Israel’s “Right to Exist” and American Interests

1. A Congressman said, “I believe it would be in the United States and Israel’s best interest not to allow Hamas to gain more land in the West Bank until they give an ironclad guarantee to stop the violence and fully recognize and respect the State of Israel’s right to exist.”
2. An administration official, responding to a question about how one would know Hamas was serious if, indeed, it did claim to have recognized the right of Israel to exist, said, “Frankly, we had expected them already to have tried that; we’re surprised that they haven’t.” The implication was that the administr
   
   1. A Congressman said, “I believe it would be in the United States and Israel’s best interest not to allow Hamas to gain more land in the West Bank until they give an ironclad guarantee to stop the violence and fully recognize and respect the State of Israel’s right to exist.”
   2. An administration official, responding to a question about how one would know Hamas was serious if, indeed, it did claim to have recognized the right of Israel to exist, said, “Frankly, we had expected them already to have tried that; we’re surprised that they haven’t.” The implication was that the administration would be skeptical of any such claim.

   The phrase Israel’s “right to exist,” is offensive. Israel’s rights in the international community were determined by the United Nations in 1948 under the same post-colonial and then post-WWII framework used by dozens of countries. They are not subject to post hoc review.

   The requirement for the Palestinians – not just Hamas – to claim American support for Palestinian statehood should instead be, “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Israel and its right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

   If that sounds a lot like UN Resolution 242, there is a reason. It is that to which Israel is entitled and that which the Palestinians – should they ever meet the requirements for statehood – will want to claim as well.

   Rumors abound in Washington this week about the tone and the substance of Prime Minister Olmert’s upcoming visit: the U.S. will – or won’t – support further “disengagement”; PM Olmert will – or won’t – agree to talk to Abu Mazen; he will – or won’t – ask for American financial and/or security help; the U.S. will – or won’t – complain about Israel’s security fence and defense. We suggest a modest beginning.

   The President should remember that he is listening to the democratically elected representative of our friend and ally Israel, which upholds the values we uphold and fights the war we fight. Hamas is not a Palestinian nationalist organization and it fights for a program larger than Palestinian statehood. That larger program threatens us.

   The Prime Minister should remember that Oslo’s flaw was believing momentum from small steps could result in a leap across the chasm of Palestinian non-recognition of the legitimacy of Israeli sovereignty. Unilateral withdrawal from additional territory will leave a political as well as military vacuum to be filled by those same internationalist groups that threaten America’s regional interests.

   Don’t talk about anyone’s “right to exist,” but how best to ensure that forward-looking governments, including Jordan, continue to exist in the Middle East.