...the Obama administration has gone to great lengths to avoid directly renouncing the Bush-Sharon agreement regarding settlements. Plainly, the Obama team doesn’t want to abide by the terms of that understanding (which allowed for growth within existing settlements), yet they feel obliged not to say so. On one hand, this is curious for an administration that prides itself, indeed defines itself, on being “not George Bush.” But...it is, after all, poor form to insist Israel keep its agreements while America declines to keep hers.
So the effort to twist and evade has begun. The latest incarnation is to insist the Bush-Sharon agreement was never “implemented” and therefore carries no weight. There are two responses to that.
First, this is not the behavior that has characterized the Israeli-U.S. relationship, at least not recently. We haven’t generally engaged in legalisms and diplomatic fencing with our friend and ally...The very fact that Hillary Clinton now speaks of “enforceable agreements” bespeaks a Rose Law Firm sharp litigator, not a friend or ally of Israel.
Second, let’s talk about “implemented” and “enforceable.” Again, remember the context: Sharon was being asked to withdraw from Gaza and West Bank settlements and his domestic political standing was tenuous. So the U.S., in an effort to protect Sharon domestically and assist our ally, threw a lifeline...What happened? Even the Obama spinners acknowledge that Israel (both under Sharon and Olmert) ”implemented” the agreement by reducing new settlement growth...
So what is to be gleaned from all this? Well, the Obama administration certainly has a new mode of dealing with Israel. And if they want to play lawyer, they should get better legal advice.
Jennifer Rubin
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment