That Hound Won’t Hunt Anymore (op-ed)
Mea culpa.
I was one of those people that argued that whatever one may say about Bill Clinton, he has been one of the most pro-Israel Presidents in recent times. What was true then, is not true today.
The President has strangely decided not to move the peace process forward, but rather move it backwards, risking responsibility for undermining the entire process. Whether the author of this disastrous policy is Secretary of State Madeleine Albright or the President, himself, is of little consequence.
Mea culpa.
I was one of those people that argued that whatever one may say about Bill Clinton, he has been one of the most pro-Israel Presidents in recent times. What was true then, is not true today.
The President has strangely decided not to move the peace process forward, but rather move it backwards, risking responsibility for undermining the entire process. Whether the author of this disastrous policy is Secretary of State Madeleine Albright or the President, himself, is of little consequence. As former President Harry Truman once said, “The buck stops here!”
What did the President do? He put our country into direct confrontation with the State of Israel by proposing a specific amount of Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, despite an agreement that Israel’s security margins would be decided by Israel alone. The amount suggested, 13% (interim, of course), is considered to be too much by the Israeli government, and is forcing Israel to negotiate against a joint Palestinian-U.S. proposal. What could be sweeter for Yasser Arafat? He sits on the sidelines while Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, and Benjamin Netanyahu slug it out. Arafat, of course, accepts the interim solution, acquires 13% more territory over the 27% he already controls, and waits for the U.S. to deliver the rest into his hands.
Some people may argue that what is at issue is a commitment made by the Israelis in Hebron that now needs to be fulfilled. No such commitments were ever made – 5%, 13%, 20% or 100%. The Clinton Administration phrased all of the agreements in constructive ambiguity.
What was made specific in the Oslo agreements and the Hebron Accords were the commitments to be carried out by the Palestinians. They were the same commitments remade each time, since they have yet to be fulfilled – commitments to revoke parts of their “covenant” calling for the destruction of Israel, to make a best faith effort to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in territories under their control, to extradite wanted terrorists to Israel, to confiscate illegal arms, and to end the hostile rhetoric towards Israel. None of these have been fulfilled. Now, Arafat is trying to buy future concessions with the same promises.
Why is the Administration pressuring Israel? Simply said, Israel is the only real pressure point they have, and since the Administration is not willing to lean on its non-friends, they believe they can achieve progress by pressuring their ally.
The American public must recognize that by pressuring Israel, we are undermining our interests in the Middle East. The world is watching how we treat our friends. The maxim that Israel is a security asset for the U.S.is still true. By undermining Israel’s national security, we undermine the security of the United States. Thereby, we are strengthening our adversaries in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and other dangerous regimes.
Regarding his strong-arm policy towards Israel, there is an old saying in the South with which President Clinton should be familiar. “That hound won’t hunt anymore!”