Twenty-One Times -- and Counting

The State Department has now refused 21 times in the last week to answer a straightforward question:  is the U.S. bound by the letter President Bush provided Israel as part of the Gaza disengagement deal, which was explicitly relied upon by the Israeli Knesset in voting to approve the removal of every settlement and soldier from Gaza?

 

The first refusal occurred on May 27, as Department Spokesman Ian Kelly promised to post a written answer to the question and then did not.  The next seven refusals occurred on June 1, as Deputy Spokesman Robert Wood repeatedly declined to answer the question.  The next day, Wood refused another 11 times.  And yesterday Philip J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State, added refusal Number 20 and 21:

QUESTION: . . . You may be aware that the former chief of staff of then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon published a letter – published an opinion piece which seems to suggest that they have a different understanding of what their Roadmap obligations are. And of course, there is this ongoing debate about the letter sent – exchanged between President Bush and –

MR. CROWLEY: I suspect there is an ongoing debate in this room, but not necessarily outside of this room. (Laughter.) I mean, we are focused on commitments that both sides have made in the Roadmap. The President and the Secretary have been very clear on the obligations that both sides have. We’ve had several meetings with Israeli officials in recent days. We do not believe there is any confusion about the nature of those obligations.

QUESTION: So is the U.S. Administration bound by the Bush letter?

MR. CROWLEY: We are focused on the Roadmap and the obligations that both Israel and the Palestinians have said that they will undertake, and we’re going to hold both of them to them – to that.

QUESTION: So it means you are not bound?

MR. CROWLEY: I would suggest that you keep focusing on the Roadmap.

The Obama administration apparently believes Israel and the Palestinian Authority are bound by the Roadmap, but that the United States has no obligations of its own with respect to it. 

As I tried to demonstrate at the time of the disengage-ment, the purpose of the 2004 exchange of letters between Sharon and Bush was to insure that:  (1) there was an agreement between the U.S. and Israel on the principles governing the later negotiation of final status issues under the Roadmap (including settlements, borders and refugees); and (2) in exchange for Israel undertaking the extraordinary political, social and economic costs of the disengagement – and the even greater military and strategic risks in turning over Gaza to the Palestinian Authority – the U.S. would adhere to those principles.

Since Israel met its obligations under the disengagement deal, the U.S. can no more rescind its agreement and commitment than it can restore the lost world of Gush Katif, or the lost security of southern Israel, or the lives that thousands of rockets traumatized, or the property that was destroyed. 

Israel ended up having to fight a war in Gaza because of the disengagement.  The least the United States can do is meet its own obligations.

Comments

[Terry - Eilat, Israel]

We are being conned. It should be obvious that the Obama plan is the exact copy of Arab demands, including the return of phoney refugees. We are being thrown to the wolves, no different than Czechoslovakia in the 1930's.

[Yael]

Kol hakavod to you Rick, for sticking with this story, as well as to the reporters in the State Dept. press corps who actually pressed until they got an answer.

You mention that "Israel ended up having to fight a war in Gaza because of the disengagement."

I wonder how many people know that hundreds of millions of American taxpayer dollars are going to Gaza for "reconstruction" in the wake of that war. There are no assurances that it won't go specifically to HAMAS for reconstructing their efforts to kill Jews in Israel.

Last I heard, it was illegal to fund terorists. But the Obama regime cares not for legalities... nor as you have shown, for keeping our commitments to allies.

So it's official. Obama has thrown Israel under the bus, just as so many of us feared he would. I think it's safe to say that he's as antisemitic as the Arab demands he has chosen to support, over the historical friendship and alliance between our two countries.

American Jews are in a helluva spot.

[altalena]

The president's current excursion in the Middle East is proving revelatory. He found time to visit Saudi Arabia and grovel before a tyrant, he found time to visit Egypt and unburden himself of an 8,000 word denial of history, but he couldn't find time to stop, however briefly, in Israel to express solidarity with America's only genuine ally in the region. That reveals all we need to know about this man.

Before last November's election, the many Jews who favored Obama's election could tell those of us who opposed it, whenever we voiced our suspicions that he was a closet antisemite, that we were wrong -- that the man's words spoke clearly and eloquently of his devotion to the well-being of the Jewish people and the Jewish state. No more. What last November we only suspected we now know for sure. Nothing could be more overt, more explicit, or more manifest: the man's a Jew-hater.