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

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."

Stephen Tyrone Johns is the name of the officer who has died after being shot at the Holocaust Museum in Washington. He gave his life to prevent many others being killed. RIP

In speech in VA, Ames' angel Rev. Wright blames "them Jews"

Obama's former pastor accents inclusiveness.
The retired pastor from Chicago who spoke Saturday in Ames was markedly different from the Jeremiah Wright of the sound bites from the 2008 presidential election campaign. In front of a crowd of 400 people, Wright spoke passionately about the need for acceptance of all people and the importance of social action. -- DM Register, June 7, 2009



But it looks like the press found a somewhat less loving Rev. Wright the other day in Hampton, VA.

Asked if he had spoken to the president, [Rev. Jeremiah]Wright said:
"Them Jews [in the White House] aren't going to let him talk to me."

Quoted by the Daily Press, Newport News, VA. June 9, 2009 Rev. Wright says he doesn't regret severed relationship with president

US increasingly concerned about Iranian threat: Gates

June 9, 2009

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States is increasingly concerned about recent advances in Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.

"Our concern about the nature of the Iran problem has continued to rise as they continue to make further progress in enriching uranium," Gates told a Senate Appropriations Committee panel, "and also as they have enjoyed some success in their missile field."

The United States and other Western powers suspect that Iran is using its nuclear program to develop atomic weapons, but Tehran insists it merely aims to produce civilian nuclear energy.

"Our concern with Iran, with Iran's programs -- and I believe I can say also Israel's -- has continued to grow given the unwillingness of the Iranians to slow, stop or even indicate a willingness to talk about their programs," Gates said.

Israel, widely considered to be the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear armed power, has not ruled out military action against nuclear sites in the Islamic Republic, which it considers its main enemy.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that the Jewish state should be "wiped off the map." But US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Sunday that Iran would face "retaliation" if it launched a nuclear attack on Israel.

And President Barack Obama said Saturday during a visit in the northern French city of Caen that it would be "profoundly dangerous" for Iran to get a nuclear bomb.

In late May, Iran, which faces presidential elections on Friday, test-fired a new surface-to-surface missile called Sejil-2 with a range of up to 1,200 miles (2,000 kilometers).

Iran was still defying the United Nations Security Council and has so far amassed 1,339 kilograms of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in a restricted report, a copy of which was obtained by AFP.

Rasmussen Poll:
62% Say Obama Should Not Meet With Iran Until It Stops Nuclear Weapons Program
Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters June 5-6, 2009

Before a meeting is allowed between the President of Iran and the President of the United States, should Iran be required to stop developing nuclear weapons capabilities?

Yes 62%

No 23%

Not sure 15%

U.S. envoy assures Israel policy rift won't break alliance
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent

U.S. special Mideast envoy George Mitchell assured Israel on Tuesday that Washington would remain its close ally despite differences over West Bank settlements and peacemaking with the Palestinians.

Mitchell told President Shimon Peres his goal was to create conditions for "prompt resumption and early conclusion" of talks leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state "side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel".