Israeli PM: 'Let's make peace -- both diplomatically and economically'
Jerusalem Post, July 12,
Palestinian recognition of the Jewish nature of Israel is an essential condition to peace, as well as their willingness to relinquish the demand that the descendents of Palestinian refugees be allowed to resettle in the Jewish state, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Sunday.
“The key to peace lies in explicit and unequivocal recognition of Israel as the Jewish state on the part of the Palestinians. They must once and for all give up the demand to resettle inside of Israel the descendents of the refugees,” Netanyahu said during a Jerusalem memorial ceremony marking 105 years since the death of Theodor Herzl.
According to Netanyahu, the leaders of the Palestinians must say, “We have had enough of this conflict; we recognize Israel as Jewish; we will live alongside you in true peace.
“As soon as that is stated,” Netanyahu continued, “a huge window to peace will be opened.”
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Friday, July 3, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Dershowitz: Getting tough on settlement expansion should not be confused with undercutting Israel's security.
Has Obama Turned on Israel? Settlements, rockets and Iran.
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2009
Many American supporters of Israel who voted for Barack Obama now suspect they may have been victims of a bait and switch. Jewish Americans voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama over John McCain in part because the Obama campaign went to great lengths to assure these voters that a President Obama would be supportive of Israel. This despite his friendships with rabidly anti-Israel characters like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and historian Rashid Khalidi.
At the suggestion of Mr. Obama's Jewish supporters -- including me -- the candidate visited the beleaguered town of Sderot, which had borne the brunt of thousands of rocket attacks by Hamas. Standing in front of the rocket shells, Mr. Obama declared: "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." This heartfelt statement sealed the deal for many supporters of Israel.
Now, some of them apparently have voters' remorse. According to Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, "President Obama's strongest supporters among Jewish leaders are deeply troubled by his recent Middle East initiatives, and some are questioning what he really believes." I hear the same thing from rank-and-file supporters of Israel who voted for Mr. Obama.
Are these fears justified? Rhetorically, the Obama team has definitely taken a harsher approach toward Israel compared to its tone during the campaign. But has there been a change in substance about Israel's security? In answering this question, it is essential to distinguish between several aspects of American policy.
First there are the settlements. The Bush administration was against expansion of West Bank settlements, but it was willing to accept a "natural growth" exception that implicitly permitted Israel to expand existing settlements in order to accommodate family growth. The Obama administration has so far shut the door on this exception.
I believe there is a logical compromise on settlement growth that has been proposed by Yousef Munayyer, a leader of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination League. "Obama should make it clear to the Israelis that settlers should feel free to grow their families as long as their settlements grow vertically, and not horizontally," he wrote last month in the Boston Globe. In other words, build "up" rather than "out." This seems fair to both sides, since it would preserve the status quo for future negotiations that could lead to a demilitarized Palestinian state and Arab recognition of Israel as a Jewish one -- results sought by both the Obama administration and Israel.
A majority of American-Jewish supporters of Israel, as well as Israelis, do not favor settlement expansion. Thus the Obama position on settlement expansion, whether one agrees with it or not, is not at all inconsistent with support for Israel. It may be a different position from that of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but it is not a difference that should matter to most Jewish voters who support both Mr. Obama and Israel.
The differences that would matter are those -- if they exist -- that directly impact Israel's security. And in terms of Israel's security, nothing presents a greater threat than Iran.
The Obama administration consistently says that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. But prior to the current unrest in the Islamic Republic, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel frightened many supporters of Israel in May by appearing to link American efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons to Israeli actions with regard to the settlements.
This is a disturbing linkage that should be disavowed by the Obama administration. Opposition to a nuclear Iran -- which would endanger the entire world -- should not be dependent in any way on the issue of settlement expansion.
The current turmoil in Iran may strengthen the Obama administration as it seeks to use diplomacy, sanctions and other nonmilitary means to prevent the development of nuclear weapons. But if these tactics fail, the military option, undesirable and dangerous as it is, must not be taken off the table. If the Obama administration were to shift toward learning to live with a nuclear Iran and attempt to deny Israel the painful option of attacking its nuclear targets as a last resort, that would be troubling indeed. Thankfully, the Obama administration's point man on this issue, Dennis Ross, shows no signs of weakening American opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran.
A related threat to Israeli security comes from Iran's proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. For years, these terrorist groups have disrupted life in Israel by firing rockets at civilians. The range of their weapons now extends to Israel's heartland, including Tel Aviv. The Israeli Defense Forces must retain the ability to prevent and deter rocket fire, even if it comes from behind human shields as it did in southern Lebanon and Gaza. There is no evidence of any weakening of American support for Israel's right to defend its children from the kind of rocket attacks candidate Obama commented on during his visit to Sderot.
There may be coming changes in the Obama administration's policies that do weaken the security of the Jewish state. Successful presidential candidates often soften their support for Israel once they are elected. So with Iran's burgeoning nuclear threat, it's important to be vigilant for any signs of weakening support for Israel's security -- and to criticize forcefully any such change. But getting tough on settlement expansion should not be confused with undercutting Israel's security.
Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest book is "The Case for Moral Clarity" (Camera, 2009).
Has Obama Turned on Israel? Settlements, rockets and Iran.
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2009
Many American supporters of Israel who voted for Barack Obama now suspect they may have been victims of a bait and switch. Jewish Americans voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama over John McCain in part because the Obama campaign went to great lengths to assure these voters that a President Obama would be supportive of Israel. This despite his friendships with rabidly anti-Israel characters like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and historian Rashid Khalidi.
At the suggestion of Mr. Obama's Jewish supporters -- including me -- the candidate visited the beleaguered town of Sderot, which had borne the brunt of thousands of rocket attacks by Hamas. Standing in front of the rocket shells, Mr. Obama declared: "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." This heartfelt statement sealed the deal for many supporters of Israel.
Now, some of them apparently have voters' remorse. According to Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, "President Obama's strongest supporters among Jewish leaders are deeply troubled by his recent Middle East initiatives, and some are questioning what he really believes." I hear the same thing from rank-and-file supporters of Israel who voted for Mr. Obama.
Are these fears justified? Rhetorically, the Obama team has definitely taken a harsher approach toward Israel compared to its tone during the campaign. But has there been a change in substance about Israel's security? In answering this question, it is essential to distinguish between several aspects of American policy.
First there are the settlements. The Bush administration was against expansion of West Bank settlements, but it was willing to accept a "natural growth" exception that implicitly permitted Israel to expand existing settlements in order to accommodate family growth. The Obama administration has so far shut the door on this exception.
I believe there is a logical compromise on settlement growth that has been proposed by Yousef Munayyer, a leader of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination League. "Obama should make it clear to the Israelis that settlers should feel free to grow their families as long as their settlements grow vertically, and not horizontally," he wrote last month in the Boston Globe. In other words, build "up" rather than "out." This seems fair to both sides, since it would preserve the status quo for future negotiations that could lead to a demilitarized Palestinian state and Arab recognition of Israel as a Jewish one -- results sought by both the Obama administration and Israel.
A majority of American-Jewish supporters of Israel, as well as Israelis, do not favor settlement expansion. Thus the Obama position on settlement expansion, whether one agrees with it or not, is not at all inconsistent with support for Israel. It may be a different position from that of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but it is not a difference that should matter to most Jewish voters who support both Mr. Obama and Israel.
The differences that would matter are those -- if they exist -- that directly impact Israel's security. And in terms of Israel's security, nothing presents a greater threat than Iran.
The Obama administration consistently says that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. But prior to the current unrest in the Islamic Republic, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel frightened many supporters of Israel in May by appearing to link American efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons to Israeli actions with regard to the settlements.
This is a disturbing linkage that should be disavowed by the Obama administration. Opposition to a nuclear Iran -- which would endanger the entire world -- should not be dependent in any way on the issue of settlement expansion.
The current turmoil in Iran may strengthen the Obama administration as it seeks to use diplomacy, sanctions and other nonmilitary means to prevent the development of nuclear weapons. But if these tactics fail, the military option, undesirable and dangerous as it is, must not be taken off the table. If the Obama administration were to shift toward learning to live with a nuclear Iran and attempt to deny Israel the painful option of attacking its nuclear targets as a last resort, that would be troubling indeed. Thankfully, the Obama administration's point man on this issue, Dennis Ross, shows no signs of weakening American opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran.
A related threat to Israeli security comes from Iran's proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. For years, these terrorist groups have disrupted life in Israel by firing rockets at civilians. The range of their weapons now extends to Israel's heartland, including Tel Aviv. The Israeli Defense Forces must retain the ability to prevent and deter rocket fire, even if it comes from behind human shields as it did in southern Lebanon and Gaza. There is no evidence of any weakening of American support for Israel's right to defend its children from the kind of rocket attacks candidate Obama commented on during his visit to Sderot.
There may be coming changes in the Obama administration's policies that do weaken the security of the Jewish state. Successful presidential candidates often soften their support for Israel once they are elected. So with Iran's burgeoning nuclear threat, it's important to be vigilant for any signs of weakening support for Israel's security -- and to criticize forcefully any such change. But getting tough on settlement expansion should not be confused with undercutting Israel's security.
Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest book is "The Case for Moral Clarity" (Camera, 2009).
Egyptian/ International Music Festival demands no singing in Hebrew; no references to being Jewish. This is anti-Semitism. //Mark Finkelstein
[The Music Fest ] required [participants from the interfaith group] to eliminate biographical references to members’ religions. This meant that Alberto Mizrahi, cantor of Chicago’s historic Anshe Emet Synagogue, could not refer to himself as a hazan, and GATC could describe itself as comprising only “different musical trends,” not different religious backgrounds.
Harmony Silenced at Egyptian Music Fest
By Alex Weisler issue of July 10, 2009. Forward.com
Wendy Sternberg was thrilled when the organization she founded, Genesis at the Crossroads, was invited to perform at the eighth annual International Music Festival at Egypt’s Alexandria Library.
She looked forward to achieving the goals of her group, which seeks to bridge cultures in conflict through the arts and prides itself on stellar musicianship and cross-cultural dialogue. Genesis would present master classes to Egyptian musicians and help the Alexandria Library become an established site for Arm Them With Instruments, a program that provides donated musical instruments to war-torn areas. Genesis’s musical troupe, the Saffron Caravan, would close the festival with a piece written by Sherif Mohie Eldin, one of Egypt’s foremost modern composers.
The music festival is hosted annually in Egypt at the library, a major cultural institute built for $220 million in 2002 near the site of the original library of Alexander the Great to revive the ancient library’s symbolism of Egypt’s commitment to learning and world culture.
Yet, despite her dream of the festival as a perfect fit with Genesis’s aims, Sternberg pulled out on June 4, after her group was barred from performing in Hebrew and from describing the religious backgrounds of its members in festival literature.
The more she thinks about it, Sternberg says, the sadder she becomes.
“All of this beauty just never got off the ground,” she told the Forward. “Working together to make it happen got nipped in the bud when this whole issue of omitting religious references came about.”
Sternberg said Genesis was informed a year ago that performing songs in Hebrew would be viewed by the Egyptian public as an extension of a Zionist agenda.
“You can love music and not be a Zionist,” Sternberg said. “The arts are safe. To really embrace the diversity is our greatest asset.”
Even at that, the situation was acceptable but not desirable, Sternberg said. Though the group’s Jewish members were upset, GATC decided to replace Hebrew songs with others in Ladino and Arabic.
“I was extremely angry, actually, like, ‘Why waste my time talking about this?’” said Howard Levy, a Grammy-winning pianist and harmonica player and the Saffron Caravan’s musical director. The main point for his group, he said, is to have the cultures blend and merge.
The real trouble arose when Sternberg received an e-mail May 24, informing her that GATC would be required to eliminate biographical references to members’ religions. This meant that Alberto Mizrahi, cantor of Chicago’s historic Anshe Emet Synagogue, could not refer to himself as a hazan, and GATC could describe itself as comprising only “different musical trends,” not different religious backgrounds.
That demand, Sternberg says, struck at the core of her group’s purpose and identity.
When Sternberg asked American University Islamic studies professor Akbar Ahmed for advice, she said he told her, “Walk away.”
Ahmed told the Forward he reminded Sternberg that moderate Muslims must speak out for dialogue among the three Abrahamic faiths — Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
“But if one party or another is not involved, the notion of an Abrahamic dialogue is not realized,” he said.
Sternberg outlined her position in a May 25 e-mail to five staff members of the Alexandria festival: GATC had accepted the restrictions on Hebrew songs out of respect for the current political climate, but would not agree to omit all religious references.
“We welcome a conversation with you to either further pursue this summer’s opportunity with you without diluting Genesis at the Crossroads’ mission and message, or to close this chapter without our involvement in your 2009 festival,” Sternberg wrote in the message.
Eldin’s reply came a few days later, Sternberg said, in just three words: “Thank you. Goodbye.”
Eldin was not in Alexandria at press time and could not be reached for comment.
Levy, who has performed openly as a Jew in Jordan, Syria and Morocco, was disappointed to be judged on his background and not on his musicianship.
The GATC saga is not the library’s first brush with controversy. Egyptian Minister of Culture Farouk Hosni — a leading contender in the upcoming vote to determine the next head of UNESCO, the United Nations’ cultural arm — told the Egyptian parliament in June 2008 that if Israeli books were found in Egypt’s acclaimed Alexandria Library, “I will burn them myself.”
Although GATC’s Alexandria Library saga has concluded, Sternberg said her mission may be stymied for at least a few months as she tries to regroup and move forward from a project she had concentrated on for 18 months.
Contact Alex Weisler at weisler@forward.com
[The Music Fest ] required [participants from the interfaith group] to eliminate biographical references to members’ religions. This meant that Alberto Mizrahi, cantor of Chicago’s historic Anshe Emet Synagogue, could not refer to himself as a hazan, and GATC could describe itself as comprising only “different musical trends,” not different religious backgrounds.
Harmony Silenced at Egyptian Music Fest
By Alex Weisler issue of July 10, 2009. Forward.com
Wendy Sternberg was thrilled when the organization she founded, Genesis at the Crossroads, was invited to perform at the eighth annual International Music Festival at Egypt’s Alexandria Library.
She looked forward to achieving the goals of her group, which seeks to bridge cultures in conflict through the arts and prides itself on stellar musicianship and cross-cultural dialogue. Genesis would present master classes to Egyptian musicians and help the Alexandria Library become an established site for Arm Them With Instruments, a program that provides donated musical instruments to war-torn areas. Genesis’s musical troupe, the Saffron Caravan, would close the festival with a piece written by Sherif Mohie Eldin, one of Egypt’s foremost modern composers.
The music festival is hosted annually in Egypt at the library, a major cultural institute built for $220 million in 2002 near the site of the original library of Alexander the Great to revive the ancient library’s symbolism of Egypt’s commitment to learning and world culture.
Yet, despite her dream of the festival as a perfect fit with Genesis’s aims, Sternberg pulled out on June 4, after her group was barred from performing in Hebrew and from describing the religious backgrounds of its members in festival literature.
The more she thinks about it, Sternberg says, the sadder she becomes.
“All of this beauty just never got off the ground,” she told the Forward. “Working together to make it happen got nipped in the bud when this whole issue of omitting religious references came about.”
Sternberg said Genesis was informed a year ago that performing songs in Hebrew would be viewed by the Egyptian public as an extension of a Zionist agenda.
“You can love music and not be a Zionist,” Sternberg said. “The arts are safe. To really embrace the diversity is our greatest asset.”
Even at that, the situation was acceptable but not desirable, Sternberg said. Though the group’s Jewish members were upset, GATC decided to replace Hebrew songs with others in Ladino and Arabic.
“I was extremely angry, actually, like, ‘Why waste my time talking about this?’” said Howard Levy, a Grammy-winning pianist and harmonica player and the Saffron Caravan’s musical director. The main point for his group, he said, is to have the cultures blend and merge.
The real trouble arose when Sternberg received an e-mail May 24, informing her that GATC would be required to eliminate biographical references to members’ religions. This meant that Alberto Mizrahi, cantor of Chicago’s historic Anshe Emet Synagogue, could not refer to himself as a hazan, and GATC could describe itself as comprising only “different musical trends,” not different religious backgrounds.
That demand, Sternberg says, struck at the core of her group’s purpose and identity.
When Sternberg asked American University Islamic studies professor Akbar Ahmed for advice, she said he told her, “Walk away.”
Ahmed told the Forward he reminded Sternberg that moderate Muslims must speak out for dialogue among the three Abrahamic faiths — Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
“But if one party or another is not involved, the notion of an Abrahamic dialogue is not realized,” he said.
Sternberg outlined her position in a May 25 e-mail to five staff members of the Alexandria festival: GATC had accepted the restrictions on Hebrew songs out of respect for the current political climate, but would not agree to omit all religious references.
“We welcome a conversation with you to either further pursue this summer’s opportunity with you without diluting Genesis at the Crossroads’ mission and message, or to close this chapter without our involvement in your 2009 festival,” Sternberg wrote in the message.
Eldin’s reply came a few days later, Sternberg said, in just three words: “Thank you. Goodbye.”
Eldin was not in Alexandria at press time and could not be reached for comment.
Levy, who has performed openly as a Jew in Jordan, Syria and Morocco, was disappointed to be judged on his background and not on his musicianship.
The GATC saga is not the library’s first brush with controversy. Egyptian Minister of Culture Farouk Hosni — a leading contender in the upcoming vote to determine the next head of UNESCO, the United Nations’ cultural arm — told the Egyptian parliament in June 2008 that if Israeli books were found in Egypt’s acclaimed Alexandria Library, “I will burn them myself.”
Although GATC’s Alexandria Library saga has concluded, Sternberg said her mission may be stymied for at least a few months as she tries to regroup and move forward from a project she had concentrated on for 18 months.
Contact Alex Weisler at weisler@forward.com
Friday, June 26, 2009
Abrams: US-Israel agreement involved Gaza pullout, settlement growth
Former National Security Council official Elliott Abrams debunks the Obama Administration's position that Israel and the US did not reach an agreement over Israeli 'natural growth' expansion. Israel paid for the acknowledgment that it would retain some settlements in any final agreement by acceding to US request to pull out of Gaza totally.
Hillary Is Wrong About the Settlements
The U.S. and Israel reached a clear understanding about natural growth.
By ELLIOTT ABRAMS June 26, 2009 Wall Street Journal
Despite fervent denials by Obama administration officials, there were indeed agreements between Israel and the United States regarding the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank. As the Obama administration has made the settlements issue a major bone of contention between Israel and the U.S., it is necessary that we review the recent history.
In the spring of 2003, U.S. officials (including me) held wide-ranging discussions with then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem. The "Roadmap for Peace" between Israel and the Palestinians had been written. President George W. Bush had endorsed Palestinian statehood, but only if the Palestinians eliminated terror. He had broken with Yasser Arafat, but Arafat still ruled in the Palestinian territories. Israel had defeated the intifada, so what was next?
Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, President George W. Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Jordan's King Abdullah, June 4, 2003.
We asked Mr. Sharon about freezing the West Bank settlements. I recall him asking, by way of reply, what did that mean for the settlers? They live there, he said, they serve in elite army units, and they marry. Should he tell them to have no more children, or move?
We discussed some approaches: Could he agree there would be no additional settlements? New construction only inside settlements, without expanding them physically? Could he agree there would be no additional land taken for settlements?
As we talked several principles emerged. The father of the settlements now agreed that limits must be placed on the settlements; more fundamentally, the old foe of the Palestinians could -- under certain conditions -- now agree to Palestinian statehood.
In June 2003, Mr. Sharon stood alongside Mr. Bush, King Abdullah II of Jordan, and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas at Aqaba, Jordan, and endorsed Palestinian statehood publicly: "It is in Israel's interest not to govern the Palestinians but for the Palestinians to govern themselves in their own state. A democratic Palestinian state fully at peace with Israel will promote the long-term security and well-being of Israel as a Jewish state." At the end of that year he announced his intention to pull out of the Gaza Strip.
The U.S. government supported all this, but asked Mr. Sharon for two more things. First, that he remove some West Bank settlements; we wanted Israel to show that removing them was not impossible. Second, we wanted him to pull out of Gaza totally -- including every single settlement and the "Philadelphi Strip" separating Gaza from Egypt, even though holding on to this strip would have prevented the smuggling of weapons to Hamas that was feared and has now come to pass. Mr. Sharon agreed on both counts.
These decisions were political dynamite, as Mr. Sharon had long predicted to us. In May 2004, his Likud Party rejected his plan in a referendum, handing him a resounding political defeat. In June, the Cabinet approved the withdrawal from Gaza, but only after Mr. Sharon fired two ministers and allowed two others to resign. His majority in the Knesset was now shaky.
After completing the Gaza withdrawal in August 2005, he called in November for a dissolution of the Knesset and for early elections. He also said he would leave Likud to form a new centrist party. The political and personal strain was very great. Four weeks later he suffered the first of two strokes that have left him in a coma.
Throughout, the Bush administration gave Mr. Sharon full support for his actions against terror and on final status issues. On April 14, 2004, Mr. Bush handed Mr. Sharon a letter saying that there would be no "right of return" for Palestinian refugees. Instead, the president said, "a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel."
On the major settlement blocs, Mr. Bush said, "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." Several previous administrations had declared all Israeli settlements beyond the "1967 borders" to be illegal. Here Mr. Bush dropped such language, referring to the 1967 borders -- correctly -- as merely the lines where the fighting stopped in 1949, and saying that in any realistic peace agreement Israel would be able to negotiate keeping those major settlements.
On settlements we also agreed on principles that would permit some continuing growth. Mr. Sharon stated these clearly in a major policy speech in December 2003: "Israel will meet all its obligations with regard to construction in the settlements. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line, no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements."
Ariel Sharon did not invent those four principles. They emerged from discussions with American officials and were discussed by Messrs. Sharon and Bush at their Aqaba meeting in June 2003.
They were not secret, either. Four days after the president's letter, Mr. Sharon's Chief of Staff Dov Weissglas wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that "I wish to reconfirm the following understanding, which had been reached between us: 1. Restrictions on settlement growth: 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."
Stories in the press also made it clear that there were indeed "agreed principles." On Aug. 21, 2004 the New York Times reported that "the Bush administration . . . now supports construction of new apartments in areas already built up in some settlements, as long as the expansion does not extend outward."
In recent weeks, American officials have denied that any agreement on settlements existed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated on June 17 that "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."
These statements are incorrect. Not only were there agreements, but the prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation -- the dissolution of his government, the removal of every single Israeli citizen, settlement and military position in Gaza, and the removal of four small settlements in the West Bank. This was the first time Israel had ever removed settlements outside the context of a peace treaty, and it was a major step.
It is true that there was no U.S.-Israel "memorandum of understanding," which is presumably what Mrs. Clinton means when she suggests that the "official record of the administration" contains none. But she would do well to consult documents like the Weissglas letter, or the notes of the Aqaba meeting, before suggesting that there was no meeting of the minds.
Mrs. Clinton also said there were no "enforceable" agreements. This is a strange phrase. How exactly would Israel enforce any agreement against an American decision to renege on it? Take it to the International Court in The Hague?
Regardless of what Mrs. Clinton has said, there was a bargained-for exchange. Mr. Sharon was determined to break the deadlock, withdraw from Gaza, remove settlements -- and confront his former allies on Israel's right by abandoning the "Greater Israel" position to endorse Palestinian statehood and limits on settlement growth. He asked for our support and got it, including the agreement that we would not demand a total settlement freeze.
For reasons that remain unclear, the Obama administration has decided to abandon the understandings about settlements reached by the previous administration with the Israeli government. We may be abandoning the deal now, but we cannot rewrite history and make believe it did not exist.
Mr. Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, handled Middle East affairs at the National Security Council from 2001 to 2009.
------------
See also: Rosen article
Hillary Is Wrong About the Settlements
The U.S. and Israel reached a clear understanding about natural growth.
By ELLIOTT ABRAMS June 26, 2009 Wall Street Journal
Despite fervent denials by Obama administration officials, there were indeed agreements between Israel and the United States regarding the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank. As the Obama administration has made the settlements issue a major bone of contention between Israel and the U.S., it is necessary that we review the recent history.
In the spring of 2003, U.S. officials (including me) held wide-ranging discussions with then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem. The "Roadmap for Peace" between Israel and the Palestinians had been written. President George W. Bush had endorsed Palestinian statehood, but only if the Palestinians eliminated terror. He had broken with Yasser Arafat, but Arafat still ruled in the Palestinian territories. Israel had defeated the intifada, so what was next?
Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, President George W. Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Jordan's King Abdullah, June 4, 2003.
We asked Mr. Sharon about freezing the West Bank settlements. I recall him asking, by way of reply, what did that mean for the settlers? They live there, he said, they serve in elite army units, and they marry. Should he tell them to have no more children, or move?
We discussed some approaches: Could he agree there would be no additional settlements? New construction only inside settlements, without expanding them physically? Could he agree there would be no additional land taken for settlements?
As we talked several principles emerged. The father of the settlements now agreed that limits must be placed on the settlements; more fundamentally, the old foe of the Palestinians could -- under certain conditions -- now agree to Palestinian statehood.
In June 2003, Mr. Sharon stood alongside Mr. Bush, King Abdullah II of Jordan, and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas at Aqaba, Jordan, and endorsed Palestinian statehood publicly: "It is in Israel's interest not to govern the Palestinians but for the Palestinians to govern themselves in their own state. A democratic Palestinian state fully at peace with Israel will promote the long-term security and well-being of Israel as a Jewish state." At the end of that year he announced his intention to pull out of the Gaza Strip.
The U.S. government supported all this, but asked Mr. Sharon for two more things. First, that he remove some West Bank settlements; we wanted Israel to show that removing them was not impossible. Second, we wanted him to pull out of Gaza totally -- including every single settlement and the "Philadelphi Strip" separating Gaza from Egypt, even though holding on to this strip would have prevented the smuggling of weapons to Hamas that was feared and has now come to pass. Mr. Sharon agreed on both counts.
These decisions were political dynamite, as Mr. Sharon had long predicted to us. In May 2004, his Likud Party rejected his plan in a referendum, handing him a resounding political defeat. In June, the Cabinet approved the withdrawal from Gaza, but only after Mr. Sharon fired two ministers and allowed two others to resign. His majority in the Knesset was now shaky.
After completing the Gaza withdrawal in August 2005, he called in November for a dissolution of the Knesset and for early elections. He also said he would leave Likud to form a new centrist party. The political and personal strain was very great. Four weeks later he suffered the first of two strokes that have left him in a coma.
Throughout, the Bush administration gave Mr. Sharon full support for his actions against terror and on final status issues. On April 14, 2004, Mr. Bush handed Mr. Sharon a letter saying that there would be no "right of return" for Palestinian refugees. Instead, the president said, "a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel."
On the major settlement blocs, Mr. Bush said, "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." Several previous administrations had declared all Israeli settlements beyond the "1967 borders" to be illegal. Here Mr. Bush dropped such language, referring to the 1967 borders -- correctly -- as merely the lines where the fighting stopped in 1949, and saying that in any realistic peace agreement Israel would be able to negotiate keeping those major settlements.
On settlements we also agreed on principles that would permit some continuing growth. Mr. Sharon stated these clearly in a major policy speech in December 2003: "Israel will meet all its obligations with regard to construction in the settlements. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line, no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements."
Ariel Sharon did not invent those four principles. They emerged from discussions with American officials and were discussed by Messrs. Sharon and Bush at their Aqaba meeting in June 2003.
They were not secret, either. Four days after the president's letter, Mr. Sharon's Chief of Staff Dov Weissglas wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that "I wish to reconfirm the following understanding, which had been reached between us: 1. Restrictions on settlement growth: 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."
Stories in the press also made it clear that there were indeed "agreed principles." On Aug. 21, 2004 the New York Times reported that "the Bush administration . . . now supports construction of new apartments in areas already built up in some settlements, as long as the expansion does not extend outward."
In recent weeks, American officials have denied that any agreement on settlements existed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated on June 17 that "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."
These statements are incorrect. Not only were there agreements, but the prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation -- the dissolution of his government, the removal of every single Israeli citizen, settlement and military position in Gaza, and the removal of four small settlements in the West Bank. This was the first time Israel had ever removed settlements outside the context of a peace treaty, and it was a major step.
It is true that there was no U.S.-Israel "memorandum of understanding," which is presumably what Mrs. Clinton means when she suggests that the "official record of the administration" contains none. But she would do well to consult documents like the Weissglas letter, or the notes of the Aqaba meeting, before suggesting that there was no meeting of the minds.
Mrs. Clinton also said there were no "enforceable" agreements. This is a strange phrase. How exactly would Israel enforce any agreement against an American decision to renege on it? Take it to the International Court in The Hague?
Regardless of what Mrs. Clinton has said, there was a bargained-for exchange. Mr. Sharon was determined to break the deadlock, withdraw from Gaza, remove settlements -- and confront his former allies on Israel's right by abandoning the "Greater Israel" position to endorse Palestinian statehood and limits on settlement growth. He asked for our support and got it, including the agreement that we would not demand a total settlement freeze.
For reasons that remain unclear, the Obama administration has decided to abandon the understandings about settlements reached by the previous administration with the Israeli government. We may be abandoning the deal now, but we cannot rewrite history and make believe it did not exist.
Mr. Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, handled Middle East affairs at the National Security Council from 2001 to 2009.
------------
See also: Rosen article
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Free Gilad Shalit. 3rd Anniversary of his abduction by Hamas.
Shalit, abducted 25 June 2006 by Hamas, was born on 28 August 1986 in Nahariya, Israel, and was raised from the age of two in Mitzpe Hila in the Western Galilee. He graduated with distinction from Manor Kabri High School.
Remember my son, says Shalit's father three years after abduction
By Haaretz Service
The father of Gilad Shalit urged fellow Israelis on Thursday to think of his son's plight in Hamas captivity, three years after the soldier was snatched from an Israel Defense Forces post by Gaza militants.
"My request today, June 25, 2009, is for every person in the country, man and woman, young and old, to close their eyes for three minutes. Three minutes only, and to wait until these minutes are over, and in this time for everyone to try to think of what my son Gilad is going through," Noam Shalit told Army Radio.
Egyptian-brokered negotiations to secure Shalit's release broke down during the last days of former prime minister Ehud Olmert's tenure. Israel has recently picked a new negotiating team to examine ways to move forward in the case, under the leadership of former Mossad operative Haggai Hadas.
Advertisement
In the radio interview, Noam Shalit described his son as "a young man who is waiting with bated breath, not only for three minutes, and not only for three hours and not even for three days; but waiting in darkness and despair, suffering physically and mentally, for the freedom that was taken from him three years ago."
Supporters of the abducted soldier planned to hold a mass demonstration outside Defense Minister Ehud Barak's office in Tel Aviv on Thursday. Shalit's parents will declare at the rally the founding of an "army of Gilad Shalit's friends," which will lead all efforts aimed at pressing the government over the soldier's case, Army Radio reported.
Shalit's brother, for his part, made a new plea to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to mark the day.
"Mr. prime minister, I ask of you: Save my brother. Don't abandon him to an unknown fate. Don't wait until tomorrow, help Gilad today," Yoel Shalit said on Army Radio.
"Every day in captivity is life-threatening. Gilad is still alive and it is your responsibility and duty to bring him home."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)