Leon Panetta in Israel: Will his urgent messages bring action?
| Washington
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, traveling at a time of what some analysts say are profound and lasting changes in the US-Israel relationship, is carrying a couple of high-priority messages to America鈥檚 closest ally in the Middle East.
On his first visit to Israel as Pentagon chief, Secretary Panetta鈥檚 first order of business appeared to be to air US concerns about Israel鈥檚 growing isolation from its neighbors 鈥� some of whom are also critical partners of the US.
In meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Secretary Panetta is sharing his concern that Israel is endangering its own security with the recent deterioration in its relations with neighbors like Egypt and Turkey.
Panetta is carrying another message from the White House to his Israeli interlocutors: Find a way to resume peace talks with the Palestinians.
鈥淧anetta is carrying water for the White House with this message that the Israelis need to re-engage in the peace process,鈥� says James Phillips, senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at the Heritage Foundation in Washington.
The US desire to see peace talks under way once again has more to do with US relations with the region than with any strong prospects for the Israelis and Palestinians to actually make progress towards a peace accord, Mr. Phillips says.
鈥淓very White House wants something going because it鈥檚 easier for the US to operate in the Arab and Muslim worlds when there鈥檚 a peace process,鈥� he says. 鈥淭his administration is no different in wanting the Israelis and Palestinians to get up on the two-seat bicycle, even if everybody knows there鈥檚 no chance of a comprehensive settlement any time soon.鈥�
Panetta is also scheduled to meet in the West Bank with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minster Salam Fayyad.
Panetta鈥檚 visit to Israel, part of a swing through the Middle East before he attends a NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels, comes just six months after former Defense Secretary Robert Gates made a similar trip. Mr. Gates was the first US defense secretary to visit Palestinian leaders in the West Bank.
But Gates was also reported (by Bloomberg鈥檚 Jeff Goldberg) to have told a summer national security session at the White House shortly before he stepped down that Israel is an 鈥渦ngrateful ally鈥� that has given the US little or nothing 鈥� particularly concerning the peace process 鈥� in return for America鈥檚 rock solid security guarantees.
Gates also reportedly said that Mr. Netanyahu was endangering Israel鈥檚 security by failing to address his country鈥檚 deteriorating regional relationships.
In that sense Panetta鈥檚 warnings of Israel鈥檚 growing 鈥渋solation鈥� may have a worrisome echo for the Israeli officials he meets.
Some analysts, like Heritage鈥檚 Phillips, are of the view that US-Israel military-to-military relations are stronger than ever, and that any flat notes should be heard as reflecting diplomatic differences between the two countries.
Noting that Panetta publicly made his 鈥渋solation鈥� comment before arriving in Israel, Phillips says it could be the US defense secretary wanted to 鈥減ut that particular US concern out there鈥� before his military meetings. 鈥淢aybe that鈥檚 a message that鈥檚 really better for the politicians,鈥� he says.
But others say there is no getting around the fact that the US-Israel strategic partnership is changing 鈥� and that recent turbulence in the relationship reflects not only a changing region but 鈥� to some degree and on some issues 鈥� diverging national interests.
In a new study analyzing the US-Israel partnership entitled 鈥淐rossroads,鈥� Haim Malka of Washington鈥檚 Center for Strategic and International Studies concludes that 鈥渞ising tensions in the bilateral relationship鈥� reflect one key reality: 鈥淭he US and Israel have changed and continue to change, but the two countries鈥� relationship has not kept pace.鈥�
For one thing, the US must treat Israel less as a dependent, Mr. Malka says. And perhaps with something of an echo of Robert Gates, Malka concludes that the US and Israel must develop a relationship 鈥渢hat contains clearer commitments of what each side will do for the other 鈥� with an implicit understanding that there are limits to those commitments.鈥�
