Is There a Proper Compensation to the Proposed Retreat from Gaza?

April 9, 2004

Is There a Proper Compensation to
the Proposed Retreat from Gaza?

US Commitments – A Precarious Misinformation (by Israel’s government).

Is a Presidential Commitment Carved in Stone?

In 2000, President Clinton committed $800MN to Israel, to induce a withdrawal from So. Lebanon. Israel withdrew, Palestinian terrorism escalated, but the committed assistance has not been extended.
In 1970, President Nixon committed the US to oppose the deployment of missiles, by Egypt, toward Sinai. Missiles were deployed, Israeli complaints were ignored by the US, and the 1973 War erupted taxing Israel with 2,800 fatalities (more than 100,000 in US terms).
In 1957, President Eisenhower issued Executive commitments to Israel, in return for a full withdrawal from Sinai. In 1967, Egypt violated the agreement with the US and Israel, the Egypt-Syria-Jordan axis tightened around Israel, President Johnson did not implement the 1957 commitments, which paved the road to the Six Days War.
In 2000, presidential candidate Bush made a commitment to relocate the US embassy to Jerusalem. In 2004, the embassy is still located in Tel Aviv.
In 1996 and 1998, President Clinton made a commitment to refrain from pressuring Israel for additional concessions, until the PA/PLO complies and alters the PLO Charter. The PLO/PA persists in systematic and violent violation of commitments, the Charter has not been altered, but Israel is expected to sustain concessions.

Presidential Commitments – The Limits

According to the US Constitution, international treaties and commitments assumed by the president must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate, in order to be constitutionally binding. President Clinton concluded the 1999 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the International Criminal Court Treaty, but was rebuffed by the US Senate.
According to the US Constitution, the Power of the Purse is on Capitol Hill. No presidential financial commitment stands, unless legislated by Congress (which is constrained by rigid budget caps).
According to the US Constitution, the president and/or Congress can rescind any international commitment by issuing an Executive Order and/or by a congressional vote (President Carter annulled the Defense Pact with Taiwan, and Congress can recall the US observers from Sinai by a simple majority).
A President may bypass Congress by Executive Agreements and Executive Orders, which could be rescinded by the president, by his successors and by Congress.
US international commitments (including NATO) are characterized by ambiguity, lack of specificity and by the absence of automaticity of implementation, in order to preserve the interests of the US (rather than the interest of other countries).
The US – and not Israel – will decide whether circumstances warrant implementation of commitments

Presidential Commitments – The Price

Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Congressional leaders wonder whether Israel has been transformed from a role-model of tenacity in face of pressure and terrorism into a role-model of retreat.
During 1948-1992 (until Oslo), Israeli prime ministers used to fend off – frequently – US pressure, and therefore earned respect, which upgraded dramatically US-Israel relations.
Since (Oslo) 1993, Israel has submitted itself to US pressure/approval, deepening its dependence on the US, undermining its posture of deterrence, eroding its position as a strategic asset, increasing its vulnerability to US pressure, which has radicalized Palestinian expectations and terrorism, has weakened Palestinian moderates, distancing the area from peaceful-coexistence and escalating bloodbath.
It is erroneous to assume that US presidential commitments could justify an Israeli retreat in face of terrorism, and to contend that US presidential commitments are carved in stone.