Powered by WebAds

Thursday, July 02, 2009

Sharon's chief of staff slams Obama for denying agreements

At YNet, Dov Weisglass, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's chief of staff, slams the Obama administration for denying the United States' agreements with Israel over 'settlement' construction.
The US Administration’s current position on the matter is embarrassing, to say the least. Talk such as “there was never such agreement,” “these were only verbal understandings,” or “if there was an agreement, it was violated by Israel, and in any case it should be annulled given the changing circumstances” is reminiscent of a person who at court claims that he never signed a promissory note, while at the same time arguing that he already paid it in full a long time ago.

The current secretary of state went as far as declaring that no mention of the agreement can be found in the Administration’s records. A former senior White House official, Elliot Abrams, wrote recently that Clinton is wrong, and that an agreement was reached. “I was there,” he noted in a Wall Street Journal article last week.

Indeed, there was an agreement, which was documented (at least in Israeli records) and publically announced. We should also keep in mind that a verbal agreement is one that must be honored, as long as there is substantial evidence of such agreement’s existence. Moreover, nothing fundamental has changed in the past six years that justifies the annulment of the agreement.

The Administration’s denials are not only unfair and unjust; they are also unwise. The Arab-Israeli conflict is replete with suspicions. Once final-status peace treaties are secured, they will require many American guarantees and obligations, especially in respect to long-term security arrangements. Without these, it is doubtful whether an agreement can be reached.

Yet if decision-makers in Israel (or elsewhere) discover, heaven forbid, that an American pledge is only valid as long as the president in question is in office, nobody will want such pledges. The ancient rule whereby “agreements must be honored” is the basis for the existence of the social and political order in the world.
Until the current administration took office, I don't ever remember there being an issue with one government of the United States not honoring agreements made by the previous government. In fact, the idea that a new government takes power and vitiates all the policies of the previous government was an occasional occurrence in Israel (mostly on the domestic front), but I don't ever remember it happening in the United States. I guess that's what 'hope and change' is all about.

Read the whole thing.


At 10:37 PM, Blogger NormanF said...

If the US sees fit to disavow previous understandings and agreements, Israel should announce it is no longer bound by the Road Map and provisional acceptance of a Palestinian state. Let's see then how much Washington likes it when Israel is also free to act unilaterally when it suits its purposes.

At 7:29 AM, Blogger Iron Chef Kosher! said...

Because the so-called Palestinians refused to do their part of the Road Map, Israel should never have ever considered herself bound by that pipe dream - or any other, for the same reasons.

But the statement "any such agreement would be nullified anyway (WTTE)" proves Freud correct: liars always trip themselves up.


Post a Comment

<< Home