US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came to Jerusalem in order to move these negotiations forward, and the newspapers reported that she brutally forced Israel to accept the terms of this agreement. It seems that the staff at the hotel where the negotiations took place heard Condoleezza Rice screaming at Israel's defense minister, Sha'ul Mofaz. On a past visit, the Secretary of State had also vented her anger on Mofaz. The media have devoted attention to two main facts: a confrontation took place; and Israel's sovereignty and its ability to defend itself had been compromised. Although the United States has always exercised pressure on Israel, this month's drama reflected unusual brutality and forcefulness. What happened was shocking and unforeseen. No state would have knowingly placed itself in the situation Israel faced two weeks ago. While we will have to wait for further details, we can learn something by reviewing the long-term lines of American-Israeli bilateral relations as understood by the Sharon government. One should not generalize on the basis of a single event. Nevertheless, it is of such importance that we must try to understand it. This brutal confrontation took place despite the fact that one of the priorities of Israeli foreign policy has been to build cordial relations with the American administration, and that, specifically with the departure of Yasser Arafat as a negotiating partner, the Americans would accept a certain Israeli unilateral approach regarding the establishment of its borders and keeping settlement blocs. On several occasions, the Americans have denied the existence of this type of understanding, but the Sharon government has maintained that indeed there is a special American appreciation for Israel's needs. It followed that the Sharon government hoped that this summer's disengagement from Gaza would earn special consideration for Israel, particularly in view of the fact that the Palestinian Authority has not shown any positive cooperation in fighting terror and ending incitement.
Although the United States has always exercised pressure on Israel, this month's drama reflected unusual brutality and forcefulness. What happened was shocking and unforeseen. No state would have knowingly placed itself in the situation Israel faced two weeks ago. While we will have to wait for further details, we can learn something by reviewing the long-term lines of American-Israeli bilateral relations as understood by the Sharon government. One should not generalize on the basis of a single event. Nevertheless, it is of such importance that we must try to understand it.
This brutal confrontation took place despite the fact that one of the priorities of Israeli foreign policy has been to build cordial relations with the American administration, and that, specifically with the departure of Yasser Arafat as a negotiating partner, the Americans would accept a certain Israeli unilateral approach regarding the establishment of its borders and keeping settlement blocs. On several occasions, the Americans have denied the existence of this type of understanding, but the Sharon government has maintained that indeed there is a special American appreciation for Israel's needs. It followed that the Sharon government hoped that this summer's disengagement from Gaza would earn special consideration for Israel, particularly in view of the fact that the Palestinian Authority has not shown any positive cooperation in fighting terror and ending incitement.
Talking about torture, wonder if Rice is going to give the same treatment to her European colleges and to Merkel.
Maybe this is connected with Sharon's decision to leave Likud and found a new centrist party. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
