lennart
16-12-02, 23:30
WASHINGTON - The news that Elliot Abrams was being appointed as director of Near East affairs at the National Security Council surprised many in the American capital. Within the administration, it managed to reignite friction between the State Department and the White House, in the diplomatic arena the appointment drew joyous reaction from the Israelis and disappointment from the Arab side, while the newspaper commentators reacted to it by conjuring up Abrams' past and expressing their perplexity over how a person who had gotten into such deep trouble could have succeeded in getting so far.
Elliot Abrams, 54, has spent his entire career in the public arena, from Congress to the State Department and from there to government foreign research institutes and back to the National Security Council. His name is now immediately linked to the neo-conservatives, considered the leading force in Republican politics and the right-wing hawks in terms of the issues relating to Israel and the Middle East.
Indeed, for the government of Israel, even if the appointment comes as a surprise, it is a gift from heaven.
Abrams' positions, at least those he expressed prior to his assuming office, leave little room for doubt about his coordinates on the political map. He is opposed to the Oslo Accords and believes that, "Israel is surrounded by enemies that want the destruction of the state." And: "The plain fact is that the Palestinians and other Arabs still do not accept Israel's right to exist."
He called the Oslo Accords an "illusion" and attacked the "policy of concessions" that characterized the government of Ehud Barak. These positions were expressed by Abrams - who has not granted any interviews since taking up his new job - at a time that he did not hold any government position related to the Middle East. It is not inconceivable that at least the tone of his statements will now be moderated, with him occupying the position of George Bush's No. 1 adviser on Middle East affairs, but there is no doubt that what he said and wrote in the past provides ample evidence of how he feels about the issues.
Abrams is considered to be in favor of the demand, presented by President George W. Bush in his speech on June 24, that the Palestinian leadership be replaced, and the Palestinian Authority be compelled to carry out far-reaching reforms before Israel is required to make concessions.
Sources in the field of Middle Eastern affairs assess that the significance of these positions of Abrams is that he will throw added weight to other administration voices opposed to progress on the "road map," which is intended to lead to a Palestinian state, and concentrating on demands by the Palestinian state.
In some matters, Abrams goes even further than Bush himself. For instance, on the issue of Jerusalem - in the chapter he contributed to a book compiled by conservative writers - Abrams attacked the Clinton administration for having failed to uphold the Congressional decision that called for the transfer of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Since that time, President Bush has also reneged on that decision and failed to transfer the embassy. What's more, Bush even canceled other legislation that set similar demands last year.
Abrams believes that the U.S. should express its public backing for Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem by transferring its embassy to the capital.
Started as a Democrat
Abrams' appointment as director of Near East affairs at the National Security Council (NSC) shifts the delicate balance between the White House and the State Department in setting policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Abrams essentially enters a post that has not been filled for over a year. Its last incumbent was Bruce Riedel, who filled an active role in the compromise efforts between Israel and the Palestinians and is considered a supporter of the Camp David talks. Subsequently, when Riedel left, the docket was entrusted to Zalmay Khalilzad, who was in turn appointed when the war broke out in Afghanistan as a special envoy to Afghanistan, and whose time has been taken up by selecting new leadership for the country. In his absence, regional initiatives were led by the Middle East staff of the State Department. It was they who attempted to promote reforms in the PA and who were behind the attempt to formulate the famous "road map."
The roles are familiar: Colin Powell, William Burns and State's Middle East team are considered moderates, those who believe that Israel can be pressured in parallel with making demands of the Palestinians. Many Jewish activists and Israelis label them "Arabists." In the other corner is the White House, from President Bush, VP Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and on down to the staffers of the NSC's Near East department, considered to hold an aggressive line against Arafat and the Palestinians. The president's ear was always closer to those in the White House than to the State Department insofar as the Middle East conflict is concerned. The fact is that when Bush drafted his June 24 speech, at an early stage, he removed the State Department people from the staff of aides preparing the text, and the final drafts were only seen by NSC staffers.
Abrams' arrival further tips the scales toward those opposed to the Palestinians, the supporters of Israel in the American administration. In the estimate of a source who has been closely watching Middle East policy, it seems that the appointment will also point up anew the lines of disagreement between the two offices, and make it even harder to present a unified position, which the administration tries to display before countries of the region.
Elliot Abrams began his public career as a Democrat. He served as a staffer to two Democratic congressmen, but like many others, was enchanted by the neo-conservative stream and became a supporter of Ronald Reagan. He worked for the Reagan administration, serving as deputy to then secretary of sate George Schultz, for international organizations and human rights.
Abrams made headlines after he was appointed in 1985 as deputy secretary of state for Latin-American affairs, at which time he became a central figure in the affair that became known as Irangate. Abrams was one of the main activists in granting aid to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. Essentially, the entire administration supported the effort, but explicit legislation of Congress banned aid to the Contras.
The end of the story is well known: The administration's attempt to bypass Congress and secretly send aid to the rebels was discovered, and those involved in the affair, including Oliver North and Elliot Abrams, were named as the guilty parties.
Abrams was asked to testify before congressional committees that investigated the affair. At one session, Abrams was asked, "Did the Reagan Administration transfer a loan of $10 million from the Sultan of Brunei to the contras?" To which he responded: "No."
In other testimony he was asked if the U.S. was actively aiding the rebels, to which he replied: "They are not our supply systems." Abrams lied, it seems, to Congress on both occasions. He was tried - he confessed - and convicted on the charge of concealing information from Congress. President Bush Senior gave him clemency after the conviction.
He later claimed that the conviction was unjustified, since he technically had not lied and that he had fallen victim to the prosecutors who had sought a conviction at any price.
What Clinton would have said
Abrams has been rehabilitated. He remained in contact with administration officials, headed a conservative think tank, the Center for Ethics and Public Policy," and wrote books and articles on political and Jewish subjects.
The return of the Republicans to the seat of power in 2000 brought back Abrams as well - he was appointed as head of the department for democracy in the NSC, where he paved his way back to the center stage, culminating in his appointment as director of the Near East department.
But not everyone has forgiven Abrams his past. The Democrats and the media have expressed reservations over his appointment and for Bush's predilection for reviving the heroes of the Iran-Contras affair.
Abrams positions on Jewish affairs have also managed to spark controversy. In 1997, he wrote the book "Faith or Fear: How Jews Can Survive in Christian America." The book contradicted the basic convention of the American Jewish community, according to which the U.S. is a secular country where Jews can advance and be integrated as individuals, in accordance with their skills and talents. According to this approach, the role of the Jews is to guard the secularity of America and emphasize in Judaism the social aspects, rather than the religious aspectes. Abrams rejects this approach.
He argues that it is naive to think that America is secular, while it is actually a Christian-religious country. He concludes that the Jews should direct their efforts to preserving their identity as a separate religion - fighting intermarriage, enhancing Jewish education, and preserving Jewish identity and the size of the community, even at the price of keeping its distance from mainstream American society.
Abrams himself is a Conservative Jew who describes himself as "partly observant," but he proposes that American Jews borrow from the Orthodox example, who are successful at preserving their identity by clinging to the texts and to parochial education.
Abrams perception of the future of American Jewry has not, in the years since the book's publication, been adopted by the Reform and Conservative trends, which constitute the bulk of American Jewry, but it has served as fodder for discussion. Today, with the strengthening of the administration's inclination to undermine the separation between religion and state (mainly by giving government support to welfare programs operated by religious groups and by offering school vouchers), Abrams' approach is being accorded greater significance. The initiatives of President Bush in this area also strengthen to a certain degree Abrams' main stance, according to which America is not really a secular country with a division between religion and state
Elliot Abrams, 54, has spent his entire career in the public arena, from Congress to the State Department and from there to government foreign research institutes and back to the National Security Council. His name is now immediately linked to the neo-conservatives, considered the leading force in Republican politics and the right-wing hawks in terms of the issues relating to Israel and the Middle East.
Indeed, for the government of Israel, even if the appointment comes as a surprise, it is a gift from heaven.
Abrams' positions, at least those he expressed prior to his assuming office, leave little room for doubt about his coordinates on the political map. He is opposed to the Oslo Accords and believes that, "Israel is surrounded by enemies that want the destruction of the state." And: "The plain fact is that the Palestinians and other Arabs still do not accept Israel's right to exist."
He called the Oslo Accords an "illusion" and attacked the "policy of concessions" that characterized the government of Ehud Barak. These positions were expressed by Abrams - who has not granted any interviews since taking up his new job - at a time that he did not hold any government position related to the Middle East. It is not inconceivable that at least the tone of his statements will now be moderated, with him occupying the position of George Bush's No. 1 adviser on Middle East affairs, but there is no doubt that what he said and wrote in the past provides ample evidence of how he feels about the issues.
Abrams is considered to be in favor of the demand, presented by President George W. Bush in his speech on June 24, that the Palestinian leadership be replaced, and the Palestinian Authority be compelled to carry out far-reaching reforms before Israel is required to make concessions.
Sources in the field of Middle Eastern affairs assess that the significance of these positions of Abrams is that he will throw added weight to other administration voices opposed to progress on the "road map," which is intended to lead to a Palestinian state, and concentrating on demands by the Palestinian state.
In some matters, Abrams goes even further than Bush himself. For instance, on the issue of Jerusalem - in the chapter he contributed to a book compiled by conservative writers - Abrams attacked the Clinton administration for having failed to uphold the Congressional decision that called for the transfer of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Since that time, President Bush has also reneged on that decision and failed to transfer the embassy. What's more, Bush even canceled other legislation that set similar demands last year.
Abrams believes that the U.S. should express its public backing for Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem by transferring its embassy to the capital.
Started as a Democrat
Abrams' appointment as director of Near East affairs at the National Security Council (NSC) shifts the delicate balance between the White House and the State Department in setting policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Abrams essentially enters a post that has not been filled for over a year. Its last incumbent was Bruce Riedel, who filled an active role in the compromise efforts between Israel and the Palestinians and is considered a supporter of the Camp David talks. Subsequently, when Riedel left, the docket was entrusted to Zalmay Khalilzad, who was in turn appointed when the war broke out in Afghanistan as a special envoy to Afghanistan, and whose time has been taken up by selecting new leadership for the country. In his absence, regional initiatives were led by the Middle East staff of the State Department. It was they who attempted to promote reforms in the PA and who were behind the attempt to formulate the famous "road map."
The roles are familiar: Colin Powell, William Burns and State's Middle East team are considered moderates, those who believe that Israel can be pressured in parallel with making demands of the Palestinians. Many Jewish activists and Israelis label them "Arabists." In the other corner is the White House, from President Bush, VP Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and on down to the staffers of the NSC's Near East department, considered to hold an aggressive line against Arafat and the Palestinians. The president's ear was always closer to those in the White House than to the State Department insofar as the Middle East conflict is concerned. The fact is that when Bush drafted his June 24 speech, at an early stage, he removed the State Department people from the staff of aides preparing the text, and the final drafts were only seen by NSC staffers.
Abrams' arrival further tips the scales toward those opposed to the Palestinians, the supporters of Israel in the American administration. In the estimate of a source who has been closely watching Middle East policy, it seems that the appointment will also point up anew the lines of disagreement between the two offices, and make it even harder to present a unified position, which the administration tries to display before countries of the region.
Elliot Abrams began his public career as a Democrat. He served as a staffer to two Democratic congressmen, but like many others, was enchanted by the neo-conservative stream and became a supporter of Ronald Reagan. He worked for the Reagan administration, serving as deputy to then secretary of sate George Schultz, for international organizations and human rights.
Abrams made headlines after he was appointed in 1985 as deputy secretary of state for Latin-American affairs, at which time he became a central figure in the affair that became known as Irangate. Abrams was one of the main activists in granting aid to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. Essentially, the entire administration supported the effort, but explicit legislation of Congress banned aid to the Contras.
The end of the story is well known: The administration's attempt to bypass Congress and secretly send aid to the rebels was discovered, and those involved in the affair, including Oliver North and Elliot Abrams, were named as the guilty parties.
Abrams was asked to testify before congressional committees that investigated the affair. At one session, Abrams was asked, "Did the Reagan Administration transfer a loan of $10 million from the Sultan of Brunei to the contras?" To which he responded: "No."
In other testimony he was asked if the U.S. was actively aiding the rebels, to which he replied: "They are not our supply systems." Abrams lied, it seems, to Congress on both occasions. He was tried - he confessed - and convicted on the charge of concealing information from Congress. President Bush Senior gave him clemency after the conviction.
He later claimed that the conviction was unjustified, since he technically had not lied and that he had fallen victim to the prosecutors who had sought a conviction at any price.
What Clinton would have said
Abrams has been rehabilitated. He remained in contact with administration officials, headed a conservative think tank, the Center for Ethics and Public Policy," and wrote books and articles on political and Jewish subjects.
The return of the Republicans to the seat of power in 2000 brought back Abrams as well - he was appointed as head of the department for democracy in the NSC, where he paved his way back to the center stage, culminating in his appointment as director of the Near East department.
But not everyone has forgiven Abrams his past. The Democrats and the media have expressed reservations over his appointment and for Bush's predilection for reviving the heroes of the Iran-Contras affair.
Abrams positions on Jewish affairs have also managed to spark controversy. In 1997, he wrote the book "Faith or Fear: How Jews Can Survive in Christian America." The book contradicted the basic convention of the American Jewish community, according to which the U.S. is a secular country where Jews can advance and be integrated as individuals, in accordance with their skills and talents. According to this approach, the role of the Jews is to guard the secularity of America and emphasize in Judaism the social aspects, rather than the religious aspectes. Abrams rejects this approach.
He argues that it is naive to think that America is secular, while it is actually a Christian-religious country. He concludes that the Jews should direct their efforts to preserving their identity as a separate religion - fighting intermarriage, enhancing Jewish education, and preserving Jewish identity and the size of the community, even at the price of keeping its distance from mainstream American society.
Abrams himself is a Conservative Jew who describes himself as "partly observant," but he proposes that American Jews borrow from the Orthodox example, who are successful at preserving their identity by clinging to the texts and to parochial education.
Abrams perception of the future of American Jewry has not, in the years since the book's publication, been adopted by the Reform and Conservative trends, which constitute the bulk of American Jewry, but it has served as fodder for discussion. Today, with the strengthening of the administration's inclination to undermine the separation between religion and state (mainly by giving government support to welfare programs operated by religious groups and by offering school vouchers), Abrams' approach is being accorded greater significance. The initiatives of President Bush in this area also strengthen to a certain degree Abrams' main stance, according to which America is not really a secular country with a division between religion and state