In "Israel's Loss" the Post describes Binyamin Netanyahu, head of the Likud Party as someone who "...enjoys little trust in Washington."

Given that the Post was just giving a free pass to murderers, the gratuitous swipe at Netanyahu was unforgivable. But why isn't Netanyahu trusted in Washington? Hard to say with the Bush administration, but with the Clinton administration it was clear.

As A. M. Rosenthal wrote in "A Note for the Record" (NY Times, May 8, 1998)

Mr. Netanyahu decided to give up Hebron to get on with negotiations with Yasir Arafat, and to keep U.S. support. That was accommodation, but not for suicide. Mr. Netanyahu asked for renewed U.S. support of its policy that Israel must determine its borders and security.

On Jan. 15, 1997, the State Department, under Warren Christopher, issued a special statement to emphasize that the U.S. ''note for the record'' about Hebron made clear that ''further redeployment phases are issues for implementation by Israel rather than issues for negotiation with the Palestinians.'' And ''letters of assurance'' to Israelis and Palestinians from Mr. Christopher also referred to ''Israeli responsibility'' to designate specified ''military locations.''

Fortified with those pledges against anybody shoving further hazardous retreats down Israel's throat, Mr. Netanyahu got his conservative Cabinet to agree to the loss of Hebron.

Now, a Clinton impatient to show his foreign clout, somewhere, wants to dictate terms that gladden Mr. Arafat's heart -- large figures for the next Israeli West Bank withdrawals.

The Albright team made them public by informing Arab leaders -- 13.1 percent more of the West Bank for the Palestinians. That would give the Palestinians control of 40 percent -- without any agreement or even talks about the all-important final negotiations ahead.

The detail left out here is that the Israeli cabinet didn't vote for the Hebron agreement until it was confirmed that Israel would be able to determine the degree of further redeployments. There was no ambiguity in the American terms. And the note for the record was very clear what the Palestinian obligations were.

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. The NY Times article (above) claimed Israel was making new demands and mistakenly identified the source of the Palestinian obligations. The corrected the latter but left the former impression intact.

The Washington Post gleefully reported "Clinton Continues `Snub Diplomacy' With Israel" on January 20, 1998:

The Clinton administration, simply stated, believes that Netanyahu is putting too little of the West Bank on the negotiating table to cut a deal with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and engaging in too many provocative acts of settlement expansion there. Administration analysts are divided on the Israeli leader's intentions: Special Middle East coordinator Dennis Ross, officials said, tends toward the view that Netanyahu might yet make a deal; Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk inclines to doubt. But analysts are unanimous in believing that Netanyahu's stated positions would lead the four-year-old peace talks to collapse.

But the reporter, Barton Gellman doesn't acknowledge that all Netanyahu was demanding was fulfillment of the PA's obligations. As Charles Krauthammer wrote in "He Negotiates by the Rules":

Heaping abuse on Bibi is not, however, just a specialty of Israeli liberals. It has become a hobby of their U.S. branch, which, for example, finds it congenial to liken Likud to the Communist Party of Russia and to join the State Department's disgraceful blaming of (who else?) Bibi for the administration's failure to keep Saddam in check. (That was last November. Now that Saddam is acting up again, how do they pin this one on Bibi?)

With Netanyahu coming to Washington to see President Clinton next week, the propaganda machine has started up again. The theme? That Netanyahu has cooked up yet another clever ruse to derail the peace process. The ruse? That as a condition for Israel's next West Bank withdrawal, the Palestinians must fulfill the commitments they made exactly one year ago (in return for Israel's last withdrawal, from Hebron) and have since ignored.

There is no better illustration of the comical one-sidedness of the peace process: Israel's demand for Palestinian compliance with its own written obligations is deemed a form of sabotage.

What are these demands?

(1) Change the Palestinian National Covenant to remove the clauses that call for Israel's destruction.

(2) Fight terror and prevent violence. This includes extraditing terrorists; confiscating illegal firearms; and preventing hostile propaganda, like that from Palestinian officials and official media that accuses Israel variously of injecting Palestinians with AIDS, poisoning their food, planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque ("with the creation of artificial earthquakes") and propagating the fiction known as the Holocaust.

(3) Reduce the size of the Palestinian police force, now more than 12,000 above the level allowed under the Oslo accords.

(4) Close Palestinian Authority offices in Jerusalem.

These commitments are contained in the official "Note for the Record" drawn up by the United States at the completion of the Hebron accord a year ago.

Sound sensible? Not to Bibi-phobes. Take the New York Times. Its front-page lead story on Wednesday reports that these demands are essentially Netanyahu inventions. "In fact," writes correspondent Serge Schmemann triumphantly, "the `Note for the Record' signed by Warren Christopher -- who was secretary of state at the time -- included none of these requirements."

So yes Netanyahu may not be trusted in Washington, but it is based on the statements of a weaselly administration supported by dishonest reporting.

Though the Bush administration hasn't yet betrayed Israel to this degree, it is headed in this direction. Despite the fact that Abbas is only better than Arafat in that he's not Arafat, he hasn't just done nothing to advance peace, he has actively promoted terror. As Evelyn Gordon noted in "Fatah is no better than Hamas":

But Barghouti's presence at the top of Fatah's list is no mere anomaly. That is evident from the slate that Abbas composed during Fatah's brief split, when Barghouti was heading the rival list. In the top slot, Abbas placed Muhammad Abu Ali Yatta - who is also serving a life sentence for murder in an Israeli prison.

In other words, Barghouti is not first on the list because his popularity forced a reluctant Abbas to accept him, but because Abbas deliberately decided to head the list with someone convicted of murdering Israelis. And whether he did so because he personally admires such killers or merely because he deemed this necessary to win votes makes little difference in terms of the prospects for peace: Even if Abbas personally wants to end the conflict, that is unlikely to happen if the Palestinian public prefers terrorism.

Despite this, the administration has pressed Israel to make more concessions (leaving Rafah unguarded by Israelis, allowing a Palestinian Arab vote in Jerusalem) without demanding any change from Abbas.

Leaving Rafah unguarded has allowed smuggling of weapons into Gaza to increase greatly. So there is a cost to concessions made to a partner who wishes one ill.

The Washington Post has chosen to stand with terroists like Hamas and Marwan Barghouti and make a politician with whom they disagree into a bad guy. The hypothetical question what will the Bush administration do?

If a future Prime Minister Netanayahu is not as enthusiastic to follow the path of PM Sharon and acting PM Olmert citing failure of the PA to ensure Israeli security in the aftermath of disenagement: Will President Bush follow the path of his predecessor (and his father)? Or will he respect the decision of the Israeli people?

Technorati Tags: Israel, Ariel Sharon, Washington Post.

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.