Weekly Commentary: Poorly Written International Guarantees Could Encourage
Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 30 July 2009
"Israel, with her survival at stake, cannot afford to take chances.... The
nature of the Israeli's situation is bound to influence their interpretation
of ambiguous events. We, on the other hand, have an incentive to minimize
such evidence, since the consequences of finding violations are so
unpleasant. Violations force us to choose between doing something about them
and thus risk the blowup of our initiative; or doing nothing and thus renege
on our promises to Israel, posing the threat of her taking military action.
Accordingly, we tend to lean over backwards to avoid the conclusion that the
Arabs are violating the cease-fire unless the evidence is unambiguous."
Henry Kissinger you President Richard Nixon in 1970
[Henry Kissinger "White House Years", page 587]
“I wish to clarify that we are not talking about American or NATO soldiers
defending us and doing the defense work of the State of Israel. We have
never requested this, nor are we requesting it now. We are talking about an
international guarantee, headed by the United States, for the
demilitarization arrangements that we will establish. We wish them to make
it clear that these arrangements will be completely legitimate, and that
there will also be total legitimacy for any action deemed necessary to
preserve them. The purpose of this guarantee is that it adds a layer of
deterrence against the intentions of those who may, in the future, wish to
invalidate, or violate the demilitarization arrangements.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addresses National Defense College
graduates - July 28, 2009
Is Israel demanding a priori carte blanche from the world to be able to
carry out whatever operations the Jewish State “deems necessary” inside
Palestinian territory should Israel determine that the Palestinians have
violated the demilitarization arrangements?
It would be useful for Prime Minister Netanyahu and his team to suggest what
they have in mind.
Is Israel to determine there is a violation or some third party?
Historically, Arab violations are ignored by the world so if there is
wording that Israel has the right to act if some third party determines that
there is a violation then Israel will find itself in the situation that the
third party declines to recognize that in fact a violation has taken place.
Is Israel to determine that the violation has been resolved or some third
Even if Israel proved beyond the shadow of doubt that a violation took
place, Palestinian claims that the violation was rectified might be accepted
at face value by a third party.
What kind of “total legitimacy for any action deemed necessary to preserve
them” are we talking about?
When one says “action deemed necessary” – who does the “deeming”?
Is Israel to sit around waiting for some committee to review its operational
plans for approval (which they might leak to the Arabs – but let’s not
These are not idle concerns.
Only someone intentionally ignoring Israel’s experience over the years with
various forms of third party observers could dismiss these very serious
Would international guarantees “deter” violations?
That depends on what they are.
Ironically, improperly worded guarantees that ultimately prevent Israel from
independently acting against Palestinian violations that it has
independently identified could actually encourage violations.
Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: firstname.lastname@example.org