Obama Honouring Presidential Commitments Trumps Protocol…writes David Singer
The furore engendered by House Speaker John Boehner inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress on March 3 – supposedly in breach of Presidential protocol – marks the first step in Congress flexing its muscles to persuade President Obama to re-think his concerted attempts to undermine the written commitments made by President Bush to Israel’s then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in his letter dated 14 April 2004 – as overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Representatives 407-9 on 23 June 2004 and the Senate 95-3 the next day (“American Written Commitments”).
Those 2004 American Written Commitments to Israel have become even more critical in 2015 – as a completely changed political environment sees America:
- leading negotiations with Iran on curbing Iran’s nuclear program
- heading a coalition of 62 States seeking to degrade and destroy Islamic State
- forming part of the London 11 countries backing the unsuccessful bid to oust Assad from power in Syria
- witnessing the shredding of the 2003 Bush Roadmap calling for the creation of a second Arab State in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan – as PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas chooses instead to travel the road leading to the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.
These American Written Commitments were made to support Sharon’s decision to unilaterally disengage from Gaza – which Israel duly honoured in 2005 – when the Israeli Army and 8000 Israeli civilians left Gaza – many after living there for almost forty years.
Israel’s disengagement brought Hamas to power in Gaza’s one and only election – which has since seen three wars, thousands of deaths and casualties, property destruction running into billions of dollars and 11000 rockets being indiscriminately fired into Israeli civilian population centres.
Those American Written Commitments assured Israel that the United States:
- Would do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan other than the Roadmap envisioned by President Bush on 24 June 2002.
- Reiterated America’s steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders,
- Was strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state.
- Understood that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement would need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.
- Accepted as part of a final peace settlement that Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.
- Acknowledged that in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it would be unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, that all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution had reached the same conclusion
President Obama and his administration have sought to circumvent these American Written Commitments – thereby encouraging continuing Arab rejectionism of Israeli peace overtures whilst souring the American–Israeli longstanding relationship.
Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly took the first steps to repudiate these American Written Commitments on 6 June 2009:
“Since coming to office in January, President Barack Obama has repeatedly called on Israel to halt all settlement activity in Palestinian areas, a demand rejected by the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Israelis say they received commitments from the previous US administration of President George W. Bush permitting some growth in existing settlements.
They say the US position was laid out in a 2004 letter from Bush to then Israeli premier Ariel Sharon.
Clinton rejected that claim, saying any such US stance was informal and “did not become part of the official position of the United States government.”
Clinton made Obama’s intentions clear – when she stated on 25 November 2009
“We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”
This blatant disregard for the American Written Commitments – which had never mentioned land swaps signalled trouble for Israel – if Obama ever confirmed Clinton’s statements.
Eighteen months later Israel’s worst fears were realised when President Obama declared on 19 May 2011:
“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
Israel’s curt response came the same day:
Mr. Netanyahu said in a pointed statement just before boarding a plane to Washington that while he appreciated Mr. Obama’s commitment to peace, he “expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of American commitments made to Israel in 2004 which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.”
These American Written Commitments cannot be unilaterally revoked or varied – if America is to retain any international credibility for honouring agreements it makes with other States.
Israel – and Israel alone – must determine where its secure, recognized and defensible borders are to be located under these American Written Commitments.
Obama will hopefully get this unequivocal message when Congress welcomes Netanyahu to address it – protocol or no protocol.
David Singer is a Sydney Lawyer and Foundation Member of the International Analysts Network
Gil
Elbiary resigned on 3 September 2014.
Basic to any analysis is to first be sure of your facts.
You state: “Obama is not remotely interested in any “message” from Congress”
This is a rather sweeping statement. I prefer to wait and see what Congress actually does or doesn’t do and Obama’s response – before jumping to your conclusion.
Obama needs to be confronted and asked to answer one question:
Does Obama consider himself to be bound to adhere to the terms of the letter from President Bush to Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004 as overwhelmingly endorsed by the then duly constituted Congress?
Side issues such as those raised by you are really a distraction that do nothing to answer this one critical question.
David,
You are pedantic to the point of absurdity.
Your attempt to score a “gotcha” point in telling me that Elibiary resigned 3 September 2014 is irrelevant.
Who gives a damn if he resigned or not.
The point that you miss is that these Islamists were appointed by a Muslim president who by passed the senate confirmation process as to eligibility for the job.
In relation to the question you wish him to be asked: “Does Obama consider himself to be bound to adhere to the terms of the letter from President Bush to Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004 as overwhelmingly endorsed by the then duly constituted Congress?” – I can give you the answer and it is a categorical NO. Obama does not care less for any agreement signed in the past.
Can’t you understand, Obama is a clear and present and deadly danger to Israel?
If Obama were to give a clear and categorical “NO” to the question – I would agree with your summation.
Until then I reserve my judgement.
Cannot Envisage a Demilitarized Non Belligerant Palestinian State in Judea and Samaria.Cannot even near achieve in Gaza which is 160 sq miles full of Tunnels and Rockets.Two Thirds of Palestinians support Hamas and Iran calls for Palestinians to Arm themselves everywhere.Also Security over the Jordan Valley is an issue .Abbas has agreed to the IDF for 5 years followed by the USA and NATO but Hamas says no and it will attack any Force .
It’s about 1500 sq km of land in reality and probably for the moment No one ought settle there.
Eoin
Such decisions as those you have outlined must be left to the duly elected Government of Israel – not President Obama- as the Bush-Sharon exchange of letters in April 2004 made clear.
David,
You say: “Israel – and Israel alone – must determine where its secure, recognized and defensible borders are to be located under these American Written Commitments. Obama will hopefully get this unequivocal message when Congress welcomes Netanyahu to address it – protocol or no protocol.”
I have come to the conclusion that you are so entrenched in your various positions that to save face you will never let yourself take the blinkers off and allow yourself to see the light.
Obama is not remotely interested in any “message” from Congress.
In addition, he couldn’t remotely care less about past commitments made by former and real AMERICAN presidents.
In my opinion, by his various actions, I can only conclude he is a supporter of radical Islam.
He will drag the negotiations with Iran on until that country announces a fait accompli, that it is a nuclear power.
He is working behind the scenes to bring Israel to its knees if not to its destruction.
He has as his advisors in the White House the following “czars” who he appointed by Executive Privilege in order to by pass senate confirmation hearings on their suitability.
Salam al-Marayati
Mohammed Elibiary
Arif Alikhan
Rashad Hussain
Imam Mohammed Magid
Eboo Patel
Yet in spite of the obvious you persist in writing fanciful fairy tales.