Memo to Clinton-Arafat: Hold Everything

(Washington, D.C.): With the arrival of Yasser Arafat in Washington today, the prospects for yet another fraudulent “peace” agreement appear to be brightening. The Palestinian autocrat has evidently concluded that the time is ripe for pocketing Ehud Barak’s latest concessions and to see what else President Clinton can euchre the acting Israeli Prime Minister into surrendering.

It is bad enough that these concessions — which materially weaken Israel’s self- defense capabilities and cause her Arab enemies to perceive the Jewish State as having lost the will to use effectively what remains of its power — come against mounting evidence of an unhappy truth: No piece of paper will transform Palestinians and others determined to destroy the “Zionist entity” into proponents of peaceful coexistence with the Jews.

Now comes a further, stunning rebuff to the man who recently resigned the Israeli premiership rather than lose a no-confidence vote in the Knesset over his appalling willingness to engage in appeasement at any price: Israel’s respected, apolitical Attorney General, Elyakim Rubenstein, has written a private letter to the acting Prime Minister, challenging his “moral authority” to negotiate an agreement. General Rubenstein also expresses “doubt as to the ability of the Palestinians to honor the agreement, both from a security standpoint and in terms of their willingness to maintain true legal relations with Israel.”

For among other reasons those cited by the Israeli Attorney General, President Clinton should recognize that the same principle that he cited in explaining his decision not to travel to North Korea before leaving office: There is not enough time to do the job properly and the risks associated with doing it any other way are grave.

LETTER FROM THE ISRAELI ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ACTING PRIME MINISTER EHUD BARAK

27 December 2000

Prime Minister Ehud Barak:

While there is no legal limitation on a government during an election period the legal consideration is not the central consi deration. The instructions of the law are designed only to prevent the creation of a vacuum in authority and not for the setting of dramatic, fateful, all encompassing, changes like an agreement with the Palestinians.

There is a great distance between the paralysis of the government that the promulgators of the law wished to avoid and dramatic moves.

An election eve agreement with the Palestinians should be such that it does not raise the suspicion, even for appearance sake, that it was subject to time-related considerations — namely election consi derations — and thus great care and constant awareness is required of these suspicions, and even more so in the case of a minority government whose prime minister has resigned.

The agreement being negotiated is different from all its predecessors. This is dealing with the setting of the borders of the nation, the extent of its capital, including concessions in territory, including, to my great sorrow, the tearing apart of the nation both by the decision and its implementation. Decisions that will be difficult to withdraw from. All of these are great reasons for much care to be taken.

I raise doubt as to the moral authority of the government as the resigned prime minister awaits re-election and when the president of the United States, who is acting as midwife for the agreement, will no longer bear any responsibility for the implementation of the agreement since his days at the White House are over and the operative meaning of the agreement will be the removal of settlements, dramatic changes in Jerusalem cutting into the very bone of the city, etc.

The government is the representative of the entire public and thus should carefully weigh heavy nation-dividing decisions made during its waning hours.

I bring to your attention the laws enacted in the Knesset protecting Jerusalem and the law requiring a majority of 61 for changes in the bor ders of the sovereign territory of Israel. Such diplomatic agreements must be presented to the Knesset for approval and considering the current parliamentary situation it can be assumed that this would not be done before the elections but rather upon the establishment of a new government.

I also raise doubt as to the ability of the Palestinians to honor the agreement, both from a security standpoint and in terms of their willing ness to maintain true legal relations with Israel. I oppose the agreement regarding the Temple Mount. I doubt that there is room for expecting generosity from the Palestinians in their recog nizing our connection to the Temple Mount.

I do not want to put barriers against the efforts for peace, but it is my obligation to say what I have said.

Elyakim Rubenstein,
Attorney General