Clinton Legacy Watch # 24: An Odious Ultimatum To Israel

(Washington, D.C.): The Clinton Administration has finally put to rest the misconception that
the
incumbent is the “most pro-Israel president” since the Jewish State was founded fifty years ago.
With its decision to issue what amounts to an ultimatum to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu — making further territorial concessions now, on American-dictated terms, or be
banished from upcoming high-level meetings in Washington — Mr. Clinton has shown
himself
to be no friend of Israel.

An Ultimatum By Any Other Name

Make no mistake, this is an ultimatum: As Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
put it in London
yesterday:

“The invitation [to Washington] is conditional on these interim issues being
resolved
on the basis of the American ideas …. The invitation to the Washington meeting is on
the basis of those ideas. And watering them down is not in the works …. If the
agreement is not achieved, we will have to re-examine our approach to the peace
process.”

Yasser Arafat has already agreed to this formula — understanding full well that the least
that
would come of this development would be tactical advantage (i.e., additional U.S.
pressure on
Israel for concessions) and, perhaps, a transformation of the strategic situation (i.e., a
lasting rift
between Israel and its only real ally). Hence, the one party being euchred by Washington is that
of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s elected government.

This reality cannot be concealed by the Clinton Administration’s pledge to move directly from
signature of the American diktat to final status negotiations. To be sure, Mrs.
Albright says:
“These talks would be about — if, indeed, we get through the various steps that I
mentioned —
would be to launch the accelerated permanent status talks.” Pressure is
pressure; the fact is
that it is being applied on Israel in a manner that is neither conducive to producing a
durable peace nor to preserving the strategic relationship with the Jewish State that is vital
to both the interests of Israel and the United States.

‘Peace With Security’

These two purposed can be advanced only by taking into account the factors
described by Mr.
Netanyahu, as reported by the Washington Post on 24 March 1998:

“Israel, and Israel alone, will be the one that determines its security needs and the
extent of withdrawal. I think it would be wise to remember, and I think many people in
Washington [should] remember, that ultimately the decisions about the security of
Israel must be made by Israel, because we have to live with the consequences.

“What we need to protect ourselves against terrorist outrages, what we need to
do to protect ourselves so the planes that land in Tel Aviv are not shot down, so
that the aquifers that carry Israel’s water are not interfered with…these kinds of
determinations can only be made here.

“Understand that Israel is a tiny country, and every piece of territory here is tied
to security, every piece. Every [one] percent of the Israeli-occupied
territory
is the size of Tel Aviv. And this territory that abuts our major cities
determines whether we can effectively guarantee that additional territory is
not turned into a Hamas base, a terrorist base.” (Emphasis added
throughout.)

Enter Congress

At a news conference today, House Speaker Newt Gingrich charged that
the Administration
was effectively telling Israel on its fiftieth anniversary, “Happy Birthday! Let us
blackmail you
on behalf of Arafat.” The Speaker also released a strongly worded letter to President
Clinton,
demonstrating Mr. Gingrich’s sensitivity to the hard realities confronting the Prime Minister and
his people. It said, in part:

“I strongly believe that genuine and lasting peace in Israel can only be achieved through
voluntary direct dialogue between the parties, and not as a result of heavy-handed
outside pressure by the United States. Israel must be able to decide her own
security needs and set her own conditions for negotiations without facing
coercion from the U.S.

“If your Administration uses its influence unilaterally [to] design a ‘solution’ or
force Israel to the table despite Israel’s legitimate concerns regarding terrorism,
then we are removing any incentive for Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian
Authority to negotiate. What motivation does Chairman Arafat have to move
toward common ground when America volunteers to drag Israel to his current
position?

“Worse, America’s strong-arm tactics would send a clear signal to the supporters
of terrorism that their murderous actions are an effective tool in forcing
concessions from Israel. Such signals endanger Israel and further weaken
the
peace process.

“Our most loyal democratic allies in the region should not be punished with
threats and ultimatums, but given our fullest confidence as they attempt to
balance their mutual needs of peace and security. America’s best assistance can
be offered as a facilitator, not a bully. Your Administration must reevaluate its
policy in this area.” (Emphasis added throughout.)

At the same press conference, Rep. Bill Paxon (R-NY) released a
similar, cautionary letter
to the President signed by a bipartisan group of over 218 Members of Congress — more
than a
majority of the House of Representatives.⁽¹⁾ It
reminded Mr. Clinton that:

“[Then-Secretary of State Warren] Christopher made a
written commitment that
it would be up to Israel to decide the size and scope of further redeployments of
Israeli forces on the West Bank. Public presentation of an American plan….especially
one that includes a specific redeployment figure beyond what Israel believes to be
prudent to its national security before final status agreements, runs counter to Secretary
Christopher’s commitment and can only undermine Israel’s confidence.”

Another letter was sent last month by 81 Republican and Democratic Senators. href=”#N_2_”>⁽²⁾ It made,
among others, the following, telling point: “Chairman Arafat may hope that American
frustration with the pace of the process will lead to an American decision to force even
more from Israel. Instead, the United States should quietly accept Israel’s latest offer
and move
to final status negotiations.”

Source: Palestinian National Authority

The Real Problem With the Peace Process

In the final analysis, no amount of pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu or his
government
will make possible a real and lasting peace. For, in the absence of a commitment on the
part of
the Palestinian leadership — and on the part of many among their followers — to peaceful
coexistence with Israel, Mr. Clinton’s “peace process” can only lead to the conditions
called for
in the PLO’s 1974 “Plan of Phases”: the creation through negotiation of a
Palestinian state or
base of operations (Phase 1) from which the ultimate campaign to liberate the rest of “Palestine”
(i.e., pre-1967 Israel — Phase 2) can be launched.

Evidence of this abiding objective is to be found not only in speeches made by Arafat and his
lieutenants.⁽³⁾ It is also apparent from the maps of
“Palestine” used incessantly by the Palestinian
Authority — on the uniforms of its “police forces”; as backdrops to its social and cultural events,
its television broadcasts and official ceremonies; and as the structure of a forty-foot memorial to
the “martyrs” (read, terrorists) for the cause of liberating Palestine. Worst of all, the PA
uses
this map in its textbooks to teach Palestinian children a message obvious even to those who
cannot read: The goal remains the destruction of the State of Israel.

The Bottom Line

The Clinton-Albright ultimatum should be formally rescinded even before it is rejected by the
government of Israel. Failing the former, the second must occur. Let the Israelis look to their
security. And let Israel’s true friends among the American people and Members of Congress look
to protecting the critical U.S.-Israeli relationship from the dire straits to which the Clinton
Administration, misguided peace activists and Arabists at home and abroad, seem determined to
condemn it.

– 30 –

1. The originators of the House letter were: Reps. Eliot Engel
(D-NY), Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Bill
Paxon (R-NY) and Steven Rothman (D-NJ).

2. The originators of the Senate letter were Sens. Joseph Lieberman
(D-CT) and Connie Mack
(R-FL).

3. See the Center’s Decision Briefs entitled
The Map Is On the Wall: Arafat Wants No Part of
‘Peaceful Co-Existence’ With Israel, Must Get No More U.S. Aid Until He Does
(No. 97-D
93, 8 July 1997) and ‘There You Go Again’: Arafat Reneges on the PLO
Covenant, Prepares
for War Against Israel; Some ‘Partner for Peace’! ( href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=97-D_15″>No. 97-D 15, 28 January 1997).