Promise Her Anything

Promise Her Anything

In a post yesterday (Trusting terrorists, mistrusting moderates), Soccer Dad notes how Netanyahu was betrayed by the Clinton administration. Netanyahu agreed to give up Hebron with the understanding--formalized in a statement by Warren Cristopher on January 15, 1997--that "further redeployment phases are issues for implementation by Israel rather than issues for negotiation with the Palestinians.'' Soccer Dad notes that Netanyahu was in for a rude awakening:

But as Netanyahu discovered a year later, a signed agreement made no difference. President Clinton's word made no difference. The NY Times mis-reported ("Israel Announces Stringet Terms For Withdrawal") what Israel demanded and compounded the felony by its dishonest correction. Since Arafat wasn't fulfilling any of his obligations specified in the "Note for the Record," Israel wasn't inclined to withdraw from any more terrirtory.

The Clinton administration, with its allies in the media started to portray Israel as making unreasonable demands upon the Palestinian Authority.


Cal Thomas ("Sharon's big gamble") reminds us that Clinton was not the first president to not keep his word with Israel:

In 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower made commitments in order to get Israel to withdraw from the Sinai. In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson failed to implement those commitments and the Six-Day War followed.

In 1970, President Richard Nixon made promises to end the war of attrition between Israel and Egypt. Egypt violated the agreement, and the United States failed to live up to its commitments. The 1973 Yom Kippur War followed, which killed 2,800 Israelis.

In 1996 and again in 1998, President Bill Clinton promised to refrain from pressuring Israel into making further concessions until the Palestinian Authority altered its Charter that calls for the elimination of Israel. The Charter was not altered, but Israel was expected to honor its promises.

In 2000, Clinton committed $800 million in special assistance to induce Israel to withdraw from Southern Lebanon. Israel withdrew, and Hezbollah quickly filled the geographic and military vacuum, increasing terrorist attacks. The promised U.S. assistance never arrived.

But it's more than just not keeping a promise. It is also a question of applying pressure. Caroline Glick fleshes out just what Eisenhower promised and how he pressured Israel to accept it:

So it was in 1956, when Eisenhower forced David Ben-Gurion to beat a speedy retreat from the Sinai and Gaza at the end of the Suez campaign. The president justified the uncompromising demand by promising Israel that if the Egyptians were again to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, the US would send its navy to reopen the waterway by force. In 1967, when Gamal Abdel Nasser closed the straits, president Lyndon Johnson begged off, forcing Israel to stand alone.

After the Six Day War, which should have led to a complete political reshuffling of the region, the US again protected Israel’s neighbors.

And of course Eisenhower was not the first to strongarm Israel--he merely became the paradigm. Glick gives examples:

In 1973, the US administration was again on hand, wresting the Egyptians from the jowls of defeat. Henry Kissinger prevented Israel from destroying Egypt’s Third Army, allowed the Egyptians to escape with honor and thus enabled the creation of the current Egyptian myth – that Israel lost that war.

The Ford and Carter administrations strongly pressured Israel to sign away the Sinai in exchange for peaceful ties with Egypt, which after 23 years have yet to materialize, although Egypt, rearmed with American assistance, now poses a military threat unimaginable in the past.

In Lebanon in 1982, the Reagan administration stepped in to save a routed Arafat. The Americans paved the way for his escape with his troops from Beirut to Tunis, free to fight another day. In the meantime, the US forced Israel to withdraw from much of Lebanon and allowed the Syrian army to remain.

And in the Gulf war, the first Bush administration not only prevented Israel from achieving political advantage, it prohibited Israel even from defending itself against unprovoked Iraqi ballistic missile attacks. After isolating Israel from the coalition, the administration proceeded to force its democratic ally to the negotiating table to discuss the transfer territory to the Arabs. When the negotiations failed to bear fruit, the administration meddled in the 1992 elections to assist in the victory of the more forthcoming Labor Party.

Although the Clinton administration served in a decade unscathed by large-scale war, but marked by an increase in rogue states’ audacity and terrorist attacks on US targets, Clinton consistently urged Israel to accept Palestinian terrorism and insisted on turning a blind eye to blatant PA breaches of its commitments to Israel. The Clinton administration’s addiction to pressuring Israel to accept Arab aggression under the guise of peacemaking led to unprecedented meddling in Israel’s internal politics. The end result could be seen in the twin pictures of Clinton impertinently announcing his peace plan after his successor had already been elected, and Madeleine Albright chasing after Arafat outside the US Embassy in Paris in a vain attempt to get him to return to the negotiating table he had just overturned.

Of course there is also the familiar perpetual campaign promise of relocating the US Embassy to Jerusalem:

The refusal of successive administrations to locate the US Embassy in Jerusalem, Israel’s capital, is not simply an indignity, but another example of how the US has consistently prevented Israel from gaining any political advantage from its military victories against Arab aggression.

This is an issue discussed by Amir Taheri--how the US has prevented the consequences of the wars forced upon Israel to take their natural course. But Glick goes one step further, and imagines just what would happen if Israel were actually allowed to win:

And what would a much maligned and dreaded Israeli political victory over the current terrorist war look like? First and foremost, it would see Arafat’s physical disappearance from the scene and the dismantling of his Palestinian Authority as a political and military organization. Just as in Afghanistan today and hopefully in Iraq in the near future, the US has and will set up friendly, quasi-democratic governments, so Israel, or the US, would set up a new Palestinian government, committed to coexistence with Israel and the provision of political and economic freedom to the Palestinian people. Although sovereignty would not be promised, the chances of sovereignty being achieved, naturally and peacefully, would be greatly enhanced if the Palestinian people is allowed to develop democratic institutions and economic prosperity.

There is nothing wrong, immoral, imperialistic, or even anti-Palestinian about this plan. In fact, it would allow the Palestinians the opportunity to reconstitute their civil society after eight years of living under a corrupt dictatorship, which impoverished and subjugated them and told them to value murder more than life.

The only thing wrong with this plan is that it allows Israel to win this war politically.

This of course highlights one of the many double-standards between the way Afghanistan and Iraq are handled on the one hand and the Palestinian Arabs on the other. While the US is actively involved in helping the former two countries set up their own governments, when it comes to the Palestinian Arabs, the corrupt leadership is not only allowed to continue--the US has taken a decidedly hands-off attitude to how they run things: such as including terrorist organizations in the upcoming election.

Glick's closing line is:
One thing is certain though: For the US to be able to win its war on Islamic terrorism, Israel must be allowed to win its war on Palestinian terrorism, both militarily and politically.
Of course in the world of politics, nothing is certain. Israel is not going to be allowed to win it's war on Palestinian terrorism. Instead, it is being pushed into agreeing to live side-by-side with a terrorist state that has failed to keep even the most basic agreements it has made.

In an earlier post I wrote about how the US does not so much see Israel as a friend as it sees her as an interest:

The US fills Israel's needs because of what Israel can provide for her in the Middle East. Israel is not so much an ally of the US--it is an interest. The US, like many major powers, believes it has an interest--a right, a claim...an investment in what goes on in the Middle East. Since Israel is the most reliable way the US has to access and use its influence in the area, Israel--by extension--is an interest of the US. An investment. But not really an ally.

When you have an investment, you can buy more shares.
But you can also cash in.
Or you can just reduce your holdings, your exposure to risk.

As long as Israel is dependent on the US for so much, the situation is unlikely to change--at least not to Israel's benefit.

Crossposted at Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: .

Posted by Daled Amos at January 13, 2006 01:09 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/12032


Comments

1. BobW said:

Reliance on Cal Thomas and Caroline Glick material only hurts the efforts for a Jewish presence on the eastern Mediterranian. The material here is flavored into a morality play.

International relations and geopolitics aren't the equivilant of the rich uncle running the family trust account.

PM Netanyahu in his meetings with President Clinton, was, in substance, just another emissary from an Israel with weak political institutions. Regardless of some efforts, there was no political reform in Israel to develop powerful political institutions like other post WWII countries did.

How can 1956 be mentioned without writing "Soviet Union"? The British, French and Israeli attacks failed to destroy the Egyptian government. Egypt's diplomatic power increased. The Soviet Union stepped in and replaced military equipment and funded the Aswan High Dam. Don't blame the Eisenhower administration for an Israeli loss.

In 1967, LBJ was involved in a flare-up of the Cold War: Vietnam. LBJ was not an uncle administering a family trust account. He dealt with powerful political organizations. He tried to assist Israel. Glance at his budgets compared to the JFK (fiscal 1964 was the last JFK one)budgets.

The real impediment to a strong Israel with a solid US alliance (eg "Major Non-NATO Ally") can still be found in LBJ's "screwdriver" comment.

The one main item that threatened LBJ's close relationship with US Jews - and, by extension, ISRAEL - was the strong opposition of a large bloc of Jews against the Vietnam War. He initially thought that American Jews would be empathetic to the Vietnam situation. Johnson repeatedly said that Jews "want me to protect Israel, but they don't want me to do anything in Vietnam."

At the end of his presidency-remember he decided not to run for reelection-he had a conversation with Abba Eban.

LBJ: "A bunch of rabbis came here one day in 1967 to tell me that I ought not to send a single screwdriver to Vietnam-but on the other hand should push all our aircraft carriers through the Straits of Tiran to help Israel."

If you ally with the hated Polish aristocracy, expect the Cassacks to react accordingly.

To this day, in American political polling, there is a special category called the "Jewish sub-group".

Everything follows the LBJ screwdriver comment.

Kol tuv,
BobW

Posted by: BobW on January 13, 2006 05:38 AM

2. Felix Quigley said:

BobW

I find that I am in conflict with your views on this one.

First of all that I do not recognise that the US had the right to interfere in the affairs of Vietnam. It was not a rich country, and as far as I understand was mainly a nationalist movement, seeking its independence. In this regard I feel that Vietnam was in conflict re its independence with both China and with the Soviet Union.

Now I do understand the hate that was spewing out of the Soviets towards Jews and Israel at this time and that the Left were supporting that hate.

But if American Jews supported Vietnam in that war then that was a good thing and something they should be proud of. Basically America, or the EU, have no right to meddle.

I am approaching these issues from exactly the opposite, I fear.

The problem with American Jews is located within the established leadership, which has a craven supportive attitude to the might of the US state.

I would say that all of these Jewish organisations, or the most of them, were supportive of the Sharon cum Bush strategy of Gaza withdrawal leading to a second Palestinian state.

I noted also below how the Bush appointee Ward was pushing for Gaza handover to the enemy just in the same breath that he was claiming that it would literally endanger Jewish lives. ZOA reported this and then went on to wish Elmert all the very best!!!

And in modern times, ie the present, I would like to see published in front of the American people every damnable step that this US regime is taking towards Israel. I would label it "Conspiracy to kill Jews". I dismiss the stupidity argument.

Posted by: Felix Quigley on January 13, 2006 06:42 AM

3. BobW said:

Shalom Felix,

There are no =rights= in international relations and geopolitics; only political power.

South Vietnam was a carve-out of the former French Indochina (larger than what the maps show but DeGaulle renounced claims within Chinese territory)

American Jews have a near solid history of alignments with losing sides. Start with the 20th century's Bolshevik Revolution and America's Palmer Raids. Emma Goldman and about 250 others were deported to Russia. She was an anarchist along with Alexander Berkman. Skip over WWII and the McCarthy era and go to Vietnam. Scott Camil of Vietnam Veterans Against The War (He's Jewish) continued the US Government's unspoken "concern". Add Member of Congress Bella Abzug to the mix.

Now look at the voting patterns. About 80-85% of American Jews vote Democrat. No problem when the FDR bloc was in power. Times changed and the Jews did not. The 10 Jewish Senators (9 are Democrats-Arlen Specter is Republican) voted not to pursue the Clinton impeachment.

Review my above comment that aligning with the hated Polish aristrocracy causes some predictable reactions from the Cossacks.

What Middle America identifies as the Jewish population (I sincerely argue that many have de facto converted to secular humanism.) is also seen as affiliated with losing political sides.

I expect AIPAC to soon be obliged to register as a foreign agent.

America's largest and richest minorities are no longer blacks and Jews, respectively. They've been replaced by America's Mexican-Americans and overseas Chinese. Political power is adjusting accordingly.

Again, with the end of the Cold War, institutionally weak Israel and the US Foxman-Yoffie-Bader Ginsberg crowd continues to cause the disestablishment of Israel.

Don't blame the Houston oil barons.

Kol tuv,
BobW

Posted by: BobW on January 13, 2006 08:35 AM

4. Daled Amos said:

In terms of Glick's issue about the pressures applied on Israel, I agree that you have to take into account 'International relations and geopolitics'. However, in regards to Cal Thomas' list, when it comes to the US keeping it's promises and guarantees--which is the basis upon which 'International relations and geopolitics' rest--I think there is less wiggle-room to excuse the US failure to keep promises, regardless of the assumed weakness of the country to whom the promises are made.

Posted by: Daled Amos on January 13, 2006 12:00 PM

5. Laura said:

"US Foxman-Yoffie-Bader Ginsberg crowd continues to cause the disestablishment of Israel.

Don't blame the Houston oil barons."
.......................................
How the hell will Foxman, let alone Ruth Bader Ginsberg cause the disestablishment of Israel? How on Earth did Ruth Bader Ginsberg even enter your mind with regards to Israel?

Yet you defend those that really are a danger to Israel, which are in fact the oil barons. I think You just have a knee-jerk reaction against any liberal and a knee-jerk defense of any conservative.

They didn't vote for Clinton's impeachment because there was no grounds for it. And if Clinton deserved impeachment, then Bush most definitely does.

Posted by: Laura on January 13, 2006 04:18 PM

6. Felix Quigley said:

Laura

I recognise in what BobW says an awful lot of truth. He is bringing up points about the realities of the situation in America which I agree with. He is stating quite explicitely that the US has got no friends internationally, only interests. That applies big time to Israel. Bob is dead right on this. That is the basis of Baker's F... the Jews remark

But the US does not state this openly, it hides this quite deliberately. And that is why I had a look at Clinton addressing the Jewish establishment in America. It is all clearly part of a gigantic conspiracy that involves especially the Media and which effects every single person. It is carried on even by people here who deny the conspiratorial nature of modern politics and power plays.

Laura you should read all you can about the experiences in Yugoslavia to understand BobW on power politics. He says some things I do not agree with but the essence of what he is saying is most valuable.

Posted by: Felix Quigley on January 14, 2006 08:11 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)