YORAM ETTINGER:THE FREEZE DEAL MAKES NO SENSE
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,250
6,L-3987292,00.html>
1. The complex nature of Jewish construction in the Settlements.
If Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria prejudges the outcome of
negotiation, wouldn’t Palestinian construction in Judea and Samaria have the
same effect?!
If the uprooting of Jewish communities advances peace, why would the
uprooting of Arab communities undermine peace?!
The call for uprooting Arabs is immoral; Isn’t the uprooting of Jews just as
immoral?!
If the 300,000 Jews, among 1.5MN Arabs, in Judea and Samaria constitute an
obstacle to peace, how would one define the 1.5MN Arabs, among 6MN Jews,
within pre-1967 Israel?!
If Jewish settlements/communities in Judea and Samaria (est. 1967)
constitute the obstacle to peace, why was the PLO established in 1964?! Why
did anti-Jewish Palestinian terrorism flare up during the 1920s, 1930s and
1940s?!
Why did the Arab-Israel wars erupt in1948/9, 1956 and 1967? Why did an
unprecedented Palestinian terrorism surge following the 1993 Oslo Accord and
the 2005 uprooting of 25 Jewish communities in Gaza and Northern Samaria?!
Past freezes, slowdowns and dismantling of Jewish construction in Judea and
Samaria intensified pressure and exacerbated terrorism – what would be the
impact of another -freeze?!
2. White House promises, guarantees and commitments by US presidents are
evasive and illusive.
They are replete with escape routes, ambiguity, non-automaticity, and always
subject to US’ – and not the recipient’s – interests. Even the tightest US
treaty – with NATO – allows the US to consider the activation of military
force.
3. Precedents of US commitments raise doubts.
The 1954 US-Taiwan defense treaty was concluded by President Eisenhower and
terminated by President Carter in 1979.
In 1957, Israel retreated from the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for President
Eisenhower’s Executive Agreement, which committed US military deployment
should Egypt violate Sinai’s demilitarization and blockade Eilat.
In 1967, Egypt violated Sinai’s demilitarization and blockaded Eilat, but
President Johnson declared his predecessor’s commitment non-binding.
In 1975, President Ford sent an official letter to Prime Minister Rabin,
declaring that the US shall give great weight to Israel’s position that the
Golan Heights should remain under Israel’s control. In 1979, President
Carter declared Ford’s letter non-committal.
In 1982, President Reagan stipulated – in order to overcome Congressional
opposition – that the F-15s sold to Saudi Arabia would not be stationed in
Tabuq, south of Eilat. In 2003, President Bush justified the Saudi
deployment of the fighter planes to Tabuq by altered strategic regional
circumstances.
In 1991 President Bush promised Prime Minister Shamir – in return for
Israeli restraint in face of Iraqi Scud missiles – to favorably consider
granting Israel $10BN loan guarantees for the absorption of one million
Soviet Jews, and to dedicate 30% of the bombing in West Iraq to the
destruction of the Scud launchers. Prime Minister Shamir kept his side of
the bargain; President Bush did not!
In 2000, President Clinton promised Israel $800MN for the retreat from
Southern Lebanon, none of which has reached Israel.
4. An American president is not omnipotent, and Congress has the
capabilities to enhance US-Israel cooperation. An American president
represents one third of the US government, equal in power to the other
third, the US Congress. Unlike the Parliamentarian system, a US president
does not determine the list of candidates to the Legislature, the identity
of congressional leaders, nor the slate of legislation to be introduced in
Congress. A president is constrained by a robust system of checks and
balances and by a complete separation of powers between the Executive and
the Legislature.
It was Congress – sometimes in defiance of presidents – which terminated US
military involvement in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Angola and Nicaragua,
facilitated the Jewish Exodus from the USSR (the “Jackson-Vanik Amendment”),
cut foreign aid to Turkey following the latter’s invasion of Cyprus,
accelerated the fall of South Africa’s White Regime (overriding Reagan’s
veto), etc.
In 1991, Congress forced President Bush to transfer to Israel $700MN worth
of military systems, in addition to a $650 emergency grant and the
refurbishing of the port of Haifa for the benefit of the Sixth Fleet.
5. Congress shares policy-making power, while possessing exclusive
legislative power. Congressional posture is bolstered during economic
crises (e.g. currently) and presidential posture is enhanced during wartime.
In 1995 and 1999, Congress intended to force the president to transfer the
US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but Israel’s prime ministers urged
Congress to temper the legislation, thus dooming the effort.
In October 1998 – a few days before the convening of the Wye Plantation
Conference – Democratic congressional leaders told Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright: “When it comes to opposing pressure on Israel, we are
with Newt [Gingrich].” However, an Israeli prime minister pulled the rug
from under their feet….
The US Congress – equipped with the Power of the Purse – has the
Constitutional capabilities to initiate, suspend, amend and rescind
policies. Congress can direct presidents to exercise the veto power at the
UN Security Council, supply Israel with vital military systems in face of
mutual threats, etc.
Will Jerusalem learn from history by repeating – or by avoiding – critical
errors?!
Comments are closed.
