Would You Buy an Oral Understanding from This Man?

Rick Richman

Contentions

17 August 09

Israeli blogger Arlene Kushner writes that there are “rumors afloat about the specifics on U.S.-Israel negotiations with regard to a ‘temporary’ freeze on settlement building.” She cites an Israeli press report that “the U.S. wants a two year freeze because Obama figures that’s how long forging a peace deal will take,” while Netanyahu is offering three months (with the right to resume building if Arab states do not respond with normalization steps).

But the real sticking point may be something else that she notes in her post:

Both Netanyahu and Barak (who reportedly would accept a six-month freeze) want the deal in writing, since Obama claimed there was no deal with Bush that had to be honored because there was nothing that was an explicit written commitment. Obama is said to be balking at this as he doesn’t want to go on record as formally authorizing building in the settlements under any conditions.

This is what happens when you renege on established oral understandings on the grounds they are “unenforceable.” People fear that an oral agreement with you isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

Perhaps the Israelis have read John McCain’s classic February 6, 2006, letter, after Obama reneged on his private assurances to work on bipartisan lobbying reform. They may recall Obama reneging on his commitment to public financing of the presidential campaign. They may remember his wholesale reversal of his primary positions during the general-election campaign. They may have heard Obama deny he was trying to effectuate a single-payer system—and then viewed (along with about 750,000 other people) the YouTube clip showing him previously saying exactly the opposite.

And undoubtedly they are aware that Obama holds the Guinness record for policy-reversal rapidity, reneging on his “Let me be clear” pledge of an undivided Jerusalem—24 hours after he made it in front of 7,000 people.

So it is understandable the Israelis want a written deal. But there is an inherent danger even in a written deal if it involves tangible steps in exchange for promises from someone who cannot be trusted to fulfill them. Israel took irreparable steps in Gaza, withdrawing every settler and soldier, in reliance on the 2004 Bush letter—which was explicit and unambiguous—and has watched the Obama administration repeatedly refuse to acknowledge the letter as binding.

So before relying on a new presidential commitment, Israel may want to see if Obama will affirm the prior one. The ultimate issue may not be oral versus written promises but a more fundamental problem. Charlie Brown’s unfortunate experiences with Lucy were probably not due to the lack of a written pledge about her field-goal commitment.
.