CAUSE FOR THANKSGIVING: BILL SAFIRE WEIGHS IN AGAINST DEPLOYING U.S. FORCES ON THE GOLAN

(Washington, D.C.): On Thanksgiving Day, William
Safire — one of the Nation’s most respected columnists
— published an extraordinary op.-ed. article in the New
York Times. It reported on conversations with senior
U.S. and Israeli officials in the course of a dinner
party held last week in honor of Israeli Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin’s visit to Washington. The subject:
separating fact from fiction concerning the prospective
deployment of U.S. forces on the Golan Heights.

Mr. Safire described how he elicited, double-checked
and rebutted various comments made that evening by such
figures as Mr. Rabin, Secretary of State Warren
Christopher and Special Advisor on the Middle East Dennis
Ross:

• Prime Minister Rabin maintains that the Bush
  Administration offered to deploy a full
  division of U.S. forces on the Golan — as
  opposed to the 800 or so troops reportedly being
  contemplated by the Clinton team. By contrast
  with the latter, a division-size deployment would
  constitute a significant military presence and
  combat potential with an enhanced self-defense
  capability. It would represent an immense
  commitment of the Pentagon’s resources, however,
  at a time of sharp contraction in defense
  spending and force structure. (Interestingly, Mr.
  Rabin’s statement was contradicted in whole by
  his predecessor, former Prime Minister Shamir,
  and in part by Mr. Ross.)
• Mr. Rabin did not acknowledge that Americans
  might have legitimate and independent concerns
  about undertaking a potentially dangerous
  deployment of U.S. personnel on the Golan. He
  suggested, instead, that Mr. Safire and his
  fellow Times columnist, A.M. Rosenthal,
  had been “brainwashed” by Mr. Rabin’s
  Israeli political opposition.
• Mr. Rabin averred that “the presence of
  American troops [on the Golan]…is not a major
  issue” in the present negotiations with
  Syria. While he went on to contend that it might
  become one, his statement suggests that there
  is still time for a debate to occur in
  this country about the wisdom of such a
  deployment before it becomes an integral
  ingredient in any Israeli-Syrian accord.

Even more interesting were the arguments William
Safire offered to explain his opposition to a U.S.
deployment on the Golan Heights. These include: (1) the
danger of rendering the United States a
“neutral” rather than Israel’s key ally; (2)
the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the American
forces; (3) compromising Israel’s ability to defend
itself through preemptive action, if necessary; and (4)
losing American respect for Israel as the latter becomes
a dependency and burden instead of a strong and
self-reliant partner. He summarized the point by
observing that many of Israel’s staunchest friends who
have strenuously opposed an American deployment on the
Golan “are not against risks for peace; we’re
against imperilling the alliance between Israel and the
U.S.”

The Center for Security Policy commends Bill Safire
for the important contribution he has made in his
Thanksgiving Day column (a href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=94-P_116at”>copy of which is
attached) to stimulating and informing the debate on this
issue. Like the Center’s href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=00-golan94″>recent blue-ribbon study
of the Golan Heights deployment, which appears in full in
this month’s issue of Commentary Magazine, it
should be considered to be required reading for anyone
concerned about Israel and the U.S.-Israeli alliance.