Hillary Is Wrong About the Settlements

[henank]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588743827950599.html#mod=djemEditorialPage

By ELLIOTT ABRAMS

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?

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?

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.

[babylonsister]

1. Idiot son is no longer president, Elliot Abrams, as much as that

seems to trouble you. And if you think anyone plans on taking your word for it, you're sadly mistaken.

[henank]

5. Why should his word not be taken?

Why is his word less valuable than Hillary Clinton's? Or Obama's? Was he or was he not in a position to know what was going on at the time? If he was, why do you think he is lying? Or is everyone to the right of center automatically a liar in your eyes?

[EFerrari]

10. Because he is a convicted criminal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams

[LeftishBrit]

15. Because he acted illegally in Iran/Contra; and has a very strong and nasty axe to grind

I also wouldn't trust Pat Buchanan on the subject of Israel at the other end of the spectrum . Or some left-of-centre but known-to-be-dodgy types, like George Galloway.

[leveymg]

22. Whatever Abrams says is totally irrelevant. The Bush-era agreement was never ratified by any of the

parties involved. Any verbal agreements between Sharon and Abrams are certainly not binding now.

This is a fur ball being batted around. A game of semantics.

And, no. The settlers who are there don't get to stay. If the Israelis want to trade something for keeping the Sharonvilles, that's fine. But, that deal hasn't been made yet.

[bemildred]

27. Google "Elliot Abrams proven liar".

See what you get.

[Ken Burch]

28. Because everything Elliott Abrams has ever done in his life has been about causing misery

That's all he brought to this country. That's all he brought to Central America. That's all he's brought to Israel/Palestine.

The man is in love with slaughter and imperialism. He has nothing to offer anyone who values life, peace, dignity and hope.

[IndianaGreen]

34. Because he is a neocon and a war criminal

and because over 9,000 GIs died on account of people like Abrams. Naming just a few of the neocon war criminals, a disproportionate number of which happened to be rabid Zionists: Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Dov Zakheim, Daniel Pipes, William Kristol, Bob Kagan, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Donald Rumsfeld, etc.

[henank]

2. Continued...

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."

...

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.

[damntexdem]

3. "Should he tell them to have no more children, or move?" Hell yes!

Tell them to get out before the bulldozers knock the houses down. And Israel has had a lot of practice knocking down Palestinian houses, so it should be quite adept at destroying the settlements.

[henank]

8. Such beautiful sentiments you express

Telling Israelis not to have children. Just substitute "Palestinians" for Israelis and everyone here would be calling you a racist. Well, I'm calling you out on this one. Racist.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. He was not saying "Israelis". He was saying "goddam squatters who

are building illegal settlements in somebody else's land".

Get the difference?

[Ken Burch]

30. Why assume that the only possible place the settlers could live is in the settements?

They could live Zionist lives and have Zionist kids in Israel proper. Why isn't that enough for them?

[On the Road]

25. They Actually Shouldn't Have to Do Either One

They should be able to continue their lives under Palestinian rule.

[Ken Burch]

29. But that would mean treating Arabs as human beings and as their equals

Since the settlers model their views of Palestinians on the views 19th Century "Americans" held about Native Americans(and those that white South Africans held towards the majority of the South African population prior to freeing of Mandela), this would be impossible for them.

The West Bank is the last outpost of Manifest Destiny.

[On the Road]

36. I am in Complete Agreement with That

The thought of an Israeli living in a Palestinian state should be no more remarkable than a Palestinian living in Israel. But in popular discourse, it's unthinkable.

[LeftishBrit]

37. In an ideal world you'd be right

But I doubt very much that a Palestinian state would *allow* Israelis to live in it, at least in any large quantity.

The settlers, or most of them, will have to move (except for those whose land can remain part of Israel as part of a mutually agreed land swap); there is really no way round this at the moment. And as I've said, this is something they've had plenty of time to learn to accept.

[Vegasaurus]

38. THe only difference is that Palestinians actually DO live in Israel

(1.5 million of them, in fact), and no Israeli could ever live in Palestine, since even selling a home to a Jewish ISraeli is punishable by death.

[ingac70]

4. By Iran -Contra criminal Elliot Abrams.

:boring:

[lamp_shade]

6. WSJ??

[henank]

11. Wow! I've really struck a nerve here. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

31. You've struck a turd here, more like...

I suppose given that you oppose removing the settlements, you are, by default, in favour of lording over a majority Arab population in Greater Israel in perpetuity?

I should point out to you, historically, the prospects for minority-ruled ethnocracies (Haiti, South Africa, Rwanda) tend to not be very good. Only Syria presents as a somewhat stable example and I think that may well be a special case.

But of course, God will look after you, right? After all, he's been such a reliable ally so far...

[shira]

32. what kind of logic is that?

"I suppose given that you oppose removing the settlements, you are, by default, in favour of lording over a majority Arab population in Greater Israel in perpetuity?"

If the major settlements close to the green line are going to be Israel's due to inevitable land swaps, how do you get that holding said settlements - and not freezing them - amounts to this "lording over" business?

[shaayecanaan]

33. I doubt that Henank makes that distinction...

I imagine Henank supports retention of all the settlements, and in particular the Ariel finger which being situated roughly in the middle of the West Bank effectively prevents the establishment of any contiguous Palestinian state. Which is precisely its purpose.

To be honest I don't imagine that you support its removal, either.

[EFerrari]

7. What else is this criminal available to advise on? Lying to Congress?

Subverting the Constitution?

[LeftishBrit]

9. Is there any more reliable source on this than Elliott Abrams?

Sharon MAY have said all these things. But Abrams is such a tainted witness after Iran-Contra that I would want other evidence.

[henank]

13. Well, since Sharon is in a coma

and everyone else involved is denying their heads off, it would seem that we're stuck with him. Obviously, if Abrams had said that America never agreed to Israel keeping some settlements you'd all be praising him to high heavens. But since he appears to support Israel's opinion, he's obviously a liar, and since this was in WSJ it is obviously a propaganda piece.

:sarcasm:

[atreides1]

16. Wrong

Anything that Abrams says is questionable, it wouldn't matter what he said. At least that's my personal opinion.

[LeftishBrit]

17. I don't know who is 'you all' but I certainly wouldn't be.praising Abrams, or trusting him,

whatever he said.

[azurnoir]

23. Either way its without

official written documents from both governments and/or international; a verbal contract is dribble what courts call hearsay
I must wonder is Abrams "supporting" Israel or simply trying to undermine the Obama adminisration perhaps both

[EFerrari]

24. We know he's a liar. He was convicted of misleading Congress.

Check your sources.

[Ken Burch]

35. I wouldn't trust anything Abrams said about anything.

The man was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of innocent Central Americans in the Eighties. Why would you have anything to do with him? Abrams morally discredits any cause that allies itself with him.

[sharesunited]

12. Sharon in fact closed settlements and forcibly removed the Jewish inhabitants.

I remember seeing the footage of that. I don't know whether it was a token gesture or not, but it sure was full of powerful imagery.

But the only way to cease homesteading is to prohibit IDF security from defending settlements and allow them to fend for themselves. This would likely mean the slaughter of settlers, however, which is politically untenable.

[atreides1]

14. Why Is She Wrong?

[county worker]

18. Should he tell them to have no more children, or move?

Those words should have been used in 1946 when the Palestinians where pushed off their land.

[azurnoir]

19. Talk is cheap

lets see the official documents outlining this agreement other wise its drool

[Scurrilous]

21. The Settlers’ Lawyer (or, Elliott Abrams Is At It Again)

<snip>

"On May 23, 2005, the Washington Post ran a an incisive op-ed by former State Department negotiator and Middle East advisor Aaron Miller, entitled "Israel’s Lawyer," in which Aaron argued "For far too long, many American officials involved in Arab-Israeli peacemaking, myself included, have acted as Israel’s attorney…" I was reminded of that article when I read today’s piece by Elliott Abrams in the Wall Street Journal, which should, I believe, have been entitled "The West Bank Settlers’ Lawyer."

Before anyone accuses me of casting aspersions on Mr. Abrams’ honor or motivations, let me be clear: I have no doubt he has taken the case pro bono. For him, advocating for the settlers is clearly a labor of love. And the settlers are fortunate to have Elliott volunteering for the job. He brings a unique combination of expertise and experience, combined, it would seem, with a shameless willingness to cherry-pick the facts and, when the facts don’t support his argument, to fall back on the "I was there and I know what happened."

An interesting approach from a man who does not have a spotless record when it comes to truth-telling and foreign policy (for anyone who has forgotten the history: "Elliott Abrams — Pleaded guilty October 7, 1991, to two misdemeanor charges of withholding information from Congress about secret government efforts to support the Nicaraguan contra rebels during a ban on such aid. U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., sentenced Abrams November 15, 1991, to two years probation and 100 hours community service. Abrams was pardoned December 24, 1992.")

But that was a long time ago. Let’s forgot the ugly and embarrassing Iran-Contra history and focus on the "facts" in the current case, as Elliott sees them:

In today’s WSJ article, Elliott offers an almost completely unverifiable history of what he says transpired between June 2003 and August 2005 (the date of Israel’s "disengagement" from Gaza). Predictably, he focuses on the letter President Bush gave to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on April 14, 2004. In that letter, Elliott notes (correctly), Bush wrote: "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."

What Elliott neglects to mention is that in the letter Bush also re-stated his commitment to the Roadmap ("the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap"), which in stage I states that "Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)."

more

[TomClash]

26. So what?

Even if there was an agreement - and given the source I am skeptical - where is it written that the US must abide by some "agreement" to help Sharon years after his tenure as PM has expired? Nothing Abrams wrote in this screed means any "meeting of the minds" is permanent.

[shira]

39. Folks, the letter to Sharon recognized that Israel would retain settlements via land swaps

just as Bill Clinton stated 9 years ago and just as Jimmy Carter admitted recently WRT the Etzion bloc.

THAT is all the proof needed to show that there has been, from even BEFORE Bush II, a clear understanding between the USA and Israel regarding natural growth within the existing settlements (which will not expand past the 1.7% of W.Bank land that settlements now occupy).

To call for a settlement freeze within ALL settlement blocs is to pretend that Clinton, Bush II, and Carter never articulated any such views.

[azurnoir]

40. Were you hoping no one would notice

or perhaps it did not occur that this "secret agreement" which I will not and have not denied existed exposes the entire so called "peace process" including Annapolis that has been going since as a disingenuous dog and pony show tailored for public consumption because there was already an agreement in place?
All I can say is THANKYOU Mr Abrams for exposing this

[shira]

41. huh? notice what? that there would NOT be land swaps for the major settlement blocs?

Everyone knows land swaps would be part of a final agreement......ever since Clinton 9 years ago.

What's phony about it?

[azurnoir]

42. Because Annapolis claimed to follow the so called "roadmap"

which called for a freeze on all existing settlements and that did include so called "natural growth"

[shira]

44. the roadmap was 2002, before the Gaza withdrawal, and the PA has failed to uphold any of the roadmap

looks like Sharon made a deal - if Israel withdraws from Gaza, the USA allows 'natural growth'.

Tell me, if Israel completely froze natural growth from 2002 onward, do you think it would have made any difference? Israel hasn't built any new settlements since the mid 1990's (Israel's prerogative - not part of Oslo) and that didn't make a bit of difference - in fact, things have only gotten worse since then.

[azurnoir]

45. Annapolis and roadmap

Hamas was not included in Annapolis

Annapolis agreement: full text

"We express our determination to bring an end to bloodshed, suffering and decades of conflict between our peoples; to usher in a new era of peace, based on freedom, security, justice, dignity, respect and mutual recognition; to propagate a culture of peace and nonviolence; to confront terrorism and incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis.

"In furtherance of the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, we agree to immediately launch good-faith bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty, resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception, as specified in previous agreements.

"We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations, and shall make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008. For this purpose, a steering committee, led jointly by the head of the delegation of each party, will meet continuously, as agreed.

"The steering committee will develop a joint work plan and establish and oversee the work of negotiations teams to address all issues, to be headed by one lead representative from each party. The first session of the steering committee will be held on 12 December 2007.

"President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert will continue to meet on a biweekly basis to follow up the negotiations in order to offer all necessary assistance for their advancement.

"The parties also commit to immediately implement their respective obligations under the performance-based road map to a permanent two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, issued by the Quartet on 30 April 2003 - this is called the road map - and agree to form an American, Palestinian and Israeli mechanism, led by the United States, to follow up on the implementation of the road map.

"The parties further commit to continue the implementation of the ongoing obligations of the road map until they reach a peace treaty. The United States will monitor and judge the fulfillment of the commitment of both sides of the road map. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, implementation of the future peace treaty will be subject to the implementation of the road map, as judged by the United States

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/27/israel.usa1

Statement by the Middle East Quartet
30 April 2003


Arab states cut off public and private funding and all other forms of support for groups supporting and engaging in violence and terror.

Iran is not an Arab state

SETTLEMENTS

GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001. Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).

http://www.bethlehemmedia.net/doc4.htm

[IndianaGreen]

43. Major settlement blocks should be razed to the ground

with the same bulldozers Israel used to raze Palestinian homes.

The settlers are not worth one drop of American blood.