Abrams: Settlement agreement should be honored
Tuesday I linked to former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Kurtzer's Washington Post op-ed stating that there was never any "formal" understanding allowing Israel to continue building within the "construction line" of settlements. That night, another former Bush administration official, Elliott Abrams, said the U.S.-Israel agreement on settlements may not have been a formal agreement, but it was significant and the United States should honor it.
Speaking at a forum sponsored by the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington and the American Jewish Committee's Washington chapter, Abrams, who served as deputy national security adviser, said that there was not a "treaty or memorandum of understanding," but that the agreement -- laid out in a 2004 letter from President Bush to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon -- was mentioned in a "thousand different memos."
"The notion that there was nothing there because it isn't a treaty signed with melting wax isn't fair," said Abrams. He added that the "context" of the agreement must also be considered -- pointing out that Sharon wanted to withdraw from Gaza and used the assurances he gained on settlements as political cover to "enable him to survive."
"Israel relied on that letter and on those promises in doing something bold and dangerous," he said. "It just seems wrong to say that the president has changed," so the agreement is no longer applicable.
Share
8 Comments
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
Where have I heard this kind of rationalization and propaganda before?
Oh yes, now I remember. It reminds me of the Nazi justification for the Warsaw Ghetto!!
Elliott Abrams is a war criminal with some of the bloodiest hands in the Western Hemisphere. During the 1980s he was one of Ronald Reagan’s point people for the pro-fascist wars waged on the people of Central America (with the help of the government of Israel, as has been well documented, e.g. see book on this topic by the late Israeli academic Israel Shahak). Now he is doing the same to the Palestinians. Being Jewish, I’ve never believed in hell, but if there were one, Abrams would be headed there.
A written commitment in a letter from a U.S. president IS a formal understanding. Bush’s letter agreement with Sharon should to be honored.
No President can bind any of his successors to any policy--that’s why we have elections. Treaties are another matter, but there is no treaty here and maybe even no presidential agreement. Liz Berney sholuld read the constitution before running for Congress.
The vitriol of some of the posters is unfortunately not surprising (Weiss, Rowe). If one signs a contractr and one of the parties in that contract fails to fulfill the terms of the contract, then what should be done? Sue, negate the contract? The Palestinian Arabs have failed to carry through with their end of various “contracts.” Does this mean that Israel must fufill its end with no reciprousity? If future leaders are not tied to the agreements made in writing with other leaders, then why believe any of them? Obama will hold Israel to those agreements he is in favor of and negate the others. Israel should state that it wants every proposal made by the U.S. to be in writing and voted on by Congress. Will this happen? Israel should also state that any agreement made by Israel and not ratified by the Knesset is null and void. There will be a lot of progresss made if these take place.
Speaking now as a law professor (and noting that law professors, like judges, can and do disagree), there is a difference between written agreements, such as treaties and memoranda of understandings, and less formal “understandings” of various sorts. There are also reasons why some policies are embedded in formal, written undertakings, and others are not--and one (not the only) reason is that formal treaties are typically intended to outlast the administrations of those who commit to them. To treat less formal undertakings as if they were formal treaties is a category mistake, and sophisticated actors on the international scene are generally aware of that. Thus, folks like Abrams and Netanyahu are not only wrong, but knowingly acting in bad faith in attempting to hold a new administration to terms of dubious --and pretty clearly temporary--informal undertakings. Whether the substantive content of any such informal undertakings justifies continued adherence is a policy matter--I think not in present conditions--but the notion that the Obama Administration is in violation of a binding agreement is, as mildly as I can say it, mistaken.
This would, of course, not be Mr. Abrams first sin in a lengthy public career. In the absence of an international criminal court, I am content to leave his ultimate fate to powers higher than myself.
With regard to Mr. Cohn’s posting, it seems reasonably clear that both Palestinians and Israelis have fallen considerably short of adhering to their formal commitments, much less informal ones. While i carry no water for Palestinian leadership, which has been corrupt, often bloodthirsty, and almost singularly inept in achieving positive results for the Palestinian people over many decades, no one should be deluded on the fact that Israel, too, has failed to meet many of its obligations. One of many weaknesses in the fabric of international law is its difficulties in addressing the consequences of partial violations of reciprocal commitments--also true in considering reciprocal (if asymmetric) violations during the recent Gaza incursion.
--The Wise Bard
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, you must first be logged in to JTA. If you are not registered, please click here.
Already a JTA member?
Need to know? Get JTA's free e-newsletters!
Alan Jay Weisbard
06/18/09 04:04 PM
I certainly agree that his non-agreement should be honored as long as Bush and Sharon are leaders of their respective countries. After all, we must reward Netanyahu for the “bold and dangerous” initiatives he has undertaken for peace.
What a crock. Elliott, your team lost, big time.
The Wise Bard