Elliott Abrams

Pressure Points

Abrams gives his take on U.S. foreign policy, with special focus on the Middle East and democracy and human rights issues.

Print Print Email Email Share Share Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close

loading...

Gates and Netanyahu

by Elliott Abrams
September 9, 2011

While I’ve been out of the country a small tempest has, I see, developed about former Secretary of Defense Gates’s views of Prime Minister Netanyahu. Jeffrey Goldberg reported this:

Senior administration officials told me that Gates argued to the president directly that Netanyahu is not only ungrateful, but also endangering his country by refusing to grapple with Israel’s growing isolation and with the demographic challenges it faces if it keeps control of the West Bank.

In Israel, where of course this is big news, critics of Netanyahu have blamed him for sparking such views from Gates. Even in the United States, it has been Netanyahu who is blamed for evoking such an attitude from Gates.

I beg to differ, for in my experience Secretary Gates had and expressed this exact view in 2007. As Vice President Cheney’s new memoir recounts in some detail, there was in the spring and summer of that year long consideration of what to do about the then recently discovered Syrian nuclear reactor. There were endless discussions between Israeli and U.S. officials, and meeting after meeting inside the U.S. government. I participated in most of them.

Vice President Cheney notes that he favored a U.S. bombing of the reactor, and was alone in this. That is my memory as well. I was alone in favoring an Israeli strike, for I thought it would be useful to restore some of the credibility they had lost in the Lebanon War of 2006. Secretaries Rice and Gates favored a diplomatic route, taking the Syrians first to the IAEA and then to the UN Security Council to demand that they take the reactor apart. Cheney believed, and I agreed, that this was folly: the Syrians could drag that out for years while they finished construction of  the reactor. When had the UN ever forced a rogue state to give up its nuclear program, Cheney asked.  Moreover, once the Syrians found out that we knew about the reactor our military options would be gone: for example, in Saddam Hussein style they could put a kindergarten or hospital at the site and prevent a strike–for once the reactor was “hot” a strike could create dangerous effects for many miles around.

In the end, the president was persuaded to try the diplomatic route and told then Prime Minister Olmert this. Olmert immediately responded that this would not work, and that if we would not bomb the reactor he would. He reminded the president that he had from the first said it had to be destroyed one way or another. President Bush was instantly and thereafter fine with that decision, ordering that nothing be said or done that might compromise Israel’s plans.

In our internal discussions Secretary Gates had been firmly in favor of the diplomatic option. The question of course arose in those discussions what we should do if Israel disagreed—as in the end it did. Secretary Gates was firm, as I recall him: Israel was ungrateful and its policies were at times risking our own interests. We needed to be tough as nails and tell them our interests came first and their action would threaten the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Fortunately his policy recommendations were not accepted by President Bush, who understood that Israeli action against the reactor would advance rather than harm U.S. interests.

This story is worth telling for only one reason: that somehow it is now being “explained” that the Gates view of Israel is new and has been provoked by recent Israeli actions and by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Not so. Secretary Gates expressed essentially similar views in the Olmert days. Then as now he was wrong, but back then there was a different president who could listen to his honest and candid advice on how to protect U.S. interests and how to handle Israel–and firmly reject it.

Secretary Gates presided over years of steadily improving U.S.-Israel military cooperation under both President Bush and President Obama.  He should get real credit for this, as should the officers who have served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the last decade, Gen. Myers, Gen. Pace, and Adm. Mullen, and as should above all the two presidents they served.  But his views about the Israelis being “ungrateful” are not new and should not, in fairness, be attributed to recent developments or blamed on Prime Minister Netanyahu.

 

 

Post a Comment 9 Comments

  • Posted by Robin Cramp

    As a lecturer on foreign affairs I find the various contributions from the Council on Foreign Relations to be thoughtful and well-balanced, with one exception. When is Elliott Abrams going to write an article that supports any move by the Palestinians or criticizes anything from the Israelis?

  • Posted by Dean Smallwood

    It doesn’t really matter what goes wrong in the Middle East . There is a phalanx of malcontents in both the U.S. and Israel which will invariably blame Prime Minister Netanyahu .

  • Posted by Brad Brzezinski

    Robin Cramp: Your question is of course not relevant to this article as the Palestinians are not involved. I assume you are making a general point about Mr. Abrams.

    The conflict is not Israel vs. the Palestinians but Israel vs. most of Islam, the U.N., most of the remaining non-western countries and indeed an increasing number of western countries. (Norway and Sweden come immediately to mind.) “Supporters” of Israel are battling a lynch mob and in such situations one is fighting for a fair hearing; this is not achieved by debating the guilt of the victim.

    Your comment also infers that Israel and the Palestinians are generally equivalent and this is of course quite untrue in very many ways: historic, legal, moral and more.

    Provided Israel maintains the fundamentals of democracy and human rights and the Palestinians do not, Mr. Abrams is on the right track.

  • Posted by Dan Friedman

    Jeffrey Goldberg seems to have taken over Thomas Friedman’s role as conduit of choice for leaks of this sort. However, the target audience now isn’t Americans, it’s Netanyahu’s opponents in Israel who mistakenly think they can bring Netanyahu down by laying the blame for rifts with Obama on the prime minister. Fortunately, the timing of anti-Bibi front could not be worse. In Israel, Obama is almost universally distrusted while Netanyahu is riding high.

  • Posted by alvin phee

    great post, we could learn something rom countries like singapore

  • Posted by David Smith

    Not to put too fine a point on it, Dan. Thank you, Mr. Abrams. I personally believe that the underlying issues are not ones of personality alone – a president, Obama versus a conveniently conservative prime minister, Netanyahu – but a complex clash of operative (and in some cases, demonstrably ‘inactive’) world views. It should be pointed out that Israel’s ‘silent majority’ is generally and firmly supportive of its government, Israeli Left agit prop notwithstanding. One respected polling service (Panorama) reported a survey that if elections were held one day last week, during the climactic heights of highly publicized internal social unrest, terror on its Sinai border with Egypt and on the receiving end of a Turkish lambaste, the current government coalition would wind up with Knesset seats in the high 70s WITHOUT Ehud Barak’s splinter part and in the 80s WITH if he were to be counted. In itself, this estimate speaks volumes. Its good to know Mr. Abrams has his ear to the ground.

  • Posted by David Smith

    Errata: in 2nd line from bottom, should read “party”.

  • Posted by free reverse cell phone lookup with name free

    Howdy! Do you use Twitter? I’d along the lines of to follow you if that would be ok. I’m undoubtedly enjoying your blog and look forward to new posts.

  • Posted by Elliott Abrams

    Thanks for the kind remarks. I don’t tweet, I’m afraid.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required

Pingbacks