Back

Buying “Peace,” Buying Israel

- Friday, November 19, 2010 |

During the Bush administration, an envoy was sent to ask what it would take for Israel to feel secure if a Palestinian state was established without a peace treaty with Israel. He had incentives in his pocket. The Israelis turned him down because without a treaty that addressed Israel’s fundamental concerns, nothing could compensate for the security that would be lost by removing assets from the West Bank and accepting Palestinian independence.

They say the envoy returned to Washington frustrated and irritated with Israel, but the idea that you can buy people’s strongly held beliefs lives on.

The Obama administration is presently offering Israel a variety of incentives to agree to a 90-day building freeze to jump start “peace talks” that the Administration has already announced are expected to result in the establishment of an independent Palestinian state next year. By the way, Ha’aretz reports that U.S. officials insist while the “freeze” doesn’t exactly include Jerusalem, they expect that there will be no building there.

Israel, according to media reports, will get an American promise to oppose a unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence; a possible lease deal for the IDF on the West Bank; a second squadron of F-35s free or at the regular price depending on which report you believe; and a promise that this freeze request will be the last freeze request. [The Israelis asked for the American position in a letter, which is ironic since President Bush provided Israel with certain assurances in a letter that the Obama administration immediately and in no uncertain terms repudiated.] Each promise comes with a string:

Is the United States itself opposed to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state? If so, why does Israel have to “pay” for American support? If not, why think the Administration will do more than offer lip service? Does American opposition include a veto in the UN Security Council, or just a vote in the General Assembly? Will the United States work to bring allies along, or just cast a singular vote? Will it be a leader, or just one of 192 countries?

The proposal to lease land to leave the IDF extra-territorially in the West Bank assumes the Palestinians will live up to a lease agreement that violates their sovereignty. Really? Will Palestinian state be demilitarized? No country permits others to determine with whom it has alliances. Who will stop the Palestinians from making a “defensive” alliance with Syria or Iran?

F-35s are not responsive to the additional threat posed to Israel by an independent Palestinian state. So to what end are the additional planes? The United States has said that the $60 billion deal with Saudi Arabia doesn’t change the military balance in the region. If Israel needs the planes to deal with regional threats – whether Saudi Arabia or Iran – should they hinge on whether Israel builds houses for Jews east of the 1949 armistice line? And who ensures that the planes will be built and delivered in a timely manner? Production is already being stretched and reduced, meaning Israel is unlikely to receive its first planes before 2016, and there is a move in Congress to eliminate the plane altogether for an alleged $1 trillion cost savings to the U.S. Treasury.

“This freeze is the last freeze, promise.” Right.

Israel agreed long ago that a Palestinian state could be established under conditions that do not threaten Israel. Thus far, the Palestinians have decline to offer Israel even the most remote assurance that the legitimacy of the Jewish sovereignty in the region, the attachment of the Jewish people to its historical homeland and the right of Israel to “secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force” – the promise of UN Resolution 242 – will be part of the package. But the American bid/bribe appears focused solely on establishing “Palestine” in the President’s time frame, regardless of the consequences to Israel.