Meryl was the first (whom I saw) to notice history repeating itself.
I responded by blogging about an incident from the Clinton administration, from a 1998 Krauthammer column:
But even more significant than the absurd arbitrariness of this number is its very existence. Under the Oslo Accords, these interim “further redeployments” are left to Israel’s discretion (unlike the “final status” talks, at which Israel and the Palestinians will together negotiate their final borders).
Indeed, just 16 months ago the Clinton administration reaffirmed this principle. At 11 p.m. on the night of Jan. 15, 1997, as Netanyahu’s cabinet was agonizing over the proposed withdrawal from Hebron, it received an urgent memo from then-ambassador Martin Indyk stating the official US position that “further redeployment phases are issues for implementation by Israel rather than issues for negotiation with the Palestinians. The letters of assurance which secretary Christopher intends to provide to both parties also refer to the process of further redeployments as an Israeli responsibility.”
Sixteen months later in London, Albright tells Israel that its 9 percent is no good. The withdrawal must be 13.1 percent – or else she walks away. She gives Netanyahu three days to give his answer. He tells her: “I don’t need three days. The answer is no.”
So now we have a crisis. And though it was manufactured by State to put pressure on Netanyahu, it reveals instead a crisis of credibility for this administration: How can Israel make ever more dangerous concessions to the Palestinians when the American assurances it receives to offset those concessions are so perishable?
LAST week at the National Press Club, Albright gave a hastily arranged speech to explain her position. Its essential, tendentious theme was that all of the problems in the peace process are traceable to Netanyahu. Everything has gone to pieces, she averred, “in just two years.” You don’t need to be a CIA codebreaker to understand what that means: Netanyahu was elected prime minister two years ago this month.
The historic Hebron withdrawal, in which Netanyahu single-handedly brought Likud and the Israeli Right into the land-for-peace Oslo process, received nary a word. That’s because the only praise offered in her speech was reserved for Arafat.
Albright credits him for making “substantial changes in {his} negotiating position.” He had wanted a 30 percent Israeli withdrawal but was willing to accept 13.1.
How generous.
If you’re uncertain how familiar the Obama administration’s tactics are, read Hillel Halkin:
What’s at stake is American credibility and American honor. Four months ago, Israel and the United States concluded an argument regarding Israeli construction in the West Bank and former Jordanian Jerusalem with a compromise that neither government was particularly happy about: Israel reluctantly agreed to suspend all new construction in the West Bank for nearly a year, and the U.S. reluctantly accepted Israel’s refusal to do the same in Jerusalem. And yet however reluctant this acceptance was, America made it clear that it considered the Israeli position enough of a concession to push the “peace process†forward and that it was willing to live with it. On that basis, the Netanyahu government declared a West Bank freeze and began to enforce it, despite the anger this caused on the pro-settlement Israeli Right from which many of Mr. Netanyahu’s voters come.
Now, America has reneged on its word. Using the Ramat Shlomo incident as a pretext, it is demanding once again, as if an agreement had never been reached, that Israel cease all construction in “Arab†Jerusalem. Basically, it is saying: “We agreed to a compromise? So what if we did? Now you’ve insulted us and we’re taking our agreement back.â€
This is a grave mistake. And it is gravest of all for the “peace process†that President Obama claims to be so eager to restart.
From the U.S. point of view, the format for the success of this process is clear: Israel must agree to return to its 1967 frontiers and agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state; the Palestinian state must recognize Israel; and the United States must guarantee the security of both countries and pledge that no Palestinian state will ever be used as a military springboard against Israel
Come again? A U.S. guarantee? What kind of guarantee can be expected from a country that cannot keep its word for longer than four months?
I realize that the MSM won’t acknowledge this, but the United States is once again reneging on its word to Israel and then asking Israel to trust it with its future.
Crossposted on Yourish.
