The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

Obama’s trip to Israel and the best path to peace

Lanny Davis
Former Special Counsel to President Clinton

There are many pro-Israel Americans, including members of the American Jewish community, who believe that the best strategy for bringing Israel and the Palestinians to the peace table is for President Obama to try to appear neutral or even lean toward the Palestinian/Arab world viewpoint, pushing Israel to the peace table and in the negotiating process.

But the truth is, history supports exactly the opposite. History proves that the stronger an American president is in being uncompromising in supporting Israel’s security, the more likely Israel is to take risks for peace. Thus, in 2004-05, with President George W. Bush acting staunchly and unambiguously pro-Israel, Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon unilaterally withdrew Israeli military forces from Gaza, despite the continued presence in Gaza of the terrorist organization Hamas, publicly dedicated to killing civilians and children in the cause of the destruction of Israel.

President Clinton also was strongly supportive of the state of Israel, and developed a particularly close personal relationship with Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who led Israel’s government between 1999-2001. The results in the summer of 2000 at Camp David and in late December 2000 were dramatic — and, amazingly, largely forgotten by those who believe that Israel will make concessions under critical pressure from an American president. It is a fact of history that Barak publicly offered Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat the following remarkable concessions:

● Israel would recognize the West Bank and Gaza and portions of East Jerusalem as an independent Palestinian state — meaning, for the first time in Israel’s history, an Israeli government leader offered to give the Palestinians sovereignty over portions of Jerusalem as their state capital;

● Israel would give 97 percent of the West Bank to the Palestinians for their independent state, which would be recognized by Israel and increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third in return for retaining the 3 percent, which comprised settlement lands contiguous with Israel;

● The Palestinian state would comprise all of Gaza and a secured land-link to the West Bank;

● As a result, Israel would have to force withdrawal from 63 established settlements on the West Bank;

● Remarkably — a fact that few seem to recall — also for the first time in Israeli history, an Israeli government leader endorsed the principle of some right of return to the Palestinian state of Palestinian refugees, endorsing “reparations” of $30 billion from an international fund for displaced Palestinians; and

● The Palestinians would maintain control over the holy places and would be given desalinization plants to assure their water supply.

The only concessions made by Arafat was Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall that were religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount of the ancient and holy temple of King Solomon) and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, from which Israel would withdraw after six years.

But tragically, on January 2, Arafat changed his mind on critical issues, and backed away from the agreement, even refusing to countenance Israeli control over the limited holy places in Jerusalem.