BUSH-SHARON SUMMIT - GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED, by Yorm Ettinger
BUSH-SHARON SUMMIT - GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED, by Yorm Ettinger
Editor's note: The following article was e-mailed to me by the author.
While the Bush-Sharon Summit focused on mutual threats (e.g. Iran and Islamic terrorism), it has highlighted a few basic misunderstandings - in Israel - concerning the US political system, US-Israel relations and Disengagement.
For example, front page headlines in the Israeli dailies have concluded that - resulting from the Summit - a $600MN Disengagement financial assistance package will be provided to Israel by the US. The headlines ignore the $800MN promised to Barak by Clinton in 2000, in order to expedite the Disengagement from Southern Lebanon. Israel disengaged, Hizballah's terrorism was significantly and regionally upgraded, Palestinian terrorism was inspired and escalated to an unprecedented level, but the $800MN is yet to be granted. US Presidents do not have the authority to write checks; they can ask Congress - which possesses the Power of the Purse - to appropriate funds. Congress is currently alarmed by a growing all time high budget deficit, and Israel's leading friends have recommended that Israel refrains from requesting special financial assistance. Cheney and Rumsfeld, two of Israel's hawkish allies, are concerned that a special assistance to Israel would nibble into the stretched defense budget. Each financial request must go through Congress, which would entail a legislative process. But, some Israeli officials have pre-maturely briefed (and possibly misinformed) the media, in order to sooth opposition to Disengagement...
The Israeli public has been told since the April 2004 Bush-Sharon Summit that the US Administration has given up on the 1949/67 Cease Fire Line. However, the blunt call - by President Bush - to freeze construction in ALL settlements, has clarified that Israel should not expect any settlement-bonus, from the US, for the disengagement from Gaza and Northern Samaria. In fact, disengagement - just like any retreat in face of pressure and terrorism - would generate more Palestinian terrorism and more pressure by the Department of State, the CIA, the Europeans and the UN, which expect further sweeping Israel concessions. President Bush's statements at the summit, just like those made by Secretaries Powell and Rice since April 2004, clarify that the US has not change its position on the Green Line: no recognition of Israeli sovereignty beyond the 1949 Ceasefire Line, and no recognition of Israeli sovereignty over any Jewish community in the post-Green Line area in Judea & Samaria, Jordan Valley, Golan Heights and Jerusalem (e.g. loan guarantees are reduced by the amount spent by Israel in post-Green Line neighborhoods in Jerusalem). Wishful-thinking (sinking?) concerning a disengagement-driven diplomatic bonus have been shattered in Crawford, Texas.
Bush's proclamations suggest that disengagement from Gaza and Northern Samaria would be the first in a series, leading to the 1949 Lines (unless otherwise mutually-agreed by Israel and the Palestinians). They indicate that the post-April 2004 celebrations were based on wrong assumptions and on misrepresentations, by Israeli politicians, of the President's statements. The April statements by Bush were neither unprecedented, nor do they bind him or his successors. On June 19, 1967, President Johnson stated that an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 Lines "is not a prescription for peace, but for a renewal of hostilities." President Reagan said on September 1, 1982: "In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide...I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again...It is clear that peace cannot be achieved by the formation of an independent Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza." These statements were not binding, since they were not ratified or legislated. Bush's statements were approved, by Congress, as a Non-Binding Resolution, which is (as suggested by its title) non-binding.
Israeli observers urge Prime Minister Sharon to freeze construction in all settlements, in order to avoid a costly US pressure. They do not comprehend the US - and especially the Texas - state of mind, which admires winners and not losers, which respects gumption, the overcoming of odds and defiance of pressure. On a rainy day, the Texan President would rather have an ally, in the Mideast, "which can roll in the street with the Dobermans, rather than stay on the porch with the Poodles." And, indeed, during 1948-1992, from Ben Gurion to Shamir, Israel's Prime Ministers usually - and frequently - defied US pressure. As a result they were subjected to short-term inconveniences, which were promptly replaced by a long-term strategic esteem. For instance, in 1948/9 Ben Gurion faced a US pressure to postpone declaration of independence and accept a UN Trusteeship. The US imposed a military embargo, contemplated economic sanctions, accused Ben Gurion of leading the Jewish People toward another Holocaust, demanded an end to the "Occupation of the Negev", the internationalization of Jerusalem and the absorption and compensation of Palestinian refugees. Israeli Prophets of Demographic Doom pressured Ben Gurion to refrain from independence, lest the Jewish population be overwhelmed - by 1968 - by Arab majority. Ben Gurion defied the pressure, established the Jewish State, increased construction in the Negev, relocated government agencies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which was declared the capital of Israel. Consequently, the US upgraded its attitude toward the Jewish State, whose image was transformed - by Ben Gurion's defiance - from a powerless democracy into a promising strategic entity. Will Prime Minister Sharon resurrect the legacy of Ben Gurion and his successors which characterized Israel's leadership up to 1992, or will he sustain the Oslo-State-Of-Mind which has afflicted Israel since 1992?
Delete Reply Forward Spam Move...
Posted by Joseph Alexander Norland at April 14, 2005 08:08 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/8257
1.
felix quigley
said:
Joseph. This is a very important issue. I cannot understand how groups like the Palestine Solidarity Group has been allowed to spread the lie that Israel is a satellite of US Imperialism. There is a huge chunk of history that has been lying dormant. For example, Paul Johnson says that if Roosevelt had not died then there would have been no Israel, or at least the UN vote would have failed. Truman for a brief moment supported Israel but he soon turned as well. In fact, the biggest supporter in 1948 was the Soviet Union. It then became the leader of anti-Semitism in the world.
I am beginning to think that there is a huge silence over this disengagement issue from many pro-Israel sections in America. I have just been looking at Instapundit. It is full of trivia, a bit like the Sluggerotoole site in Ireland, very very boring! I thought he was a pro-Israel advocate, I waded down a little bit but saw nothing and gave up. If there is silence in the good old US of A then I wish to know.
Back to your end question. I feel what is not being calculated all the time on Israpundit and elsewhere is the depth of the US cum EU world strategy. If that is not held before us continually then we are bound to get a skewed vision of our situation in Israel.
Take this quote which I have just taken from a Google search of Zalmay Khalizad:
'Confronting mounting resistance in Iraq from militant Islamic clerics and Arab nationalists, the White House said today that it was determined to see an "Islamic democracy" built in Iraq and that it had recently warned Iran against interfering with its efforts to organize a government.'
Joseph, I want to ask you and readers in Israpundit, what exactly is meant when the WHITE HOUSE calls for ISLAMIC DEMOCRACY.
Do we, or do we not, have Shari'a law in Afghanistan under the pro-Iranian and pro-American President there?
Are we going to continue to separate out the EU and US conspiracy to destroy Israel from this overall world strategy?
I think they will rule like this. They will instal brutal Islamist regimes to control the masses, as in Iran. They will elevate the Arab Yesha Islamists into a state which is what the Road Map is all about.
That sickening visit to Texas by Sharon takes on a whole new light. (Khalizad was the Bush and CIA and State Department MAIN MAN in Afghanistan.)
Posted by: felix quigley on April 14, 2005 05:32 AM
2.
BobW
said:
A good article.... Ettinger, however, offers a few of his own misunderstandings.
Strategic threats can't be gleaned from headlines. The amount of terrorist incidents is not a function of disengagement from Gaza. Terrorism flourishes because of limited Israeli responses. Topographic maps are not needed to destroy terrorists. Even if there were no terrorists in Gaza and environs (less Egypt), the issue of Gaza is still divisive within Israel's body politic. Is Israel to become a Jewish nation with reverence to all the land of Israel or is Israel to remain a secular state? Many countires are experiencing terrorism but do not have the ultimate question Israel has yet to address.
President Johnson's 1967 statement is out of context to discuss the Crawford Ranch summit. In 1967, the US deemed Israel a strategic asset within America's Cold War framework.The US has since revaluated Israel's position to the detrement of Israel.
Ben Gurion's actions did little to determine US policies.The US acted and reacted to Soviet positions. Ben Gurion was a footnote. King Farouk, too, became a footnote. The Egyptian king did go into exile in NATO Italy. This should serve as more than a clue.
Yorn Ettinger wrote "...relocated government agencies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem,..". Did the Ministry of Defense relocate to Jerusalem? Isn't Israel's National Security Council still in North Tel Aviv? So much for cheerleading.
US additude toward Israel had no relation to Ben Gurion's defiance or any other imagery. Realpolitik alone governs the US policies. The imagery comes after, prepared by and for the account of the US Government.
The "Oslo State Of Mind" is just a manifestation of Labor politics of Israeli society. Some in Israel do not consider Oslo an affliction. Oslo is really not too different than some in the French Chamber of Deputies considering Dien Bien Phu a victory for France. These people wanted France out of Indochina. Look again at Oslo. Divided societies yield confrontational policy positions.
Kol tuv,
BobW
Posted by: BobW on April 14, 2005 09:30 AM
Post a comment
|
BUSH-SHARON SUMMIT - GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED, by Yorm Ettinger
Editor's note: The following article was e-mailed to me by the author.
While the Bush-Sharon Summit focused on mutual threats (e.g. Iran and Islamic terrorism), it has highlighted a few basic misunderstandings - in Israel - concerning the US political system, US-Israel relations and Disengagement.
For example, front page headlines in the Israeli dailies have concluded that - resulting from the Summit - a $600MN Disengagement financial assistance package will be provided to Israel by the US. The headlines ignore the $800MN promised to Barak by Clinton in 2000, in order to expedite the Disengagement from Southern Lebanon. Israel disengaged, Hizballah's terrorism was significantly and regionally upgraded, Palestinian terrorism was inspired and escalated to an unprecedented level, but the $800MN is yet to be granted. US Presidents do not have the authority to write checks; they can ask Congress - which possesses the Power of the Purse - to appropriate funds. Congress is currently alarmed by a growing all time high budget deficit, and Israel's leading friends have recommended that Israel refrains from requesting special financial assistance. Cheney and Rumsfeld, two of Israel's hawkish allies, are concerned that a special assistance to Israel would nibble into the stretched defense budget. Each financial request must go through Congress, which would entail a legislative process. But, some Israeli officials have pre-maturely briefed (and possibly misinformed) the media, in order to sooth opposition to Disengagement...
The Israeli public has been told since the April 2004 Bush-Sharon Summit that the US Administration has given up on the 1949/67 Cease Fire Line. However, the blunt call - by President Bush - to freeze construction in ALL settlements, has clarified that Israel should not expect any settlement-bonus, from the US, for the disengagement from Gaza and Northern Samaria. In fact, disengagement - just like any retreat in face of pressure and terrorism - would generate more Palestinian terrorism and more pressure by the Department of State, the CIA, the Europeans and the UN, which expect further sweeping Israel concessions. President Bush's statements at the summit, just like those made by Secretaries Powell and Rice since April 2004, clarify that the US has not change its position on the Green Line: no recognition of Israeli sovereignty beyond the 1949 Ceasefire Line, and no recognition of Israeli sovereignty over any Jewish community in the post-Green Line area in Judea & Samaria, Jordan Valley, Golan Heights and Jerusalem (e.g. loan guarantees are reduced by the amount spent by Israel in post-Green Line neighborhoods in Jerusalem). Wishful-thinking (sinking?) concerning a disengagement-driven diplomatic bonus have been shattered in Crawford, Texas.
Bush's proclamations suggest that disengagement from Gaza and Northern Samaria would be the first in a series, leading to the 1949 Lines (unless otherwise mutually-agreed by Israel and the Palestinians). They indicate that the post-April 2004 celebrations were based on wrong assumptions and on misrepresentations, by Israeli politicians, of the President's statements. The April statements by Bush were neither unprecedented, nor do they bind him or his successors. On June 19, 1967, President Johnson stated that an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 Lines "is not a prescription for peace, but for a renewal of hostilities." President Reagan said on September 1, 1982: "In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide...I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again...It is clear that peace cannot be achieved by the formation of an independent Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza." These statements were not binding, since they were not ratified or legislated. Bush's statements were approved, by Congress, as a Non-Binding Resolution, which is (as suggested by its title) non-binding.
Israeli observers urge Prime Minister Sharon to freeze construction in all settlements, in order to avoid a costly US pressure. They do not comprehend the US - and especially the Texas - state of mind, which admires winners and not losers, which respects gumption, the overcoming of odds and defiance of pressure. On a rainy day, the Texan President would rather have an ally, in the Mideast, "which can roll in the street with the Dobermans, rather than stay on the porch with the Poodles." And, indeed, during 1948-1992, from Ben Gurion to Shamir, Israel's Prime Ministers usually - and frequently - defied US pressure. As a result they were subjected to short-term inconveniences, which were promptly replaced by a long-term strategic esteem. For instance, in 1948/9 Ben Gurion faced a US pressure to postpone declaration of independence and accept a UN Trusteeship. The US imposed a military embargo, contemplated economic sanctions, accused Ben Gurion of leading the Jewish People toward another Holocaust, demanded an end to the "Occupation of the Negev", the internationalization of Jerusalem and the absorption and compensation of Palestinian refugees. Israeli Prophets of Demographic Doom pressured Ben Gurion to refrain from independence, lest the Jewish population be overwhelmed - by 1968 - by Arab majority. Ben Gurion defied the pressure, established the Jewish State, increased construction in the Negev, relocated government agencies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which was declared the capital of Israel. Consequently, the US upgraded its attitude toward the Jewish State, whose image was transformed - by Ben Gurion's defiance - from a powerless democracy into a promising strategic entity. Will Prime Minister Sharon resurrect the legacy of Ben Gurion and his successors which characterized Israel's leadership up to 1992, or will he sustain the Oslo-State-Of-Mind which has afflicted Israel since 1992?
Delete Reply Forward Spam Move...
Posted by Joseph Alexander Norland at April 14, 2005 08:08 AM