Soccer Dad

Lying for peace

Yesterday when I blogged about this article I missed the most important part of it:

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, at a news briefing in January, suggested that Bush's 2004 letter was aimed at helping Sharon win domestic approval for the Gaza withdrawal. "The president obviously still stands by that letter of April of 2004, but you need to look at it, obviously, in the context of which it was issued," he said.

Even without the "secret agreement," it seems pretty certain that President Bush approved of Israel building in areas it intended to keep. But Steven Hadley said that we should look at "the context." What does he mean? That a President may issue a false assurance to Israel in order to further the peace process?

This kind of paternalism is why I don't believe it's possible to call President Clinton a good friend of Israel. In order to get the Hebron agreement through the Netanyahu government, the Clinton administration assured Netanyahu that he would have the authority to determine the scope of further withdrawals unilaterally. When Netanyahu ordered the first withdrawal and Arafat declared himself "insulted," Clinton started a diplomatic campaign against Netanyahu until the Prime Minister capitulated at Wye.

It's one thing for an American government to disagree with Israel openly. But to use subterfuge in order to get concessions from Israel subverts Israel's democracy. Also, a little humility might be in order.

According to Danny Yatom it was the United States who insisted against Israel's wishes to have Hamas included in the 2006 elections. The Hamas victory - other than showing the popularity of terrorism against Israel that has further increased the violence in the Middle East.

The larger question emerges: If two consecutive administrations feel that it was correct to mislead Israel with false assurances, is this something that Israel should come to expect in the future? Will Israel be able to count on America?

Israel.