Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July/August 1998, Pages 30-32

Words to Remember

As the Peace Process Died: May 3-19, 1998

Compiled by Richard H. Curtiss

(Dates are when the remarks were reported in the newspaper named)

“American officials say that they do not want a public confrontation with Israel, but that Washington cannot continue its current role if further stagnation in the peace effort is the only result.”

—Staff writer Steven Erlanger, New York Times, May 3.

“I am committed to accepting the American initiative although our rights go far beyond that. If Prime Minister Netanyahu is seriously concerned and interested in peace, today is the day.”

—Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, Washington Post, May 5.

“If I don’t capitulate to these demands, will I be branded an obstacle to peace? I can save you the suspense. Of course, they’ll point fingers at me. So what?”

—Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Washington Post, May 5.

“In many ways the future of the Middle East is now in the hands of the Clinton administration. They can push this area into peace, or they will bear part of the responsibility for bloodshed.”

—Israeli academic Ron Pundak, who led secret talks in Oslo, Norway that led to the first Israeli-Palestinian accord, Washington Post, May 5.

“We’ve been engaged in what I consider a vigorous effort to achieve an agreement and we will continue to do so in the coming days. But if agreement is not achieved, we will have to re-examine our approach to the peace process.”

—U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, New York Times, May 6.

“For the Clinton administration, frustrated with Israel’s unwillingness to move ahead with the peace process, the offer of a meeting with the president sets a deadline for action. ‘If our agreement is not achieved, we will have to reexamine our approach to the peace process,’ Ms. Albright said at a news conference Tuesday, alluding to increasing pressure on Israel. Despite Ms. Albright’s tough talk, it isn’t clear whether the administration is ready to do that. Although polls show that Mr. Netanyahu isn’t as popular among American Jews as some of his predecessors, he still enjoys broad support. Also, the White House knows that support for Mr. Netanyahu could grow quickly if the public perception is that the U.S. is leaning too heavily on Israel. That’s particularly worrisome to Vice President Al Gore, who plans to run for president in 2000. U.S. Jews play a disproportionately large role in Democratic Party affairs and fund raising.”

—Staff reporter Robert S. Greenberger, Wall Street Journal, May 6.

“The notion that Israel’s security hinges on a percentage point or two of further withdrawal at this moment is not believable. Israel’s security hinges first on its strength and on its deterence capability, both of which it retains. Then it hinges on the extent to which substantive political negotiation can reduce Palestinian and general Arab hostility—negotiation of a kind Prime Minister Netanyahu resists. Finally it rests on maintenance of a close relationship with the United States—a relationship he seems ready to strain.”

—Washington Post editorial, May 6.

“Lasting [Israeli] security will come only when there is real peace, a goal that remains tragically elusive.”

—Los Angeles Times editorial, May 7.

“The first person to advocate a more rapid movement to the final status was Prime Minister Netanyahu. I have tried to find a way, actually, to do what he suggested. I have done my best for a year now to find the formula...to get them into those final status talks. That’s all I am trying to do.”

—President Clinton, New York Times, May 7.

“The most significant transformation is that Israel is not negotiating with the Palestinians, but negotiating with the U.S. acting on behalf of the Palestinians. It’s revolutionary, when you think about it, how far we’ve come from the traditional perception of the U.S. and Israel versus the Arabs. More than any specific action, it’s a major failure of this [Israeli] government to have transformed this process that way.”

—Senior researcher Mark Heller, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, New York Times, May 7.

“I’m uneasy that Israel is being given a public ultimatum by its closest ally. It’s unsettling; it raises the question as well of what happens down the road. In final status, there are very difficult issues. Is the U.S. going to play this kind of specific, almost micromanaging role?”

—American Jewish Committee executive director David Harris, Washington Post, May 7.

“I can certainly assure you today that the U.S. has no intention of issuing any kind of diktats or ultimatums to a good friend such as Israel.”

—State Department spokesman James Foley, Washington Times, May 7.

“In some sense, this is a testimony to Netanyahu’s capacity to extract delays.”

—Joseph Alpher, head of the American Jewish Committee’s Jerusalem office, May 7.

“If you really understand the Oslo agreement, the American plan is a big victory for Israel. Netanyahu is trying to get an even bigger victory. I think we should go to Washington to finish the deal [but] if the prime minister can manage to lower the price, then I would be even happier.”

—Member of the Knesset Alexander Lubotsky of the Third Way party in Netanyahu’s parliamentary coalition, Washington Post, May 8.

“And why is [Netanyahu] thinking of rejecting [the American plan]? Ego and politics. It’s because the U.S. plan is tailored to satisfy all of Israel’s legitimate security concerns, but is not tailored to satisfy every far-right lunatic in Mr. Netanyahu’s cabinet. And, therefore, if he wants to accept it, it will mean confronting some fringes in his coalition.”

—Columnist Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, May 9.

“This is a disaster if it fails. This is really a very important turning point.”

—Acting Jordanian Information Minister Nasser Lawzi, Washington Post, May 10.

“Israel, which receives more U.S. aid than any other country, is fundamentally a pro-American country, and any serious break with the United States would be unpopular and could cause political problems for Israel.”

—Correspondent Lee Hockstader, Washington Post, May 10.

“It’s not like in Latin America where you burn the Yankees in effigy. Some of [Netanyahu’s] core voters may like the fact that he’s standing tough. But with the middle of the country that decides elections, it will not help to be seen as on a collision course with the United States.”

—Diplomatic reporter David Makovsky for Israeli daily Ha’aretz, May 10.

“Clinton never sought confrontation with Israel, and political advisers to Vice President Gore are anxious about it in light of the outsized influence of American Jews on Democratic Party politics and political spending. But the White House sees even greater risks in the deadlock that led Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk to testify last month that ‘the strategic window for peacemaking is now closing’...As the peace talks have declined, officials said, so has American influence in the Middle East and so too have the fortunes of local leaders—in Egypt, Jordan, North Africa and the Persian Gulf—who allied themselves with the United States.”

—Staff writer Barton Gellman, Washington Post, May 10.

“Palestinians accepted the vagueness in Oslo based on the trust that had developed between Yasser Arafat and Rabin...Now all this has disappeared. Rabin and Peres are gone, and we are back to square one as Binyamin Netanyahu and his advisers are holding out on a couple of percentage points of Palestinian lands without any genuine interest in reaching agreement on the long-term status of the Palestinian territories.”

—Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab, Los Angeles Times, May 10.

“It is very obvious that it’s time for the American administration to recognize that Mr. Netanyahu is not a tough negotiator, but a non-negotiator.”

—Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, Los Angeles Times, May 10.

“[Netanyahu’s] communications director, David Bar-Ilhan, spread the word that the prime minister and his government were mightily displeased with Clinton for leaning on them, and especially with Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for saying in an interview with Arab and Israeli teen-agers that she favors the creation of a Palestinian state.”

—Staff writer Serge Schmemann, New York Times, May 11.

“To be realistic, statehood is in the cards. But no responsible Israeli leader can let it be taken for granted because it is a significant card to play.”

—Columnist William Safire, New York Times, May 11.

“One reason former President Bush was able to pressure Israel was that the Republican Party isn’t as dependent on financial support from the American Jewish community as is Mr. Clinton’s party. Vice President Al Gore is counting on this support as he eyes the 2000 presidential race.”

—Staff reporter Robert S. Greenberger, Wall Street Journal, May 11.

“We have no intention of pressuring Israel. Israel is a close and cherished ally.”

—White House national security adviser Samuel Berger, New York Times, May 12.

“We’ve been assured the United States won’t second-guess Israel on security matters.”

—Executive vice president Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, New York Times, May 12.

“Clinton resents the way Netanyahu has played domestic politics here, encouraging the Republican Congress and American Jewish organizations to openly oppose the president’s policies...Clinton does not want [a lasting confrontation with Israel] in part because the organized American Jewish community doesn’t want one, and American Jews are vital to the financial health of the Democratic Party.”

—Staff writer Steven Erlanger, New York Times , May 12.

“The aftermath of the administration’s attempt to break the stalemate is fraught with irony. Arafat, who accepted the U.S. plan, is left to stew outside the United States; Netanyahu, who rejected the U.S. approach, will spend much of the week in Washington and New York talking to generally appreciative audiences.”

—Staff writer Norman Kempster, Los Angeles Times, May 12.

“Netanyahu chose to stay home, proclaiming that no one could dictate to Israel. Clinton, his bluff having been called, backed down...The current Israeli government has no intention of letting any meaningful portion of the West Bank pass to Palestinian control, a rigidity that assures impasse. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be resolved only on the basis of a reasonable partition of the West Bank and a host of built-in security guarantees. But the security guarantees that Netanyahu demands all but preclude the kind of territorial divsion that Palestinians could accept. That is why the deadlock endures. Don’t look for any early change.”

—Los Angeles Times editorial, May 13.

“The leaders of the region have reached a crossroads. Act before it’s too late. Decide before the peace process collapses. And understand that in a neighborhood as tough as the Middle East, there is no security from hard choices and no lasting security without hard choices.”

—U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Los Angeles Times, May 13.

“Americans for Peace Now, the U.S. affiliate of a Jewish peace-advocacy group, urged other Jewish organizations to support the administration’s approach, calling it the best path to Israel’s long-term security. The group said Jewish criticism of Clinton’s latest effort to restart Israeli-Palestinian negotiations was distressing because the administration ‘is universally acknowledged to be the friendliest U.S. government toward Israel in the history of the bilateral relationship.’”

—Staff writer Norman Kempster, Los Angeles Times, May 14.

“It’s all politics. Netanyahu has a zero-sum mind. He has to show the Israelis that he can beat someone—Yasser Arafat, or some Cabinet member, or the opposition—and now he has to run over President Clinton.”

—Senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, New York Times, May 14.

“With all friendship and appreciation to America, an Israeli prime minister should know how to stand on his principles and he should know how to say no to the United States, because as prime minister you should know how to do something else than stand on the White House lawn with everyone applauding.”

—Binyamin Netanyahu, May 14, Washington Post.

“The Israeli generals frankly know far more than we do about what it takes for Israel to be safe. That should be the primary concern.”

—House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), New York Times, May 15.

“I was concerned over the last week that it appeared there was undue pressure exerted on Israel, at a time when the Palestinians have not been meeting a lot of the conditions.”

—Senate Majority leader Trent Lott (R-MS), New York Times, May 15.

“Through a full day of courtesy calls...at the Capitol, Netanyahu was welcomed with the kind of full-throated bipartisan heartiness that he rarely receives at home...Committee on International Relations members strained to clasp his hand and murmer, ‘We’re with you.’”

—Staff writer David Firestone, New York Times , May 15.

“You’re not only among friends, but among mishpocha (family). Congress will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, regardless of the obstacles that others may place before her.”

—House International Relations Committee Chairman Benjamin Gilman (R-NY), New York Times, May 15.

“The differences between Israel and the United States are the differences within a family. It’s like sitting around the dinner table.”

—Binyamin Netanyahu, New York Times, May 15.

“There are two nakbas. One started 50 nears ago, the other three years ago [with the peace process]. We have no rights...The peace process is a disaster, Both sides just give us words. It’s like a game. But the Israelis have guns and we have stones.”

—West Bank computer engineer Ahmed Subhi, Washington Post, May 15.

“A half-century of wounds and pain in our modern history has come to a close. The nakba has thrown us out of homes and dispersed us around the globe. Historians may search, but they will not find any nation subjected to as much torture as ours...We are not asking for a lot. We are asking to close the chapter of nakba once and for all, for the refugees to return, and to build an independent Palestinian state on our land, our land, our land, just like other peoples. We want to celebrate in our capital, holy Jerusalem, holy Jerusalem, holy Jerusalem.”

—Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, New York Times, May 15.

“Delay is not the friend of the peace process. We need to move...I hope that before I leave office that we will have secured a peace agreement in the Middle East that will last for a long time.”

—President Bill Clinton (remarks in England and Germany), New York Times, May 15.

“Mr. Netanyahu’s continued defiance of Washington appeared to come as a surprise to Mrs. Albright. She had to cancel her planned departure for Europe with President Clinton on Wednesday and then her planned visit to the Netherlands Thursday to fit in the two meetings [with Netanyahu in Washington].”

—Staff writer Martin Sieff, Washington Times, May 15.

“Washington cannot afford to back down. In the face of congressional criticism, the administration will do well to remember that the minute an acceptable agreement is reached, its critics will only applaud, and if the peace process collapses, everyone will be a critic.”

—Palestinian American scholar Shibley Telhami, Los Angeles Times, May 17.

“President Clinton should now make sure every Israeli understands every detail of the U.S. plan. If Mr. Netanyahu thinks he can get a better deal, then he should negotiate with Mr. Arafat directly. If he thinks he can live with the status quo, then please, go ahead, and leave us alone. But he should not be allowed to hide behind U.S. diplomacy, and a virtual peace process, and then think he can blame America when the inevitable breakdown comes.”

—Columnist Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, May 19, 1998.

“The United States has climbed down from the ultimatum, absolutely...The United States now has to make a decision how to explain it, what to say. That’s the trouble with making threats.”

—ADL national director Abraham Foxman, Washington Post, May 19.

“[American] officials directly involved in the policy, speaking to reporters, interest groups and allied diplomats, have made various explanations that together resemble the courtroom lawyer’s tactic of arguing in the alternative: that there never was an ultimatum; that the ultimatum has not been abandoned; and that if it has been abandoned, it was for good reasons of state and strategy, not politics...The French, who have held back for months, judged yesterday a good day for President Jacque Chirac to issue a public call for a new international peace conference that the Clinton administration has long opposed. In a stronger sign of the times, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak—who just last week received Clinton’s written assurance that he would not let Israel drag out a decision on his proposal—stood next to Chirac in Paris and joined in his call.”

—Staff writer Barton Gellman, Washington Post, May 19.

Richard H. Curtiss is the executive editor of the Washington Report.