The Israel-Syria peace negotiations are only beginning, but in Jerusalem they are already talking about - and in Washington already criticizing - the US aid package of who knows how many billions of dollars to finance the hoped-for agreement. The battle to persuade Congress to budget the Israel-Syria peace is expected to be one of the hardest ever for Israel and its supporters on Capitol Hill. It is at this critical time that Israel is losing the services of on the greatest experts on the complex fabric of US-Israel relations, particularly concerning the aid question.
Ambassador Shoval tomorrow concludes his second term in Washington, six months after presenting his resignation, at his own initiative, upon Ehud Barak taking office as Prime Minister. Shoval complied with Barak's request to remain at his post until a replacement was found. Major General (res.) David Ivri will be the next ambassador, starting January 17.
Shoval, 69, is not a professional diplomat. He is proud to say that his is a banker and doesn't feed from the public trough. He finances cocktail parties, receptions, and other diplomatic activities out of his own pocket. In his years in Washington, however, he has gained the reputation of a professional. "He is truly the perfect diplomat. He has all the characteristics you expect to find in an ambassador: clever, honest, and polished", says political commentator Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute.
Shoval and his wife Kena are one of the most popular diplomatic couples in Washington, as a guest list for their farewell party, which includes Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, shows. The party was held last week in the ambassador's official residence, on a tree-lined side street near the Israeli embassy. The gossip columnist of "The Washington Post" wrote that a third term for Shoval as ambassador should not be ruled out. "Stranger things have happened", he wrote.
In an interview with "Globes", Shoval analyzes various aspects of the future of US aid to Israel, and expresses an opinion on isolationist trends in Congress, on the US defense establishment's attitude toward Israel, and on the degree to which the ambassador's success is influenced by his personal economic situation.
"Globes": To what degree does US aid to Israel define the relations between the two countries?
Shoval: "Many people assign too much importance to the aid question. The truth is that yearly US aid should be considered as one component of the US global strategic system, particularly since the decision to scale down civilian aid, while concentrating on defense aid.
"Of course, if larger sums are discussed in the context of a peace agreement, the issue should be reassessed, both in concrete terms and in terms of public image. Israel will have to make every effort not to appear in the eyes of the US public as grabbing too large a portion of US citizens' taxes. If the matter is handled improperly, it is liable to lead to a serious reduction in Israel's ability to act independently in various areas".
When do we start talking to Congress?
"That is a delicate question, both tactically and substantively. There is still no agreement with Syria, and I don't know if there will be. Talking with Congress about money at this stage is a declaration that the agreement in already in hand, with only the question of price remaining to be settled. On the other hand, unless the heads of Congress take part in aid package deliberations in the early stages of the peace talks, they are liable to refuse the US administration's requests to finance the package, exactly as happened with the Wye agreements. In any event, Israel should avoid spearheading the aid campaign in Congress or being the only party active in the matter. Israel should settle for providing support for the administration from the wings. I assume that, if things are handled properly, there will be maximum support in Congress for an aid package to Israel, even if accompanied by an internal argument".
What about aid to Syria?
"I see no reason why anyone in Congress, of either party, would want to give financial aid to a country that supports terror. I assume that the US administration will have a real problem here, since one of the constraints pushing Assad towards peace with Israel is the desire to leave his successor a full treasury, without which the success of his dynasty is not guaranteed".
Can you foresee a situation in which Israel asks Congress to support Syria, in order to ensure an agreement with Damascus?
"It's hard for me to believe. I have a goal: Israel must not be the gofer for US financial aid to parties, who will not thank it in the future, while this type of intervention will weaken Israel's status in Congress".
I seem to remember that you were one of the initiators of completely phasing out US economic aid to Israel, while at the same time gradually increasing military aid.
"I was the first to suggest it in 1992, and I got an unfriendly reaction from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They feared that, if the enshrined principle of aid were undermined in any way, then all aspects of aid would suffer. There was also a theory: if aid were reduced in any way, progress in peace talks with the Arabs would become more difficult, because the Arabs would see it as diminishing Israel's status in the US. I knew, however, that if we didn't initiate a civilian aid cut, Congress would, and we would get no credit for it. I knew that the mood in Congress was that Israel's security was worth supporting. Things developed as I expected. In another eight years, we will cease receiving economic aid, and we can surely afford it".
In your many years in Washington, you witnessed the gradual erosion of Congressional willingness to approve foreign aid. Can you describe the process?
"The US has always had a strong current of isolationism, stemming from the beliefs of the founding fathers. George Washington, the first US president, opposed any alliance with foreign concerns. Isolationism has been part of the US political ethos during certain periods.
"At the same time, I wouldn't say that there is total isolationism now. There is perhaps a turning inward. The fact is that the US public has never protested against participation in NATO. Support for Israel's security is still acceptable to the majority of the public. In any case, there is an isolationist reality, which Israel is taking into account, perhaps too late. That reality forms part of the considerations affecting the large aid package, which we will request from the US for a possible agreement with Syria".
Do isolationists like Pat Buchanan frighten you?
"Buchanan is an extremist, out of the public consensus".
There is a common view among security-related Israelis in Washington, that the attitude of the US security establishment to Israel and Israelis has seriously deteriorated since the Pollard affair, in spite of the tight strategic partnership between the two countries. People like former Deputy Secretary of Defense Dov Zakheim and others speak of an attitude of "Respect him and suspect him". Israel frequently figures in lists of countries committing "industrial espionage". Why?
"I have detected no sign of such a deterioration. Cooperation between US and Israeli intelligence sources has remained unharmed even in periods of cold political relations. It is impossible, however to ignore a development unconnected to Pollard: cutthroat commercial competition in the shrinking defense market between US and Israeli manufacturers. People in the US claim that we shouldn't compete against them, because of the large amount of aid we get from them. My answer is that commercial considerations are not always the same as political considerations. I expect that, due to close strategic relations between the two countries, opportunities for closer integration between US and Israeli defense industries will be created".
Bodies such as AIPAC , the pro-Israel lobby in Washington, and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations have registered informal complaints of coldness on the part of Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who prefers to lean on bodies identified with liberal Democrats, such as Israel Policy Forum. Is Israel strictly neutral in the US political arena?
The Israeli government is still at the beginning of its road, and I assume it is undergoing a process of learning the rules of the game. No prime minister can ignore the pluralistic nature of US politics. If you take one side, you are liable to turn the other side into your enemy. It's true that the majority of US Jews vote for the Democratic party, but don't forget that in the field of financial political contributions, which is enormously important in the US, the Jewish contribution is distributed completely differently than the way the Jewish vote is distributed".
Try to predict what US-Israel relations will be in another generation.
"If we are a 'light unto the nations', and consequently, a light to the Jews, in the widest sense of the work: culture, science, technology, then the special relationship with the US will no doubt continue and deepen. If, paradoxically, we become just another Middle Eastern country after the peace process, then the average American and the average Jew will no longer see us as they do today.
Published by Israel's Business Arena on January 16, 2000