Letter?
What Letter?
The story in Washington is
that President Obama, eager to have Israel extend the "settlement
freeze" for another two months, i.e., until after the November
election, sent Prime Minister Netanyahu a letter offering Israel a
heavy list of inducements, including U.S. agreement
to:
-
Support the presence of the IDF
in the Jordan Valley after the establishment of a Palestinian
state;
-
Not ask for any more building
freeze extensions;
-
Veto any anti-Israel UN Security
Council resolution in the next year; and
-
Deal with the future fate of the
settlements only as part of a final status agreement.
Plus:
-
Guarantees to prevent the
smuggling of weapons and missiles into a Palestinian state;
-
A lengthy interim period of
security arrangements in the Jordan Valley;
-
A comprehensive regional defense
pact for protection from Iran following the establishment of a
Palestinian state;
-
A promise to upgrade Israel's
security capabilities;
-
An increase in the three billion
dollar annual security assistance package; and
-
Commitments to advanced weapons
and early warning systems, including satellites.
What a bargain! But there are
two problems: first, the implicit threat that if Israel doesn't
take the deal, it will be punished with the corollary that the
United States now conditions its commitment to Israel's security on
being obeyed; and second, whether the United States can actually
deliver.
Will the United States stand by
and watch the Security Council trash Israel? Will we vote with it
when it does? Will we refuse to sell Israel weapons it needs while
Iran increases its arsenal? We sell to the Saudis, Bahrainis and
Emirates; and the Russians sell to Syria.
Will the United States force
Israel out of its communities even if there is no "final status
agreement"? What about those towns and villages that even the
President has said are likely to remain Israeli territory after the
"final status agreement," should there be one?
The list also implies that the
United States can, in fact, make good on its promises. How will the
United States prevent the smuggling of weapons into the new
Palestinian state? Israel can't stop the smuggling into Gaza and
only does better in the West Bank by being there. Since no one has
more incentive to stop the smuggling than Israel, how will American
or international troops do it better? Is UNIFIL a good model? What
if the Palestinians don't agree to have them? Which Arab states
will agree to a "comprehensive regional defense pact" with Israel?
How do you know they will and what if they don't?
The American commitment to
Israel's security has traditionally been based on shared values and
the understanding that Israel needs to defend itself from the
countries around it that do not accept its legitimacy and who
periodically attack it. The United States should not be promising
to "fix" the new security problems that will stem from a deal with
the Palestinians, it should seeking a deal that reduces the
security problems Israel already has. Otherwise, it isn't
"peace."
"No letter was sent to the Prime
Minister. We are not going to comment on sensitive diplomatic
matters," said Benjamin Chang, the deputy spokesman for the NSC,
when the terms hit the media. What an odd denial, no mention of
substance, just format.
Does it matter if it was, or
wasn't, a letter? Maybe it does, as the Israelis accepted President
Bush's written assurances following the 2005 disengagement from
Gaza, but the Obama administration declined to reaffirm the terms,
saying a letter didn't define U.S. policy. But regardless of
format, these terms appear detailed and deliberate - and very
problematic.
|
