Elliott Abrams on the present state of Israeli American Relations

A departure from the normal panel format. A one on one discussion. Ranges from a discussion of the difference in quality of life between the West Bank and Gaza, to the settlement issue, which becomes the prime focus of the discussion. In Abram's view it was unwise of the U.S. administration to demand an outright freeze on construction, for that demand was leveled, not only toward outlying areas, but toward Jerusalem itself. The demand, unrealistic, had the effect of scuttling what minor progress had been made in 'tacit' agreements (Abram's term) over the course of the Clinton and Bush administrations.

The discussion is very interesting. I can only add, that I think real progress will be piecemeal, and it will stick only if the Palestinian leadership, becomes unified and moves well beyond "tacit" agreements, and very publicly makes such agreements, in concert with a very public renouncement of any and all declarations that their long term political aims are to remove Israel from existence. That is clearly Hamas' intention, and, lest we invest too much naive optimism in the West Bank, Fateh has yet to remove that goal from their charter (a sort of amalgam of Marxist revolutionary thought and Arab nationalism):

Goals

Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.

Article (13) Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens' legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination.


The Palestinian leadership, and the odious local media must move well away from the tradition of either proclaiming, cynically promoting or quietly tolerating rank anti-semitism before substantial change will occur.

The episode wraps up with a brief discussion of our options in regard to Iran going nuclear. Abrams believes the present regime is on a path to dissolution due to growing internal dissatisfaction. But, he also believes that the 'time line' to the downfall is longer than the time line to attaining nuclear weaponry.

He rightly worries about the regime's actions should it succeed in arming itself with nukes. He believes the 'Green' movement is something we should have been publicly supporting. Yes, and we should offer covert support as well. I suspect we may very well be doing so.

But a possibility, or more likely a hope, occurs to me as I listen to that discussion. Maybe acquisition of nukes would be some sort of tipping point in the internal political life of Iran. The Greens and supporters within the present government and military may at that point say; "Enough. Now the risk is too great. We cannot allow you to continue to hold the reigns now that you have this device." Then the uprising would boil over, and a revolution start. A perhaps wishful, and at the same time, worrying possibility. For, what would the regime do if it knew it was on the way out? Would it want to 'go out with a bang'?