Obama Mideast Monitor  

Latest Posts  |  Archive  |  

Abrams: Israel is right that there were settlement agreements

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is denying that there were understandings between the Bush Administration and the Sharon and Olmert governments that limited natural growth of settlements but permitted some construction within agreed constraints. She said on June 17, "In looking at the history of the Bush Administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements. That has been verified by the official record of the Administration and by the personnel in the positions of responsibility." Clinton pointed to an op ed "Our former ambassador Dan Kurtzer has written...that appeared in the last few days that lays out our position on that." Kurtzer said a draft agreement on the "construction line" principle "was never codified, and no effort was made then to define the line around the built-up areas of settlements. Nonetheless, Israel began to act largely in accordance with its own reading of these provisions, probably believing that U.S. silence conferred assent.... [but] there never were any 'agreed principles of settlement activities.'"

Continue to full text of posting...

By Steve Rosen  |  June 25, 2009 at 10:44 am  |  Permalink

Kurtzer denies there was an agreement on Settlements

The fog surrounding informal understandings between the Bush Administration and the then-government of Israel over growth of settlements deepened today. Daniel Kurtzer, who was U.S. Ambassador to Israel from 2001-2005 and played a role in part of the Bush Administration negotiations with Israel over settlements, published a piece in the Washington Post today denying in detail that there was a U.S. commitment to limited natural growth. Kurtzer does not deny that there were informal understandings, but he asserts that these did not rise to the level of a formal, codified commitment on the part of the U.S. to which the Obama Administration should feel bound.

Here is an extended excerpt:

"...Today, Israel maintains that three events -- namely, draft understandings discussed in 2003 between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and U.S. deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley; President George W. Bush's April 14, 2004, letter to Sharon; and an April 14 letter from Sharon adviser Dov Weissglas to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice -- constitute a formal understanding in which the United States accepted continuing Israeli building within the "construction line" of settlements. The problem is that there was no such [formal] understanding.

"The first event the Israelis cite is the 2003 discussions on a four-part draft that included the notion that construction within settlements might be permitted if confined to the already built-up areas of the settlements. ...This draft was never codified, and no effort was made then to define the line around the built-up areas of settlements. Nonetheless, Israel began to act largely in accordance with its own reading of these provisions, probably believing that U.S. silence conferred assent.

"Second, President Bush's 2004 letter conveyed U.S. support of an agreed outcome of negotiations in which Israel would retain 'existing major Israeli population centers' in the West Bank 'on the basis of mutually agreed changes . . . .' One of the key provisions of this letter was that U.S. support for Israel's retaining some settlements was predicated on there being an 'agreed outcome' of negotiations. Despite Israel's contention that this letter allowed it to continue building in the large settlement blocs of Ariel, Maale Adumim and Gush Etzion, the letter did not convey any U.S. support for or understanding of Israeli settlement activities in these or other areas in the run-up to a peace agreement.

"In his 2004 letter to Rice, Weissglas addressed the issue of the 'construction line,' saying that 'within the agreed principles of settlement activities, an effort will be made in the next few days to have a better definition of the construction line of settlements in Judea & Samaria.' However, there never were any 'agreed principles of settlement activities.' Moreover, the effort to define the 'construction line' was never consummated: Israel and the United States discussed briefly but did not reach agreement on the definition of the construction line of settlements. ...

"Throughout this period, the Bush administration did not regularly protest Israel's continuing settlement activity. But this is very different from arguing that the United States agreed with it. In recent days, former senior Bush administration officials have told journalists on background that no understandings existed with Israel regarding continued settlement activity."

Contrary to Kurtzer, Elliot Abrams, who participated in arriving at the understandings with the government of israel, wrote that ""There was something of an understanding realized on these questions, but it was never a written agreement" and that there were "guidelines that were discussed with the United States but never formally adopted..." See my pieces, "There was a Bush Agreement on Settlements" and "Obama and a Settlements Freeze."

By Steve Rosen  |  June 14, 2009 at 9:02 am  |  Permalink

Jewish left shaped Obama on Settlements

The Washington Post examined the roots of Obama's hard line on settlements, and concluded that it reflects the influence of Jewish friends on the left prior to entering the White House. "Several senior White House officials described the president's views on Israeli settlements as years old and not the product of recent events or discussions....'It would be a mistake to suggest that anyone led him to this position,' a senior adviser said. 'It's one that he generated himself.' In Chicago, long before becoming president, Obama's closest confidants included staunch supporters of Israel whose tough views on the need to stop settlements mirror his current public position. Abner Mikva, an Obama mentor and former law professor, was one of them. ...White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel worked in the Clinton White House when Netanyahu reneged on an understanding to stop the growth of settlements. As a member of Congress, Emanuel was one of only two Jewish lawmakers to co-sponsor a resolution supporting a peace plan that would have abandoned to the Palestinians one of the West Bank's largest settlements -- Ariel, with about 40,000 settlers. ..One of the president's close friends in Chicago, the late Rabbi Arnold Wolf, wrote last year of his disappointment that Obama had often publicly softened his private positions. 'For my part, I've sometimes found Obama too cautious on Israel,' said Wolf, who in 1973 co-founded an organization that advocated creating a Palestinian state. 'He, like all our politicians, knows he mustn't stray too far from the conventional line, and that can be disappointing. But unlike anyone else on the stump, Obama has also made it clear that he'll broaden the dialogue.'" The Post also cited David Axelrod as among the influecnes pushing Obama in this direction.

By Steve Rosen  |  June 13, 2009 at 7:45 am  |  Permalink

There was a Bush Agreement on Settlements

Secretary of State Clinton denied on Friday (June 5) that the George W. Bush Administration left to its successors a set of understandings with the government of Israel about limited growth of settlements. "With respect to the conditions regarding understandings [about settlements] between ... the former Israeli government and the former government of the United States, we have the negotiating record. That is the official record that was turned over to the Obama Administration by the outgoing Bush Administration. There is no memorialization of any informal and oral agreements. If they did occur, which, of course, people say they did, they did not become part of the official position of the United States Government. And there are contrary documents that suggest that they were not to be viewed as in any way contradicting the obligations that Israel undertook pursuant to the Roadmap. And those obligations are very clear."

I predicted on January 28 that "The Obama team may find it difficult to obtain a clear and consistent record of these American-Israeli understandings about the construction line principle, because many of the commitments were expressed orally rather than in writing, in conversations with select White House officials. Apparently these were not reported to other officials of the Bush Administration. "

Elliot Abrams, who represented the Bush White House in those agreements, confirmed their existence to the Washington Post on May 24: "There was something of an understanding realized on these questions, but it was never a written agreement... At the time of the Gaza withdrawal, there were lengthy discussions about how settlement activity might be constrained, and in fact it was constrained in the later part of the Sharon years and the Olmert years in accordance with the ideas that were discussed." Abrams wrote in an op ed piece in the Post on April 8, "For the past five years, Israel's government has largely adhered to guidelines that were discussed with the United States but never formally adopted: that there would be ...no new construction except in already built-up areas. The clear purpose of the guidelines? To allow for settlement growth in ways that minimized the impact on Palestinians. Israel has largely, but not fully, kept to those rules."

And Dov Weissglass, who represented Shron in the negotiations, has provided a detailed account of the negotiations and the agreements. He wrote in Yediot Ahronot on June 2, that in a "'separate forum' convened on May 1, 2003 in Jerusalem. Senior administration officials Steven Hadley and Elliott Abrams met with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and me, and, over the next two days succeeded in working out an exact definition of the term "settlement freeze" in the Road Map. According to this definition, ...(3) construction within the settlements would be confined to 'the existing construction line.' ...On a further meeting held with Ms. Rice on May 14, 2003, the agreement on the definition of the term 'freeze' was confirmed...The drawing of the existing construction line- the area in which construction is permitted- encountered technical difficulties. It was therefore decided to establish a joint American-Israeli team that would examine, mark, and delineate the construction line around each of the existing settlements. The team, however, was never created, though not because of any fundamental disagreement....On April 13, 2004 [these understandings were included in were included in] a letter that I wrote with the full consent and in the name of Prime Minister Sharon, and sent to National Security Advisor Rice. Among other things the letter said 'in the framework of the agreed principles on settlement activity, we will shortly make an effort to better delineate the settlement construction line in Judea and Samaria…' There was no doubt, therefore, that on April 14, 2004- the day that President Bush sent his letter to Prime Minister Sharon- the administration recognized Israel's right under the Road Map to development from within the existing construction line in the Israeli settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza."

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's Cheif of Staff, Mike Herzog, tried but failed to persuade Presidential Envoy Goerge Mitchell that these agreements exist, during a meeting in London on May 28. "Herzog spoke to Mitchell and his staff [on May 28] about understandings reached by former prime ministers Ehud Olmert and Ariel Sharon with the Bush administration on allowing continued building in the large West Bank settlement blocs. He asked that a similar agreement be reached with the Obama government….The Israeli delegates were stunned by the uncompromising U.S. stance, and by statements from Mitchell and his staff that agreements reached with the Bush administration were unacceptable. An Israeli official privy to the talks said that 'the Americans took something that had been agreed on for many years and just stopped everything.'"

Below is additional evidence of the agreements from the article I posted on January 28, "Obama and a Settlements Freeze."

Continue to full text of posting...

By Steve Rosen  |  June 6, 2009 at 6:04 pm  |  Permalink

Rahm Emanuel as a dove

Newsweek profiles Rahm Emanuel as a dove on Israel issues.

By Steve Rosen  |  May 26, 2009 at 12:50 pm  |  Permalink

Netanyahu: Only Israel will stop Iran threat

If Israel does not eliminate the Iranian threat, no one will, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday. "Israel is not like other countries. We are faced with security challenges that no other country faces, and our need to provide a response to these is critical, and we are answering the call...These are not regular times. The danger is hurtling toward us. The real danger in underestimating the threat...My job is first and foremost to ensure the future of the state of Israel ... the leadership's job is to eliminate the danger. Who will eliminate it? It is us or no one." "Our relationship with the United States is of great importance," Netanyahu said. "Our situation today is different from our situation between 1996 and 1999. Our priorities must be inline with national security needs and we must unite in order to deflect the danger. The Defense Minister and I are working in coordination; he is not conducting an independent policy."

By Steve Rosen  |  May 26, 2009 at 12:03 am  |  Permalink

Mullen: time for Iran diplomacy running out

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned that Iran is close to obtaining nuclear weapons. "Most of us believe that it's one to three years, depending on assumptions about where they are right now. But they are moving closer, clearly, and they continue to do that...And so that leaves a pretty narrow space in which to achieve a successful dialogue and a successful outcome, which from my perspective means they don't end up with nuclear weapons."

By Steve Rosen  |  May 25, 2009 at 2:55 pm  |  Permalink

Israel seeks renewal of settlements freeze terms

Ha'aretz confirms that Netanyahu is seeking a reaffirmation of the detailed Bush/Sharon understandings on the parameters of a settlements freeze that I reported in Obama and a Settlements Freeze.

By Steve Rosen  |  May 23, 2009 at 10:30 pm  |  Permalink

Americans would support use of force against Iran

A series of recent polls shows that ordinary Americans are more hawkish on Iran than the commentariat that fills the op-ed pages. 57% of American voters say Israel would be justified in attacking Iran's nuclear facilities given that Iran has publicly threatened to annihilate Israel, according to a McLaughlin poll conducted on May 8-9. 71% say the U.S. will not be safe with a nuclear Iran and 79% say it is likely that Iran will provide nuclear weapons to terrorists to attack an American city, according to a poll conducted on May 8-9. 80% say it is likely that Iran will launch a missile attack on Israel, 77% say it is likely that Iran will use the threat of nuclear attack to provide a shield for Hizbullah and Hamas terrorists to attack Israel, and 82% say the U.S. should be concerned about the security of Israel. In a Rasmussin poll reported on May 7, forty-nine percent (49%) of Americans say that if Israel launches an attack against Iran, the United States should help Israel.

By Steve Rosen  |  May 21, 2009 at 8:51 am  |  Permalink

U.S., Israel discuss settlements freeze

The Jerusalem Post reports that "Senior officials in Netanyahu's office said the exact terms of a [settlement] freeze would have to be worked out, since there had been a number of unwritten understandings on this matter with the previous administration. For instance, Israel has been working on the assumption that, with tacit agreement from the US, it may build inside the lines of existing settlements in the large settlement blocs that it believes it will retain under any future diplomatic agreement....The settlement issue was expected to be one of the top ones dealt with in working groups that have been set up between the US and Israel to discuss a wide range of topics. Israeli sources said work in these groups had already started."

I am told that my own article on previous understandings between the Bush and Sharon Administrations about the terms of a freeze on "natural growth" is one of the source documents that the two sides are discussing.

By Steve Rosen  |  May 21, 2009 at 8:35 am  |  Permalink