[PM Netanyahu has said that direct talks should deal first with security then with borders.]
Back to Basics on Security Needs
by Elliott Abrams, JCPA
The point is to reflect the reality on the ground and establish a basis for peace that can last. Here are the basics.
1. The letter from President Bush to Prime Minister Sharon of April 14, 2004, was a return to the key elements of U.S. policy since 1967 developed under President Johnson – the idea that there would be no return to the situation before June 1967; that the so-called ’67 borders were incapable of providing Israel with adequate defense and would change. The Bush letter makes no reference to the ’67 borders. It refers to “the armistice lines of 1949.”
2. President Bush stated U.S. policy in a speech in the Rose Garden on June 24, 2002, where he called for “new Palestinian leadership.” It included the understanding that peace was not going to be made as it had been made with Jordan and Egypt, because Israel and the Palestinians were more deeply intertwined. Security for Israel depended also on what happened inside Palestinian society.
3. The “incitement” issue is not trivial or marginal. In the case of Israel and the Palestinians, the location of the border and what is on the other side of that border are equally important. President Bush said that the Palestinians needed institutions of statehood where those who are in charge of education policy are not nursing ancient hatreds. Israel should not back away from the incitement issue because it is a security issue.
4.Similarly, those who back away from the idea of defensible borders are making a huge mistake. Presumably they think defensible borders are too much to ask for. But there will be no peace with the ’67 lines, as has been understood since 1967. Clarity about the fact that those lines will change actually promotes peace.
The point is to reflect the reality on the ground and establish the basis for a peace that can last. We need to stick to the basics and what is most basic is security.
The Bush Letter and the Gaza Withdrawal
In the letter from President Bush to Prime Minister Sharon of April 14, 2004, there was one new element, and the rest was a return to the key elements of U.S. policy since 1967 – elements that were developed under President Johnson – the idea that there would be no return to the situation before June 1967. The April 14 letter was a document carefully negotiated between the United States and Israel at great length, line by line.
The occasion was in response to Prime Minister Sharon’s announcement in December 2003 of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza and four settlements in the northern West Bank. Sharon was then involved in a political battle in Israel inside his own Likud party. He was receiving no compensation from the Palestinians for this unilateral move, but he needed compensation, not least for Israeli political purposes, that was to come from the United States in the form of solidarity with Israel, and the policies expressed in that letter were then endorsed by the U.S. Congress.
Traditional U.S. Policy: Israel Has the Right to Defend Itself
The heart of the approach is that Israel has the right to defend itself, a phrase that was heard many times from President Bush after various incidents of violence. As the letter put it: The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.1 What is critical here is that in this letter there is no talk about international guarantees or international forces. We are all familiar with the experience of UNIFIL in southern Lebanon. UNIFIL was strengthened and enlarged in 2006 after the Lebanon War and it has now presided over a massive rearmament of Hizbullah.
What are the key elements in the Bush approach to Israel defending itself? The first is the continuation of the U.S.-Israel alliance, including military aid from the U.S.
The second element relates to Israel’s borders. There were plenty of comments from President Johnson, Secretary of State Shultz, and many others about how the so-called ’67 borders were incapable of providing Israel with adequate defense and would change. The April 14 letter makes no reference to the ’67 borders. It refers to “the armistice lines of 1949,” which was another effort to show that these were not borders and that they would need to be adjusted. This idea was first raised by President Johnson in 1967.
A New Focus on Change on the Palestinian Side
What was new from President Bush was the clear statement that developments on the Palestinian side were central, namely, the replacement of a corrupt, terrorist leadership with the capability and willpower “to fight terrorism, and cut off all forms of assistance to individuals and groups engaged in terrorism.” The language of the 2003 Roadmap was even stronger; it didn’t say “fight terrorism,” it said “dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure.”2
President Bush stated U.S. policy in a speech in the Rose Garden on June 24, 2002, where he called for “new Palestinian leadership.”3
I call upon them [the Palestinians] to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty….If the Palestinian people meet these goals, they will be able to reach agreement with Israel and Egypt and Jordan on security and other arrangements for independence.
And when the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbors, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders and certain aspects of its sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the Middle East. “A Palestinian state will never be created by terror – it will be built through reform.” That was new: the understanding that peace was not going to be made as it had been made with Jordan and Egypt, because Israel and the Palestinians were more deeply intertwined. Security for Israel depended also on what happened inside Palestinian society. That is why we are required to be concerned about whether the PA arrests Hamas or Fatah terrorists and whether they broadcast vicious libels of Israel and Jews on Palestinian radio and TV.
Incitement Is a Security Issue
This issue, what we’ve come to call “incitement,” is not trivial or marginal. To use a historical analogy, England and France didn’t make peace with Germany at the end of World War I because that was a Germany with which only a false peace could be made. Only after the changes in German society after World War II could a real and lasting peace be made. The same was true for the United States and Japan. In the case of Israel and the Palestinians, the location of the border and what is on the other side of that border are equally important.
It is a phony argument to claim that this is an attempt to impose American political institutions on the Palestinians, or that it is a demand that perfect democracy must arise in the Palestinian territories before any negotiation is possible. That is a caricature. All that President Bush said was that the Palestinians needed institutions of statehood that carry on a serious political and ideological struggle against extremism and terrorism, not any particular constitution or basic law, but a decent political system where the terrorists and their supporters are not in control; where those who are in charge of education policy are not nursing ancient hatreds. And in some of these areas there has been progress, but Israel should not back away from the incitement issue because it is a security issue.
Are Defensible Borders Too Much to Ask For?
Similarly, those who back away from the idea of defensible borders are making a huge mistake. Presumably they do so because they think defensible borders are too much to ask for, and that we need to promote peace. But there will be no peace with the ’67 lines, as has been understood since 1967. Clarity about the fact that those lines will change actually promotes peace. The point is to reflect the reality on the ground and establish the basis for a peace that can last.
As I’ve said, the Bush policy was mostly a return to the policy that the U.S. has had since 1967. I therefore think that American policy today is a departure. We need to stick to the basics and what is most basic is security. Most of those basic elements are found in that 2004 letter endorsed by both houses of Congress.
When it comes to negotiations with the Palestinians, I think Israel should insist on negotiations with the Palestinians alone, without U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell. We had several rounds of tripartite negotiations in the Bush administration and they failed. In addition, there cannot be a time limit on negotiations.
The problem with the Obama administration has been its policy, not its explanations of policy, and I think the situation with Israel has been the exact opposite. Often the policy has been serious and admirable, and the explanations have been poor, as if somehow many in Israel were embarrassed to be staking out tough, clear, unshakeable positions to defend Israeli security. Israel will make it far easier to find supporters when its own positions are clear and its friends can understand that these were positions taken by all Israeli governments in the past, and supported by American presidents for decades. Israel should go back to the basics, and with no apologies.
* * *
Notes
1. “Letter from U.S. President George W. Bush to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon,” April 14, 2004,
2. “A Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” U.S. Department of State, April 30, 2003,
3. “President Bush Calls for New Palestinian Leadership,” White House, June 24, 2002,
While Abrams is right about the security issue, he is wrong to put all of Israel’s eggs into the security basket.
Though stated by Netanyahu and former Israeli leaders that Israel’s historical and legal rights must be recognized, those rights have never been deliniated, explained and justified.
The Palestinian positions and demands are based on revisionist historical narratives, invented or exaggerated so called rights and a whole wishlist of wants fueled by their intractable Jew hatred and dreams for Israel’s eventual destruction, if not in one fell swoop, then in stages.
As I have noted before, it is sheer lunacy that the American led quartet demand and Israel comply with the Palestinian demand that negotiations must begin with Israel’s last offer rejected by the Palestinians. It is also sheer lunacy for the American led quartet and Israel continue to try to faciliate peace with the Palestinians, while calling on them to honor their past agreements with Israel, when it is beyond doubt that they have no intention of doing so.
Some have called on Israel to declare the Oslo accords and subsequent agreements and understandings with the Palestinians, whereby Israel gave concessions in return for Palestinian lies and broken promises, abrogated. Such calls are premised not only on laws of contract common throughout the world as to the remedies available to an innocent contracting party in the face of the other contracting party’s breach, but on common sense as well.
Neither Israel nor Jews the world over should bow to world opinion that singles out Israel as the only nation on earth to which basic contract law and common sense should not apply.
Israel and the world Jewish community should also not tolerate for an instant the fiction that Abbas/Fatah/PA are moderate whereas Hamas is viewed as being extremist and a terrorist entity. Abbas is an extremist in sheep’s clothing, but a Jew/Israel hating extremist all the same.
Further, Israel and the world Jewish community should not tolerate any negotiations with Palestinians unless and until Hamas is eradicated. Hamas not only rules in Gaza, they are influential in the West Bank and that influence is growing. But for American support, Abbas and his Fatah organization that is falsely praised as a government, has little, if any power to back up any agreement reached with Israel. Indeed, Abbas doubtless feels the same threat from Palestinians and Hamas as Arafat did, which is any agreement reached with Israel would amount to signing his death warrant.
As for the issue of Jerusalem, it is as much a security issue as it is an issue of Jewish national self determination and national aspirations. It should not ever be put on the table for discussion, yet Netanyahu has suggested it is going to be put on the table of final status negotiations.
The issues as between Israel and the Palestinians/Arabs go beyond the issue of security and are more complex then just the issue of security.
Israel would do well to unequivocally and strongly advance her positions on all these issues and seriously consider declaring past agreements with Palestinians abrogated because of Palestinian lies and breaches of agreement and seek to as much as possible claw back concessions given in return for nothing but Palestinian lies and empty promises that never will be fulfilled.
In spite of the Obama administration being all smiles and patting themselves on the back to get Israel and the Palestinians to agree to direct talks, that agreement might be upset by the least pretext on either side. That the Palestinians however, have seemingly agreed to direct talks, serves Obama’s political interests far more the Israel’s existential interests.
Perhaps however, there is a chance that these talks will lead to something good for Israel. One should never lose hope. That said, for those hopes to be realized, Netanyahu will have to the spine and intestinal fortitude to make his own demands for Israel which will relate to issues that go well beyond just the issue of security and he will also have the guts to call those Palestinian positions that are without merit or lesser merit then Israel’s case, utter bullcrap.
We knew what BB was and who BB was well before the elections and we let everyone know but Jews are a stiff necked bunch ea thinks he knows better than the next Ha. We need a leader like the one who led Zo Artzeinu. know anyone like that?
MK Arye Eldad: “Complete collapse”
,
First of all I agree with that statement.
Folks, listen forget about the up and coming peace talks. Right now the democratic party, liberals and obama are in trouble and they are looking for a boost. This meeting in not for the benefit of the Israelis or Palestinians it primarily an effort for this administration to come away with a trophy of any sort. They have nothing positive to show going into the mid-term elections. They need help and it should not be at the expense of Israel.
If you trust obama, hillary or mitchell you might as well trust the devil, this is a worthless bunch.
Forget the meeting. Call in sick. Tell them anything. Tell them the dog at the papers.