April 24, 2008

Israelis Claim Secret Agreement With U.S.

Americans Insist No Deal Made on Settlement Growth

By Glenn Kessler, Washington Post

A letter that President Bush personally delivered to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon four years ago has emerged as a significant obstacle to the president’s efforts to forge a peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians during his last year in office.

Ehud Olmert, the current Israeli prime minister, said this week that Bush’s letter gave the Jewish state permission to expand the West Bank settlements that it hopes to retain in a final peace deal, even though Bush’s peace plan officially calls for a freeze of Israeli settlements across Palestinian territories on the West Bank. In an interview this week, Sharon’s chief of staff, Dov Weissglas, said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reaffirmed this understanding in a secret agreement reached between Israel and the United States in the spring of 2005, just before Israel withdrew from Gaza.

U.S. officials say no such agreement exists, and in recent months Rice has publicly criticized even settlement expansion on the outskirts of Jerusalem, which Israel does not officially count as settlements. But as peace negotiations have stepped up in recent months, so has the pace of settlement construction, infuriating Palestinian officials, and Washington has taken no punitive action against Israel for its settlement efforts.

Israeli officials say they have clear guidance from Bush administration officials to continue building settlements, as long as it meets carefully negotiated criteria, even though those understandings appear to contradict U.S. policy.

Many experts say new settlement construction undermines the political standing of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas — who is to meet with Bush today at the White House — and adds to Palestinian cynicism about the peace process. Palestinians view the settlements as an Israeli effort to claim Palestinian lands, and in a meeting yesterday with Rice, Abbas said settlement construction was “one of the greatest obstacles” to a peace deal.

U.S. and Israeli officials privately argue that Israel has greatly restricted settlement growth outside the settlements it hopes to retain in a peace deal with the Palestinians, and Olmert has said Israel has stopped building new settlements and confiscating Palestinian lands.

Housing starts — not counting the Jerusalem settlements — have declined 33 percent since 2003, according to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics. But officials say it is politically damaging for Olmert to admit that, so instead he publicly emphasizes that he is adding to the settlements, which now house about 450,000 Israelis.

“It was clear from day one to Abbas, Rice and Bush that construction would continue in population concentrations — the areas mentioned in Bush’s 2004 letter,” Olmert declared in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, published Sunday. “I say this again today: Beitar Illit will be built, Gush Etzion will be built; there will be construction in Pisgat Ze’ev and in the Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem,” referring to new settlement expansion plans. “It’s clear that these areas will remain under Israeli control in any future settlement.”

In a key sentence in Bush’s 2004 letter, the president stated, “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.”

In a companion letter to “reconfirm” U.S.-Israeli understandings, Weissglas wrote Rice that restrictions on the growth of settlements would be made “within the agreed principles of settlement activities,” which would include “a better definition of the construction line of settlements” on the West Bank. A joint U.S.-Israeli team would “jointly define the construction line of each of the settlements.”

Weissglas said that the letter built upon a prior understanding between then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, which would allow Israel to build up settlements within existing construction lines. But Powell denied that. “I never agreed to it,” he said in an e-mail.

Daniel Kurtzer, then the U.S. ambassador to Israel, said he argued at the time against accepting the Weissglas letter. “I thought it was a really bad idea,” he said. “It would legitimize the settlements, and it gave them a blank check.” In the end, Kurtzer said the White House never followed up with the plan to define construction lines. “Washington lost interest in it when it became clear it would not be easy to do,” he said.

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, at a news briefing in January, suggested that Bush’s 2004 letter was aimed at helping Sharon win domestic approval for the Gaza withdrawal. “The president obviously still stands by that letter of April of 2004, but you need to look at it, obviously, in the context of which it was issued,” he said.

Weissglas said that in 2005, when Sharon was poised to remove settlers from Gaza, the Bush administration made a secret agreement — not disclosed to the Palestinians — that Israel could add homes in settlements it expected to keep, as long as the construction was dictated by market demand, not subsidies. He said the agreement was necessary because Sharon needed the support of municipal leaders in the main West Bank settlements. The settlement leaders, he said, focused on the “inner contradiction” of Bush’s letter, mainly that it made no sense to have a settlement freeze in places that Bush said would become part of Israel.

Weissglas said he then negotiated a “verbal understanding” with deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams that would permit new construction in those key settlements; Rice and Sharon then approved the Weissglas-Abrams deal. “I do not recall that we had any kind of written formulation,” Weissglas said.

“There is no understanding,” said White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

Indeed, as settlement starts soared after the Middle East peace conference in Annapolis in November, Rice said “the United States doesn’t make a distinction” among settlement locations.

Powell said that in 2004, he did not anticipate that Bush’s letter would be perceived as a green light by Israel for adding to the settlements. “I consistently spoke against settlement growth, but as you know all I could do is talk against it,” Powell said. “There would be no consequences and there still aren’t.”

Posted by Ted Belman @ 8:15 am |

11 Comments


  1. Sometimes I use the word settlement as a descriptive term. Often I write “settlement” and “settlers.” For me these are Jewish communities in Jewish land. Shiloh for instance, the place where the sons of Israel established the tent of meeting (Josh 18:1) is no more a settlement than Gainesville, Florida is a settlement.

    Comment by Steve Klein — April 24, 2008 @ 9:36 am



  2. Peace is not viable in our case. After the peace treaty with Egypt, Israel continues immense military spending. Egypt continues anti-Israeli propaganda and builds an army whose only target is Israel.

    Peace is not a proper objective. Jews moved into Israel to fulfill religious and nationalist objectives. If peace and security are the utmost objectives, Israelis should move to Canada.

    Israel is ready for “sweeping concessions” while Arabs offer none. Israel seeks peace while Arabs don’t. Israel hinges on the 0.1% of the Middle East’s territory while her enemies ready themselves on the 99.9% of the land.
    If Jewish rulers survive, the Jewish state won’t. The Quartet of barbarians and hereditary anti-Semites (UN, EU, and Russia - along with the US) have pushed pushed Israel for the suicidal peace process. The very people who annihilated Jews for centuries - including the twentieth century - will now put on the moral garb and talk of the dreadful Jews oppressing poor Arabs. Isn’t it nice to be moral and have the Jews dead? Europeans and Russians, who did not entirely succeed in killing the Jews in ghettos, help Arabs to make a ghetto in Israel -If they have their way it could be a very temporary Ghetto!

    settlements are a non issue America just want to push Israel around to show her Arab patrons that she controls Israel and that leverage is what keeps them mostly loyal to America.

    Comment by yamit82 — April 24, 2008 @ 9:57 am



  3. If Condi Rice and George Bush have their way, they will add the 51st state to the US and it will be named the State of Israel.

    Comment by Ed D — April 24, 2008 @ 11:39 am



  4. Ed D I would say more like Guam or Peurto Rico State51? reminds me of the mouse that roared, scenario? who knows it might work?

    Comment by yamit82 — April 24, 2008 @ 1:20 pm



  5. It is quite understandable why the Bush administration would want to distance itself from this no longer secret green light letter from Pres. Bush to the GOI.

    I am wondering however why the GOI did not act on it even more vigorously then it did to construct and expand new communities?

    Further in that regard, given the importance of that letter, why did the GOI not put a stop to illegal Arab construction in Jerusalem before the first shovel went into the earth?

    And while I am on the subject, why has the GOI, past and present not acted vigorously against the Muslim Waqf’s excavation of the Temple Mount and deliberate destruction of Jewish artifacts that affirm the ancient Jewish presence there?

    Comment by Bill Narvey — April 24, 2008 @ 1:31 pm



  6. Bill because they are anti Jewish anti Zionist and most corrupt owing their political careers to Very Wealthy
    interests who control everything here. We are closer to a Banana Republic than not.

    Comment by yamit82 — April 24, 2008 @ 3:36 pm



  7. National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, at a news briefing in January, suggested that Bush’s 2004 letter was aimed at helping Sharon win domestic approval for the Gaza withdrawal. “The president obviously still stands by that letter of April of 2004, but you need to look at it, obviously, in the context of which it was issued,” he said.

    So basically he is saying that Bush lied in order to get Sharon to surrender Gaza.

    Comment by Laura — April 24, 2008 @ 3:49 pm



  8. Yamit, surely the answer is not so simple as you framed it.

    The wealthy interests as you put it could have taken advantage of the profits to be made on construction, so I do not see how it would be in their interests to not try to seize this opportunity for profit.

    The construction did take place as I understand, but I would have thought that there would have been much more.

    Surely the wealthy interests would have no dog in the fight over stopping Israeli Arabs from illegal construction or to stop the Muslim Waqf from illegal excavations.

    I don’t see the inaction of the GOI being anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish either, but more a case of being asleep at the switch or perhaps paralyzed by some other issues going on behind the scenes that have been kept secret.

    I confess my ignorance here so all I can say to dispute your claim is the GOI’s inaction makes no sense and your reasons just don’t seem right either.

    Maybe some other posters have more specific information they can bring to this discussion.

    Comment by Bill Narvey — April 24, 2008 @ 4:14 pm



  9. Bill , on the contrary it is that simple! Don’t look for complex convoluted explanations when they are simple to discern if you follow what is going on here. Yes you can go to MSM as well but need to connect the dots in that case.

    Comment by yamit82 — April 25, 2008 @ 8:46 am



  10. Laura your are right on, very discerning.

    Comment by yamit82 — April 25, 2008 @ 8:48 am



  11. [...] As Ami Isseroff points out in Territorial Integrity: American Middle East policy and what it means for Israel, it has always been US policy to force Israel to trade land for peace. Johnson wrote on May 3rd ‘67, “the United States is firmly committed to the support of the political independence and territorial integrity of all the nations of the area”. When this was uttered, it served as a balm for Israel as its enemies made ready to attack. After the war it proved to be a double-edged sword. True, that Res 242 promised withdrawal from “territories”, not “all territories” to secure borders but the resolution also prohibited the acquisition of territory by force. Nevertheless it was the US that insisted omitting the word “all” or “the”. This policy was reinforced in Bush’s letter in connection with the Gaza Disengagement wherein he said it was “unrealistic” to expect Israel to give up the settlement blocks. The import of these letters was discussed recently in Israelis Claim Secret Agreement With U.S. [...]

    Pingback by Israpundit » Blog Archive » US vs Israel. Can Israel win? — April 25, 2008 @ 4:31 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.