Elliott Abrams: Obama Administration Disavowed Agreement that Biden Administration Claims Israel Violated
On March 21, the Biden administration denounced a recent move in the Israeli Knesset as "a clear contradiction of undertakings the Israeli government made to the United States." This statement is astonishing and Americans should understand why.Alan Dershowitz: Bibi left out the most important part
Between 2002 and early 2004, the George W. Bush administration found that all progress on Israeli-Palestinian issues was stopped dead by Yasser Arafat's corruption and his support of terrorism. I was serving at the time as the National Security Council's senior director for the Near East.
In an exchange of letters on April 14, 2004, President Bush gave Prime Minister Sharon the support he needed to complete the Gaza withdrawal. Bush's letter made several important statements: that the U.S. would impose no new peace plan on Israel beyond what was already agreed; that the U.S. would "preserve and strengthen Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats"; and that the Palestinian refugee problem would not be solved by moving Palestinians to Israel.
Bush also said that "in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." In other words, Israeli settlements were realities, and the U.S. understood that in any final status agreement, Israeli borders would reflect their location. This formal exchange of letters was endorsed by the Senate by a vote of 95-3 and by the House by 407-9.
Yet in 2009, the U.S., under the Obama-Biden administration, claimed that the 2004 exchange of letters and commitments was absolutely of no consequence and not binding. For the Biden administration to denounce Israeli action on the ground that it violates a commitment made by Israel to the U.S. is remarkably hypocritical. The Obama administration had already torn up any such commitment and turned the Bush-Sharon exchange into a pair of dead letters.
The Biden administration should not be free to bash Israel for breaking commitments that the U.S. itself dismissed years ago.
It was an honor to be quoted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his statement about the proposed judicial reforms. He quoted my words accurately, but he omitted the thrust of my central message: That further compromise is absolutely necessary.The IDF Must Be Kept Out of the Political Debate
I remain opposed to both the original and revised proposals because they cross two red lines: 1) they permit the Knesset by a simple majority to override Supreme Court decisions guaranteeing fundamental minority rights, freedom of speech and due process; and 2) they empower a majority of politicians, rather than professionals, to select future justices.
The Prime Minister correctly quoted me as denying that, if enacted, these wrong-headed reforms would not turn Israel into an anti-Democratic authoritarian state. Israel will remain democratic as long as a majority of its citizens can elect its leaders in a fair vote. Israeli voters would never tolerate an autocracy. They are for too argumentative and opinionated to take orders from a dictator.
Although Israel will remain a vibrant democracy, it would be a far better democracy if the Supreme Court had the power to check and balance the majority regarding often unpopular basic rights. Recall that many of the most basic rights – such as freedom of speech and due process for hated people – are unpopular with a majority of voters, but essential to the rule of law.
It is important to remember that many western democracies do not have checks and balances based on the separation of powers. Nor do they authorize judicial review of legislative decisions. Parliamentary supremacy is the rule rather than the exception.
But Israel has had a better democracy than most, precisely because the Supreme Court has enforced basic minority rights even when a temporary majority has sought to violate them. So, it is important to try to maintain the benefits of the current Israeli system, while not exaggerating the likely implications of a negative change. Unfortunately, each side has overstated the dangers of the other side’s positions being accepted.
Soldiers in uniform should not abuse their position to take a particular ideological stance. Reservists should not use their annual service as leverage in service of a political agenda.
If they do, then we will end up with half an army, its ideological makeup dependent on who is in political power at any given time.
Of course, this is an extreme scenario, but there are ominous signs that we could be heading in such a direction.
If even a fraction of soldiers or reservists make their service dependent on whether they are happy with government policy or not, it could severely weaken Israel militarily.
We need to create a new social contract among all citizens of Israel that ensures there will be no more refusal to serve, or even the threat of refusal to serve, on ideological grounds. That there will be no more mass petitions calling on people to boycott their annual military service. That there will be no more calls for the IDF to solve political problems.
The IDF must remain above the debate, however vehement it may be.
Soldiers have one job: To achieve the goals set by those above them. Military leaders and strategists have one job: To win wars and ensure safety and security for all Israelis.
Everything the IDF does should be in service of these goals. Anything else is an unnecessary and potentially dangerous distraction.
Even when tempers are frayed, and anger and resentment come from every direction, we need to commit to creating a broad consensus that, above all, the IDF must be kept out of the political debate.
Commentary Podcast: Protests in Israel Come to a Head
Dan Senor joins the podcast to talk about the protests in Israel, how we got here, the firing of Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and the choices now facing Benjamin Netanyahu and the government.