March 1997, pg. 8

In the Aftermath of the Hebron Agreement

What Secret Promises Did U.S. Make to Israelis, Palestinians?

by Eugene Bird

A confusing and potentially major issue erupted only days after signing of the Hebron agreement, this time over whether the U.S. had promised Israel the exclusive right to determine the extent of Israeli withdrawal during the next 18 months to “specified military locations.” A U.S. letter of assurance to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu released by Israel presented this interpretation of the Oslo II agreement as official U.S. policy.

But the Palestinians immediately claimed, as did one Israeli opposition Labor Party Knesset member, that a letter of assurance from the U.S. to the Palestinians made it clear that “specified military locations” meant only “cantonments” or other “military camps.” This would prevent Israel from designating large areas of the West Bank as such military locations.

Department of State sources declined to release the letter given to the Palestinians, standard practice in such instances, nor have the Palestinians released the American letter. When asked during the Knesset debate over Hebron if he had a copy of the letter of assurance to the Palestinians, Prime Minister Netanyahu replied that he did not, but that he had seen it “after it was signed” by Secretary of State Warren Christopher.

The differing interpretations of the Christopher letters present Madeleine Albright with her first serious problem since she took office only days after both letters were transmitted. Allowing the Israelis to keep half of the West Bank obviously will be unacceptable to the Palestinians. Preventing the Israelis from doing so could lead to an early confrontation with Israel’s present government, since Tel Aviv already has suggested that no more than 50 percent of the West Bank will be returned in the interim stages ending in mid-1998.

Final boundaries could, of course, be a whole other question, but what this does confirm is that the Netanyahu government does not intend to meet generally held expectations that it will end Israeli occupation of most of the West Bank during the interim stage. Instead it appears that a significant part of the West Bank land will be held ransom to such final-status issues as borders, refugee return, and the issue of Jerusalem.

The Palestinians claim, and the U.S. probably agreed privately, that this is not in accord with the Oslo agreement on defining “specified military locations.” Christopher’s two letters, one to Binyamin Netanyahu and the other to Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, may haunt U.S.-Israeli and U.S.-Arab relations for the duration of the peace process, and far beyond if that process comes to an untimely halt.