Frank Gaffney, Jr.
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 his decision to issue what amounts to an ultimatum to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu--make 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: "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
With his decision to issue what amounts to an ultimatum to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Mr. Clinton has shown himself to be no friend of Israel.
"Peace With Security"
These two purposes can be advanced only by taking into account the factors described by Mr. Netanyahu, as reported by the Washington Post on March 24, 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 1% 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."
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 the President, 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 meet 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
(Continued on p.11)
Outpost - 6 - June 1998