After the so-called Middle East “peace” deal was announced, Tim Russert of NBC’s Meet the Press made an appearance on the NBC Today Show to say it was a masterstroke for President Clinton. He wondered how it would look for the Republicans to be trying to impeach the president while Clinton was being considered for a Nobel peace prize.
That comment now looks completely ridiculous. The agreement is already breaking down. Some Israelis are so angry that they are branding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a traitor for agreeing to trade more land for “peace.” But the American people should have some concerns as well, and our own media should subject this agreement to serious scrutiny. One of the most controversial aspects of the deal is Clinton’s reported agreement to release convicted American traitor Jonathan Pollard to Israel. There is still confusion over what Clinton actually agreed to do.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer reports that Clinton agreed “in principle” to release him. Clinton denies it, saying he only promised to “review” the case. But whom should we believe? Blitzer is a former Washington correspondent for The Jerusalem Post with solid Israeli sources. In fact, he wrote a book about the Pollard case entitled, “Territory of Lies.” If Blitzer is correct, it means that Clinton has agreed to release a notorious American traitor as part of a dubious “peace” agreement which only serves to get the United States deeper involved in the Middle East quagmire. This is a “lose-lose” situation for the U.S. Eventually, U.S. troops could be deployed to the region, as sitting ducks for terrorists.
Clinton’s dubious agreement is officially called “The Wye River Memorandum.” It is named after the Maryland site where Clinton, Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat, and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu met. But it is a deceptive document in its own right. Published reports indicate that the CIA has been called upon to enforce this new “peace” agreement by acting as a referee between Israelis and Palestinians. Some experts say this is an expansion of the CIA’s role and that CIA agents could be kidnaped and tortured.
But it turns out that the CIA isn’t even mentioned in the agreement. Instead, there is an “unpublished” side agreement that commits the CIA to this role. Will the public ever see this side agreement? Will Congress? Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Senator Richard Shelby has been widely quoted as saying he wants hearings into the CIA role. But what about the agreement itself? Some experts are now saying that the document constitutes a treaty because it commits the United States to a quasi-military role abroad. The U.S. signed the Wye Memorandum only as a “witness” but the “unpublished” agreement clearly demonstrates that the U.S. is an active player in the whole process. So why shouldn’t there be an up-or-down vote on the agreement itself?
In the brouhaha surrounding the signing of the agreement, shortly before the November elections, there was no serious examination of what was in it. Now we learn that a key aspect of the agreement is not even public. Clinton doesn’t deserve a Nobel Peace Prize for leaving us in the dark again.