From 1996 to 1999, Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu was Prime Minister of Israel. During his term in office he was viewed with skepticism, if not hostility by the Clinton administration, much of the American media, the foreign policy establishment and the opposition in Israel.
In January of 1997, Netanyahu and Arafat concluded the Hebron Accords, which called for the withdrawal of Israel from most of Hebron. Additional protocols called on Israel to withdraw from further locations in Judea and Samaria and for the Palestinians to start observing the commitments they had made under Oslo. Netanyahu, got Clinton to guarantee that Israel would determine the scope of the withdrawal on its own. In fact that guarantee was crucial in getting the cabinet to approve the accords.
However shortly after the signing, Arafat declared himself unsatisfied with the scope of the Israeli withdrawals and complained to Clinton. Clinton took Arafat’s side (this contradicts Aaron David Miller’s claim that the United States had always acted as Israel’s lawyer) and demanded that Netanyahu agree to withdraw from more territory. For the next months American and Israeli relations were marked with rancor of Netanyahu’s insistence that the Palestinians start keeping their end of the deal and Clinton, who insisted that Israel expand the scope of its withdrawals to satisfy Arafat.
About a year after the Hebron Accords were signed, in advance of a trip by Netanyahu to Washington, the New York Times reported:
The position adopted by the Cabinet today was that the note — appended by the United States to the agreement signed a year ago on an Israeli withdrawal from most of the West Bank city of Hebron — spoke of ”reciprocity.” The Cabinet said any further Israeli withdrawals were therefore conditional on the Palestinians’ fulfilling what Israel described as their ”commitments” under the American note.
The list put out by the Israelis today included a long series of demands. They range from the adoption of a new Palestinian National Charter that would not include calls for Israel’s destruction, to protection of the environment and extradition of 34 Palestinians wanted by Israel for terrorist acts. The Cabinet set up a team led by Danny Naveh, the Cabinet Secretary, to monitor Palestinian implementation of these demands.
In fact, the ”note for the record” signed by Warren Christopher — who was Secretary of State at the time — included none of these requirements. What it said was, ”We intend to continue our efforts to help ensure that all outstanding commitments are carried out by both parties in a cooperative spirit and on the basis of reciprocity.”
Israeli commentators and opposition politicians depicted the move as an attempt by Mr. Netanyahu to put impossible conditions on the Palestinians, and make them appear to be the cause of the deadlock.
In fact, as Charles Krauthammer pointed out (and noted in a later correction by the Times itself) the Note for the Record, included everything that Netanyahu demanded. HIs conditions were not “stringent” as the Times’s headline declared, but exactly what had been agreed upon. In his column “He negotiates by the rules,” ( Washington Post, January 16, 1998) Krauthammer wrote:
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.”
But there is no “Note for the Record” signed by Christopher. And the official American “Note for the Record” (authored and signed by U.S. Middle East envoy Dennis Ross) contains, under the heading “Palestinian Responsibilities,” every single measure cited above: “The Palestinian side reaffirms its commitments to the following measures. . . . (1) Complete the process of revising the Palestinian National Charter. (2) Fighting terror and preventing violence . . . preventing incitement and hostile propaganda . . . transfer {extradition} of suspects . . . confiscation of illegal firearms. (3) Size of Palestinian Police will be pursuant to the Interim {Oslo} Agreement,” etc.
The Times’ false front-page report (subject of a correction the following day) is typical of its tendentious treatment of Netanyahu. It echoes the PLO line that Netanyahu ‘s demand for reciprocity is nothing but a ploy. But how can any fair-minded observer consider reciprocity anything but an unobjectionable, indeed essential, condition for a peace process?
On another front, a few months earlier, the extreme left-wing Israel Policy Forum released a poll claiming that a majority of American Jews favored the Clinton administration putting moderate pressure on both Arafat and Netanyahu to come to an agreement. This result was trumpeted as “proof” that Netanyahu was out of step with American Jewry and ought to be more flexible undermining his position. (Daniel Pipes wrote about that poll and contrasted it with two polls he had commissioned.)
So it was throughout Netanyahu’s three years in office. The Clinton administration, the media and American-Jewish Left all worked to undermine his position, even though Netanyahu’s position was no more extreme than demanding that Arafat and the Palestinians abide by the agreements they signed.
Netanyahu is not yet Prime Minister and we’re starting to see the media “report” that Netanyahu would upset the oh-so-sensible plans of President Obama.
Netanyahu isn’t as extreme as his opponents portray him, but that doesn’t really matter. Even his efforts at demanding accountability from the Palestinian were portrayed as unreasonable. The early indication is that we’ll see more of the same. this time around if Netanyahu succeeds in forming the next government of Israel.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
