|
|
View My Stats |
 Subscribe in a reader |
|
|
June 1, 2009
How Much Does Bush's Commitment To Israel's Settlements Count For Now?
Rick Richman writes about a State Department Press Briefing last week where the question was asked:Does the Obama Administration regard itself as bound by the contents of the letter that then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon received from President Bush in 2004?The response both then and when Secretary of State Clinton was asked the same question was that the Obama administration is looking into it.
The key part of the Bush letter to Sharon is this paragraph:
As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities. [emphasis added]The question is whether this is just a letter between two leaders, or whether there is anything substantial behind President Bush's commitment.
The letter in question is not a document setting forth the policy of a prior administration. It is part of an exchange of letters that, taken together, set forth the terms of the Gaza disengagement deal, negotiated between two heads of state. It contains explicit U.S. commitments to Israel regarding defensible borders and the Roadmap, and formal U.S. recognition of certain "realities" regarding settlement blocks and refugees. The letter was endorsed by a concurrent resolution of Congress.According to that concurrent resolution:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--The question remains though, just how bound is Obama by this resolution.
(1) strongly endorses the principles articulated by President Bush in his letter dated April 14, 2004, to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon which will strengthen the security and well-being of the State of Israel; and
(2) supports continuing efforts with others in the international community to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat to the security of Israel. [emphasis added]
A legislative measure, designated "S. Con. Res." and numbered consecutively upon introduction, generally employed to address the sentiments of both chambers, to deal with issues or matters affecting both houses, such as a concurrent budget resolution, or to create a temporary joint committee. Concurrent resolutions are not submitted to the President and thus do not have the force of law. [emphasis added]
FACT: According to the US Constitution, international treaties and commitments assumed by the president must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate, in order to be constitutionally binding.But he also adds another point:
FACT: According to the US Constitution, the president or Congress can rescind any international commitment by issuing an Executive Order or by a congressional vote.
Unfortunately, US commitments made to Israel have not always meant something.
Cal Thomas wrote in 2004:
What should be troubling is the number of promises made by previous American presidents that were not fulfilled, either because the United States failed to uphold them, or an Israeli prime minister did not press the matter.Based on the Constitution, it appears that the only obligation Obama has to honor the Bush letter is a 'moral' one--not a legal one.
In 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower made commitments in order to get Israel to withdraw from the Sinai. In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson failed to implement those commitments and the Six-Day War followed.
In 1970, President Richard Nixon made promises to end the war of attrition between Israel and Egypt. Egypt violated the agreement, and the United States failed to live up to its commitments. The 1973 Yom Kippur War followed, which killed 2,800 Israelis.
In 1996 and again in 1998, President Bill Clinton promised to refrain from pressuring Israel into making further concessions until the Palestinian Authority altered its Charter that calls for the elimination of Israel. The Charter was not altered, but Israel was expected to honor its promises.
In 2000, Clinton committed $800 million in special assistance to induce Israel to withdraw from Southern Lebanon. Israel withdrew, and Hezbollah quickly filled the geographic and military vacuum, increasing terrorist attacks. The promised U.S. assistance never arrived.
Based on the history of the fulfillment of US commitments to Israel, we have a problem.
Hezbollah in passive voice
A cynical and mistrusted offer
Wapo: peace process succeeding because of the great work of the administration
Council speak 100610
Nyt: peace process failing despite the great work of the administration
Do we have enough regulations yet?
Iranian General: "US, Mossad played roles in 9/11 event"
Absolving arafat, ten years later
Rahm can't run? antisemites!
The politics of peace
Daled, the US would be in a much stronger position calling on Israel to fulfill its outposts obligation if it had adhered to its own undertakings. Right now by going beyond the language and spirit of the Bush commitments to Israel, the Obama Administration is demonstrating to Israel it cannot rely on American assurances. And that is going to be deeply damaging to America's credibility as a broker no matter how the settlements issue ultimately plays out.
Posted by: NormanF at June 1, 2009 1:53 PMUnfortunately, Obama is demonstrating to Israel that it is not a credible 'friend' at the same time that Iran sees that Obama and the US are not to be taken seriously.
In addition, Obama's weakness demonstrates to Egypt that it will have to pick between Israel and Iran, and has picked Iran--as Eric Trager writes in Contentions.
All of which raises the question: which is the greater threat to stability in the Middle East: Israel--or Obama?
Posted by: Daled Amos at June 1, 2009 2:07 PMIsraelis don't want the settlements either. The settlers harm our security in Israel Proper. Obama is thinking like a moderate Israeli. We like him.
Posted by: israeli in israel at June 1, 2009 2:16 PMI don't know what the numbers are in terms of how popular Obama is among Israelis, but I am wary of Israelis accepting so sanguinely the idea that an American President dictating to Israel how they should run their country, with consequences if Israel does not listen.
Posted by: Daled Amos at June 1, 2009 2:22 PMI'd like to ask Israeli whether he would like to be told by Obama when and where he can have children. I wrote awhile back the real issue isn't about Ariel, Kiryat Arba or Maale Adumim. The real issue is the fate of Tel Aviv and the future of the State Of Israel. The settlements keep Israel safe. And the truth is years after the Disengagement from Gaza, is Israel that much safer without the Gush Katif? I think the answer is obvious. You may hate the settlers and wish to see them gone but don't think for a moment that if they were, the Arabs won't turn on you next. Just ask the Jews of Sderot what it is like to live in Arab firing range for years on end. And that is a picnic compared to what will happen if the Arabs ever get the populated Gush Dan region in their sights.
Posted by: NormanF at June 1, 2009 5:34 PMIsraeli, I'm not at all sure you represent the majority of Israelis as you claim. http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=13773
Posted by: Laura at June 1, 2009 7:09 PMThe majority of Israelis apparently are not pro-Obama, according to a poll last month:
Only 31 percent of Israelis consider the views of American president Barack Obama's administration pro-Israel, according to a Smith Research poll released Sunday, on the eve of the meeting between Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the White House.
President Barack Obama waves as he arrives to deliver the commencement speech during the 2009 graduation ceremony at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind. Sunday, May 17, 2009.
Photo: AP
SLIDESHOW: Israel & Region | World
The poll of 500 Israelis, representing a statistical model of the Israeli population, was conducted last week following a string of reports in the Israeli media about condemnations of Israeli policies by US Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and other senior Obama administration officials.
Besides the 31% who labeled Obama pro-Israel, 14% considered him pro-Palestinian and 40% felt he was neutral. The other 15% declined to provide an opinion for the poll, which had a 4.5% margin of error.
Obama's numbers contrast sharply with those of his predecessor, George W. Bush, whose administration, according to the poll, was considered pro-Israel by 88% of the respondents. Seven percent said Bush was neutral and just 2% labeled him pro-Palestinian.
However, the person who posted that comment did not say that most Israelis think like Obama--he said that 'moderate' Israelis think like Obama.
Of course, if so, he represents the minority.
Posted by: Daled Amos at June 1, 2009 7:27 PMDaled, I'd say from Laura's observation and yours, Israeli is representative of all the Jewish voters who voted for Meretz and the Labor rebels which have collectively between them a total of 10 seats. That's a decided minority in a Knesset of 120.
Posted by: NormanF at June 1, 2009 8:21 PM