro-Israel observers to hint that the US seeks “regime change” in Israel, a new government that can make peace with the Palestinians.
However, pro-Israel American observers doubt that President Barack Obama’s administration, which has made Arab-Israeli peace a national security priority, will achieve anything.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Prime Minister Benjamin hardline Netanyahu on Friday that his right-wing government’s plans to build new illegal settler units in Israeli-occupied Palestinian East Jerusalem sent a “deeply negative signal” about Israel’s ties to its top ally.
“Is this about regime change, or is it about (Israeli) behavior modification?” asked Aaron David Miller, a Middle East peace negotiator in past Republican and Democratic administrations.
“Because either way, it’s going to be a rocky ride,” Miller said.
“If it’s the former, then I think we’re naive in the extreme in thinking that we will be able to produce and somehow manage that,” said Miller, now at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.
Miller said Obama and Clinton may be trying to create the impression Netanyahu is “mismanaging the relationship” with Washington in order to shake up Israeli politics.
After all, he said, former president George H.W. Bush and his top diplomat James Baker did much the same thing with then Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir and helped pave the way for Yitzhak Rabin to become prime minister.
“But there are no more Rabins,” Miller said.
Rabin, who was assassinated by a Jewish extremist in 1995, sealed a short-lived peace deal with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at the White House in 1993 under then president Bill Clinton.
Under another scenario, if the Obama administration defuses the row, he warned, it may still be impossible to bridge the Israeli-Palestinian divide.
Miller and others like Daniel Kurtzer, the former US ambassador to Egypt and Israel, have long questioned whether the Obama administration has a strategy to revive Arab-Israeli peace talks suspended since 2008, following Israel’s devastating war on Gaza.
Both noted that the Obama administration, in its first year, demanded a total halt to illegal Jewish settlements, only to yield to Netanyahu’s call for a 10-month moratorium on construction in the occupied West Bank but not in occupied East Jerusalem.
Kurtzer, who is now at Princeton University, could not rule out that the Obama administration might be contemplating a way to change Israel’s political landscape.
“I would like to say ‘no’ because we don’t do that with Israel and with friends and democracies,” Kurtzer said when asked whether “regime change” might be part of the Obama strategy.
“But I don’t doubt that there are some (Obama) people who are angry enough to want to see the (Netanyahu) government fall,” he said.
The previous George W. Bush administration embraced “regime change” for Iraq, Iran and North Korea, although the term referred to the violent overthrow.
“In people’s heart of hearts, they probably want somebody other than Netanyahu but I can’t imagine that anybody really believes that they have a strategy or a real chance of effecting it,” the former ambassador said.
Haim Malka, a top analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), said “there is no obvious or viable alternative to Netanyahu at the moment” when asked if “regime change” could work.
He said he would not speculate however on whether the Obama administration might be considering “regime change.”
—Agencies