Dead letter

Daled Amos has an example of an American failure to stand up to the Palestinian Authority.

This isn’t a matter of failing to defend Israel, but of failing to defend American citizens; or even to call those responsible for their murders to account. It’s one in a number of failures of the American government to demand even the most basic display of responsibility from the Palestinians.

This has been a failure of the Bush administration. (And it was a failure of the Clinton administration before it.)

Evelyn Gordon lays out an even more damning case against the outgoing administration.in Just another bit of fish wrapping:

Does anyone still remember George W. Bush’s April 2004 letter to Ariel Sharon? At the time, it was touted as Israel’s main quid pro quo for uprooting 25 settlements, expelling some 10,000 Israelis from their homes and withdrawing the army from Gaza. Yet today, it is never mentioned – and for good reason: In the ensuing four years, the Bush and Olmert administrations between them have systematically eviscerated every “achievement” it allegedly granted Israel.

(It would appear that the Washington Post need not have worried so much. William Safire had a much different take at the time.)

But there’s a name that’s very important in Gordon’s opening paragraph: “Olmert.” What would have happened if Ariel Sharon’s successor had insisted that the United States make good on its pledges? Well here’s how Gordon describes one:

THE LETTER also pledged that “Israel will retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organizations,” if Gaza did prove “a threat that would have to be addressed by any other means” than diplomatic pressure. In reality, Washington pressed Olmert to avoid anything beyond ineffective, small-scale military operations. But there, it was pushing against an open door: Olmert wanted a major operation as little as Bush did.

(Though, it seemed that the United States would have allowed a more decisive Israeli campaign against Hezbollah in 2006 than PM Olmert was willing to risk.)

And in the matter of the American pledge that all Palestinians would be settled in Palestinian territory, Gordon writes that the United States never much mentioned it again, but didn’t back down from its words. However …

Olmert, however, single-handedly gutted this achievement by offering to absorb some 20,000 Palestinian refugees under any deal. And as everyone knows, the minute you concede the principle, the price is negotiable.

Predictably, therefore, the world is already pressuring Israel to raise the figure. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, for instance, declared earlier this month that not only must Tzipi Livni honor Olmert’s offer, she might even have to increase it: “I don’t know how many [refugees Israel must accept] – 10,000 or 100,000, I don’t know,” he said.

While there’s no excusing the Bush administrations reversals; I wonder if things would have been different if Ariel Sharon hadn’t been incapacitated. More generally, is Israel’s well being more dependent on who is elected American President or on who is elected (or succeeds as) Prime Minister of Israel?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.