By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, www.originalsources.com
October 26, 1998
The Washington Post Sunday finally got around to reporting that Netanyahu WAS told Israeli spy Jonathan Jay Pollard would be released, if he would agree to release 750 Palestinian prisoners. Netanyahu agreed - and then Clinton changed his mind and said he wouldn't release Pollard.
Last week, when this came up, the American media was reporting that Netanyahu sprang the demand for Pollard's release after the provisions of the agreement had been set. Arutz reported Friday in Jerusalem, "It now appears that Jonathan Pollard will NOT be released as part of the Wye Plantation withdrawal agreement. U.S. President Clinton has apparently reneged on his previous agreement to release Pollard immediately after a withdrawal agreement is signed. Prime Minister Netanyahu is furious, and preparations for the signing of the agreement have been suspended. Israeli sources in the delegation say that they made concessions regarding the release of terrorists solely based on the American commitment to free Pollard."
On Saturday, the Washington Post reported: "The endgame was suddenly complicated by a late Israeli request that President Clinton release Jonathan Pollard -- presumably to help Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu soften extremist criticism of the Wye deal. The former American, now an Israeli, and a hero to many Israelis, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1987 for spying on the United States for Israel. The linking of this hot-button Israeli-American issue to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations was presumptuous."
The media darkly warned that, if Netanyahu didn't sign the agreement, Israel would be blamed by the world for failure of the Summit. The Washington Post blamed the impasse on Netanyahu's political needs whereas it appears to be based more on Clinton's political needs. Watching the signing I was struck by the fact that Netanyahu never smiled - although the words he spoke were diplomatically correct. I was also struck by Yassar Arafat using the term, 3 or 4 times, that a "final solution" with the Jews would result in Palestinian "sovereignty."
Hopefully, the words "final solution" as used by Arafat refers only to the May 1999 deadline set up in the Oslo accord, and not what those of us who remember Adolph Hitler using the term meant by it.
Given a choice as to whether it is Netanyahu or Clinton who is not telling the truth about the Pollard deal, and given the Washington Post's spin on the situation- that Clinton's "flexibility" enabled Netanyahu and Arafat to sign the Wye Summit document, what can we assume about the deal itself?
A day later John F. Harris wrote (Sunday) "President Clinton had not exactly said yes, but he had not decisively said no. As the Wye River peace summit reached its closing hours Friday, Clinton's bottom line was shrouded in ambiguity. It was not clear until the end whether this haze of language and intentions would ruin the day - or save it.
"The question was whether Clinton had told the Israeli delegation he would issue clemency to convicted spy Jonathan Jay Pollard as part of a package in which the Israelis would, after nine days of intensive negotiations, sign an interim peace accord with the Palestinian Authority. Whatever Clinton actually said, he ultimately persuaded Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to accept a general promise that he would 'review this matter seriously.'
I can guess what he said to Netanyahu. "Look, Benyamin, our Congressional elections are only 10 days away. You didn't get Pollard's release when you asked Reagan and Bush. I might give it to you - but you've got to sign this thing NOW so I can convince voters that I'm in charge. You don't sign, Pollard with NEVER get out."
Netanyahu was born in Tel Aviv but was educated through high school and college in America, where his father was teaching history. There was no "misunderstanding." Whatever words Bill Clinton used, he left the Israeli Prime Minister with the distinct impression that Pollard would be released. Quite possibly he used the same tactics on Netanyahu that he used for 8 months on us. We all THOUGHT when Clinton shook his finger at us and firmly said, "I never had sexual relations with that woman ...Monica Lewinsky" that he meant he never had sex with Monica Lewinsky. We have since learned that statement didn't mean that at all. It meant...well, who know what it meant. He now says it wasn't sex, it was merely an "improper relationship" - an undefined term.
The Washington Post's description of the Clinton tactics in getting Netanyahu's signature is sobering. "As on so many prior occasions, Clinton relied on a personal style of charm, persistence, and language that could be artfully imprecise, but managed in the end to bring antagonistic sides together. Israeli officials maintained afterward that Clinton had clearly left the impression Thursday that he was willing to release Pollard immediately. U.S. officials insisted that Clinton told Netanyahu this was not the case. But one Clinton adviser acknowledged that Clinton had been encouraging enough about the Pollard case in a vague way that the Israelis could have heard a pledge that was never precisely made. As late as Friday morning, he said, the president was urgently canvassing advisers about whether to accede to the Israeli demand."
"Artfully imprecise?" Is this the new White House description of lying? If so, regardless of anyone's opinion of the Pollard subject, the agreement is based on a lie and could very well be in immediate trouble. Netanyahu insisted on security arrangements that REQURE Palestinian compliance - something often lacking with the Oslo accords. With the new agreement, if they don't adhere strictly to its provisions, Israel is under no obligation to withdraw from 13% more of the West Bank land.
The ever staunchly supportive Washington Post noted, "The Monica S. Lewinsky controversy, in the view of Clinton critics, has revealed the president as a rhetorical contortionist who often misleads as he tells people what he thinks they need to hear. At Wye River, however, participants said Clinton's ability to soften the edges of disputes with his personal presence and to recast old issues in new language helped the parties narrow their gaps at critical moments....
"It was on Friday morning, after Netanyahu and Arafat had closed their gaps, that the split over Pollard opened between Netanyahu and Clinton. The prime minister was angry that a draft of the agreement did not spell out Pollard's immediate release. The U.S. officials told him that no such understanding about Pollard had been reached.
"At around noon, in the midst of the dispute, Netanyahu decided to go to sleep. None of the leaders had slept all night. He had not decided, Israeli officials said, whether to go through with the accord without Pollard.
"The Israeli prime minister felt betrayed, he told advisers, because Clinton had used words suggesting that Pollard "is going to be released." Suddenly, according to one confidant, "there's a dispute about the word 'is.'" This account recalled Clinton's grand jury testimony in the Lewinsky case, when he clung to a distinction between verb tenses in arguing about the accuracy of certain statements."
What a bizarre situation! An international agreement in the most difficult area of the world is now based on deliberate misrepresentation by the President of the United States! So, how was it resolved, after Newt Gingrich warned Clinton in a telephone conversation against making Pollard part of the deal?
Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechai, said in an interview, "They found a way to move forward," Mordechai said in an interview yesterday, adding that he believes that Pollard should and will be released soon." Like, after November 3, for example?
Under the circumstances I suspect that the one with the toughest problem is Yasser Arafat. Although it looks like he came back with all the marbles, having given up nothing except a promise to actually abide by provisions of the Oslo Accord, in fact Netanyahu negotiated a far tougher security arrangement than contained in the Oslo Accord. If Arafat can't control the Hamas terrorists, Israel doesn't have to withdraw from the 13% of the land promised the Palestinians.
We are being assured by Clinton supporters that the agreement signed Friday "proves" Clinton is still able to lead the nation, in spite of his lying to the Grand Jury, obstructing justice and abuse of power - since, they claim, it was only about sex. If, as it appears, the way he found "to move forward" with the signing of that Wye Summit document is based on lies, and the situation either is not improved or gets worse can we agree THEN that a chief executive known worldwide for his clever lying, or as the Washington Post puts it "to be artfully imprecise" is a serious problem for the nation?
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com