“Suspended” Wye River Agreement May Have Positive Congressional Side Effects

By Shirl McArthur

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu wasted no time in “suspending” implementation of the agreement he signed at the Wye River Plantation in October. In any case, the peace process is on hold pending the results of Israel’s May 17 and June 1 elections. However, it can be argued that the whole Wye River charade was not a complete waste of time and money, because one unintended side effect may have been to increase congressional awareness of the Palestinian side of the issues, and, perhaps, reduce congressional knee-jerk support for whatever outrageous actions Israel chooses to take.

Congressional Delegation Impressed by PNC

The 15-member congressional delegation accompanying President Bill Clinton to Israel and Palestine during his December follow-up trip to the Wye River Agreement (see January/February issue of the WRMEA) received scant attention in the mainstream U.S. press, but may ultimately be more important to U.S.-Palestinian relations than the presidential visit.

The delegation included only one Arab-American, Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), plus four legislators who generally can be expected to be reasonable on Middle East issues: Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN), and Reps. John Dingell (D-MI), Sander Levin (D-MI), and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (although of the four only Dingell did not co-sponsor the AIPAC-drafted 1997 “Jerusalem Resolution”).

The rest of the delegation consisted mostly of strong supporters of Israel: Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Reps. Peter Deutsch (D-FL), Jon Fox (R-PA), Jane Harman (D-CA), and Tom Lantos (D-CA); plus some who might be called middle-of-the-road: Sam Gejdenson (D-CT), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Rick Lazio (R-NY), and Norman Sisisky (D-VA). The inclusion of Gejdenson could be particularly important, because he is the newly named ranking minority member of the House International Relations Committee. Gejdenson, who is Jewish, has not been an automatic supporter of Israel, and last spring he incurred the wrath of Zionist extremists by refusing to sign the virulent letter sponsored by Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) criticizing the administration for pressuring Israel in the peace process (see the May/June issue of the Washington Report for details). Furthermore, he was not a co-sponsor of the “Jerusalem Resolution.”

In a conversation with the Washington Report, Rahall was effusive in his praise for how President Clinton handled the visit and “the excellent leadership he has given” in furthering the peace process. He was also enthusiastic about the warm reception the president and the congressional delegation received from all of the Palestinians they encountered, from senior PA officials to the crowds in the street, and especially from the Palestinian National Council, which was convened to again renounce the provisions in the Palestinian National Charter calling for the destruction of the state of Israel.

Rahall offered a positive assessment of the reaction of the rest of the congressional delegates to their meetings with Palestinians and their visits to Palestinian lands. He said that he was very pleased with the expressions of support for the Palestinians offered by members of the delegation, particularly singling out Lantos as “definitely wanting to help the Palestinian economy.”

Although Rahall did not mention it, it was reported separately that Specter was an exception. He did not participate in most of the delegation’s meetings with Palestinians. Instead, he met in Jerusalem with families of 11 people who have been killed in Israel since 1993 and who have been described as American citizens. He told the families that the Senate Appropriations Committee would hold hearings on the issue of 15 Palestinian Arabs who are accused of murdering the 11 and are now living in PA territory.

In addition, Rep. Michael Forbes (R-NY), one of Israel’s most reliable congressmen, was originally on the delegation list, but in the end did not go with it. Instead, on Jan. 8 he suddenly went alone to Israel “on a fact-finding mission” that just happened to coincide with the visit to Israel of a delegation of Jewish-American extremists headed by the infamous financier of Israeli extremism, Irving Moskowitz, who were in Israel to further the plans for new Jewish settlements in the Ras al-Amoud section of East Jerusalem and to raise support for the right-wing parties in the coming Israeli general elections. Although not officially a member of the Moskowitz delegation, Forbes found time to join in many of their meetings.

Possible Pollard Clemency Provokes Outcry

One of the main positive results of the Wye River fiasco may turn out to be the laying to rest of the Jonathan Pollard case. Pollard, the former U.S. Navy civilian intelligence analyst who sold more than 360 cubic feet of highly classified information to Israel in the early 1980s, became a part of the Wye River dance when either Clinton or Prime Minister Netanyahu—there are conflicting reports about who first brought it up—suggested that Pollard’s release might be included as a sweetener to help Netanyahu sell the agreement to his extremist allies in Israel.

Critics said the fact that Clinton even considered such a move shows how little regard he has for U.S. national security interests if they happen to conflict with his own personal interests. However, the U.S. president apparently misjudged the depth and the breadth of the negative reaction to a possible release of Pollard. After CIA Director George Tenet told Clinton during the Wye talks that if Pollard were released he, Tenet, would find it difficult to remain in the administration, Clinton backed down, saying that he had only promised to “review” the Pollard situation.

But that did not calm the reaction from the U.S. military, intelligence, and diplomatic communities. During the Wye talks, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Richard Shelby (R-AL) wrote to Clinton expressing his strong opposition to any link between clemency for Pollard and the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, saying they are separate and should remain so. Then, on Oct. 27, the congressional leadership spoke out. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), joined by Shelby and Chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence Porter Goss (R-FL), wrote a powerful letter to Clinton, calling Pollard “one of the most notorious traitors in U.S. history.” They urged Clinton to recall his 1996 denial of a request to commute Pollard’s sentence, which “cited ‘the enormity of Pollard’s offenses, his lack of remorse, the damage done to our national security, the need for general deterrence and the continuing threat to national security that he posed.’” They said that since then, “absolutely nothing has changed.”

On Nov. 19, in a regular newspaper column to his Alabama constituents, Shelby went further, saying that the fact that Clinton even considered clemency for Pollard as part of the Wye agreement was disturbing because, first, the Pollard case has nothing to do with the Palestinians and thus has no place in discussions between them and the Israelis; and second, Clinton, because of his earlier reviews of Pollard’s case, was fully aware of the threat to U.S. security that Pollard continues to pose.

This same theme was picked up by editorial writers and columnists around the country, including a Dec. 12 op-ed article by four former directors of U.S. naval intelligence who called Pollard a “traitor.” Only Harvard University Law Professor and Israel sycophant Alan Dershowitz, who represented Pollard in the early 1990s, joined by professor of international relations at Boston University Angelo Codevilla, McGill University law professor Irwin Cotler, and University of Baltimore law professor Kenneth Lasson, argued for Pollard, claiming that he was “a victim of a monumental miscarriage of justice.”

On Jan. 5, Goss weighed in again. In an article in The Washington Times he laid out the case against Pollard, saying that “it would be a grave mistake to barter our justice system as a sweetener for Mr. Netanyahu who found the Wye Plantation Agreement a bit too sour.” Goss concluded by saying, “Pollard still is a potential threat to the United States. The amount of information he sold is immense, the American lives he has put at risk are irreplaceable and the damage he did to our national security is incalculable. This man remains unrepentant and still refuses to fully cooperate with the country he swore to protect…A traitor is a traitor, no matter what ‘cause’ he attempts to exploit in his pleas for release.”

Finally, Shelby released a letter to Clinton signed by 58 senators, including 14 Democrats, urging Clinton “to deny clemency in the interest of justice and the interest of national security.”

In November, the White House asked for comments on the Pollard case, by Jan. 11, from the CIA and the Departments of Justice, State and Defense. (Interestingly, the “review” is being handled by White House Counsel Charles Ruff, who holds a political position, rather than by the Justice Department, where such cases are normally handled.) The State Department made public its response, saying it could not see “any overwhelming foreign policy interest” that would benefit from granting Pollard clemency. Additionally, the FBI took the rare step of also publicizing its opposition to Pollard’s release. There has been nothing to indicate that any of the other agencies will relax their earlier opposition to reducing Pollard’s sentence.

In the face of such fierce opposition, the White House took its usual posture in such cases—it ducked! A White House spokesman said that Clinton is not expected to make a decision on clemency any time in the near future. However, with this White House, one can never be sure.

As a footnote, even Israeli Labor Party candidate Ehud Barak reportedly has backed down from his earlier agreement to sign jointly with Prime Minister Netanyahu a letter to Clinton asking for Pollard’s release. On Jan. 13, Israeli Absorption Minister Yuli Edelstein, who initiated the letter, expressed strong disappointment with Barak’s decision, saying “I hereby call upon the leader of the Labor Party to change his position…and to show that he is not abandoning a soldier in the battlefield.”

Shirl McArthur, a retired foreign service officer, is a senior consultant with Bruce Morgan Associates, an international research and consulting firm in the Washington, DC area.