On Monday George Mitchell met with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak in New York to continue the ongoing US-Israeli discussion on settlements. Ha’aretz reported on an interesting moment from the meeting in their article “Obama: U.S. will be ‘honest’ with Israel on settlements“:
The disagreement over the understandings concerning the settlements produced an embarrassing encounter in London last week during a meeting between Mitchell, Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor and a number of Netanyahu’s advisers.
At the meeting, the Israelis claimed there was a letter between former president George W. Bush and former prime minister Ariel Sharon stating that the settlement blocs would remain in Israeli hands, so construction is permitted there. Mitchell showed the Israelis that one of the letter’s sections discusses the principle of two states for two peoples. “That is also written in the letter – do you agree to that?” he asked.
We’ve been following the ongoing question of whether the Obama administration was going to honor the Bush/Sharon agreements, which have been incredibly important to Israel and almost totally ignored here in the US. It’s good to see Obama is abandoning this horrible policy, and calling out the Israelis for their hypocritical stance.
Update: The Times joins the discussion with this Ethan Bronner article – “Israelis Say Bush Officials Agreed to Settlement Building.” It outlines much of the same story the Washington Post reported on a couple weeks ago. Basically, the Israelis are upset that Obama won’t honor a Bush promise that made no sense in the first place. The contradiction of this agreement is demonstrated most clearly when Bronner explains that Israel only signed the Road Map, thus agreeing to freeze all settlement growth, because they thought they had an agreement with the US on how they could continue expanding the settlements. Bronner:
The Israeli officials said that repeated and ongoing discussions with Bush officials starting in late 2002 gave unambiguous permission to build within the boundaries of certain settlement blocs as long as no new land was expropriated, no special economic incentives were offered to move to settlements and no new settlements were built. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity about an issue of such controversy between the two governments.
When Israel signed onto the so-called roadmap for a two-state solution in 2003, which says its government “freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements),” the officials said, it was after a detailed discussion with Bush officials that laid out those explicit limits.
It's "sleeve," for some reason.
"It's good to see Obama is abandoning this horrible policy, and calling out the Israelis for their hypocritical stance." Perhaps not for long. The Democrat Congress is already pressuring Obama to back off on Israel. Look at this report of a Politico article quoting three Jewish Zionist Democrats (Weiner, Berkley, Ackerman) who say Obama should stop meddling with Israel’s national security and domestic policies: Democrats to Obama: Ease pressure on Israel http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3725366... Didn’t I say the disproportionately large and growing number of Jewish Zionists in the Democratic Party (now about 11% of House Dems and about 20% of Senate Dems) was a major problem? Their first priority is apparently protecting Political Judaism; pursuing America’s best interests and siding with their own president seem to be way down the list, subordinated to: “Which stance is best for the Jews?” And why aren’t other Dems taking them to task for this? Could it be all that money from the Israel lobby?
Kabuki. Obama will dance around the issue feigning concern until the next eruption.
Yes, Ed, you are on target. What's really showing that Israel's tail wags the USA dog is that nobody is even mentioning uprooting internationally illegal Israeli settlements to date and merely talking about expansion of settlements, those facts on the ground that have grown despite official us foreign policy, and all of the USA's free welfare to Israel.
Yes, I didn't notice. I wondered what you mean.
"The Israeli officials said that repeated and ongoing discussions with Bush officials starting in late 2002 gave unambiguous permission to build within the boundaries of certain settlement blocs as long as no new land was expropriated, no special economic incentives were offered to move to settlements and no new settlements were built." Well, they haven't honored those terms, so the whole question is moot. It's ridiculous and dishonest (and takes real chutzpah) to violate an agreement and still expect the other side to honor its part. If you agree to sell me something for a certain price and you don't deliver it, then I don't have to pay you. Anyway, one should expect a new administration to have a different agenda. This is hardly the first time in history that an agreement was reached with one leader of some country, only to be thrown out as soon as the next leader came to power.
These were not even agreements. They were "oral understandings" that supposedly accompanied the written agreements. I would note that Israel's only evidence for these understandings on the American side is the word of Elliott Abrams, who was convicted of lying to Congress in 1991. One wonders why the NY Times omits that Abrams is a convicted liar when it uses the word of Abrams to bolster Israel's argument. The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler started the entire argument on May 24 by interviewing Abrams to "confirm" the understandings and failed to note that Abrams is a convicted liar. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti... I repeat, the only one vouching for Israel's contention as to these "understandings" presented in the Washington Post and the New York Times is Elliott Abrams, convicted liar. This looks like attempted fraud on behalf of Israel aided and abetted by the Washington Post and the New York Times. These "good friends" need a dose of the "honesty" Obama is talking about.
If Obama, or Mitchell, can turn Israel into Bullwinkle, that would be quite a magic trick.
The status quo has been Israeli expansion in the Westbank settlements at the same time as the Israeli government promises not to do so. The US had a wink and nod understanding. The problem for Israel is that they have left a paper trail miles long full of promises to work toward a two state solution. Obama is doing what he can right now to change that policy. He must start with a first step. And that is to make it clear that further expansion must stop. There will be other steps to follow. We can see the evidence that this policy change is having an effect. The howls of protest coming out of Jerusalem is a welcome sound. Local right wing zionists in our Congress will also resist. But the important thing right now is the absence of any resolutions coming out of Congress with 610 to 2 in support of Israel. Expect Ackerman and his ilk to complain but also realize that if the US is really serious about changing it's policy toward Israel, that the form of the change would look pretty much what we see happening today. Of course, over coming months, other steps must be taken or these initial signs are meaningless. Show some patience people.
OK. let's see what develops from Obam's trip to Cairo and Dresden.
Don't forget the new audio message from Osama Bin Laden? Interestingly no videos anymore. Too much expertise around? Could our Arabic native speakers give us their impression?
@ syvanen "Local right wing zionists in our Congress will also resist" LOL. I get it. They're "local right wingers" when they're Democrat diaspora Jewish Zionists pursuing Judeo-fascism on behalf of Israel, but they're bona-fide progressives on other domestic American issues. I suppose if we'd never fought WWII, and diaspora ethnic German National Socialists who were progressive on other issues somehow managed to make it into the US Congress in droves via the Democratic Party, you'd call them "local right-wingers" too, eh syvanen? [cont'd]
Did it ever occur to you that their diaspora "progressivism" advances their larger cause, their primary cause of Zionism? Did it ever occur to any of you mainstream left-liberals that the hyper secularism you are so in love with is merely a spearhead of hyper Capitalism? Did it ever occur to you that money worshippers have multiple means of opening up markets? Muslims should be very weary of entering into any alliances with Statists of any stripe, be they of the money-worshipping Right or the government worshipping Left, because at their core, they’re both Godless materialists who want to make whores and cattle of us all. In fact, everyone should be weary of them.
Through back channels Netanyahu is pleading with Obama: Just a little longer and they'll cry 'Uncle!' And Obama is saying: I don't think I can hold them back much longer; I'll have to increase the volume of my 'stern' voice.
RE: "…the only one vouching for Israel's contention as to these "understandings" presented in the Washington Post and the New York Times is Elliott Abrams, convicted liar…" MY COMMENT: Elliott Abrams = 'evil incarnate'
What exactly can Wiener, Berkly, Ackerman, et al do about it? Congress long ago meekly surrendered its foreign policy prerogatives. Congressional contribution to the dominance of the Lobby has mostly been one of apathy, of going along with approved legislation. Most Congressmen fear rather than actively support the Lobby. It is true they have often signed 'canned' letters to send to various Presidents protesting this or that, but Congressional Democrats can't FORCE President Obama to do anything, except by opposing other very popular Democratic objectives that they also support and whose interference with would be counterproductive to their own political aspirations. If Pres. Obama steps up to the plate and leads, they cannot stop him. He has covered his back by increasing military handouts to Israel and cannot be believably smeared in the court of public opinion for not being concerned with Israel's security. He has his political base, and I suspect as importantly, the national security establishment, behind him. I hear a lot of complaining from people who think he is just going through the motions and won't make any fundamental changes to American policy, but I think that they are wrong. Do they expect a big knock-down drag-out fight? He's taking repeated little steps and has made no dramatic moves that could serve as a focal or rallying point for Israel-first opposition. Whatever Pres. Obama's specific objectives are, and it is unlikely that those outside his most inner circle truly know them, he is pre-conditioning the political battlefield on which he will have to fight for them by gradually changing the environment through which Israeli and American relations are mediated. We have a smart President now. I'll wait several more years and see how things play out before I start to get worried. This struggle will go on until we have serious campaign finance reform, Israel learns to get along with its neighbors, or the present form of its government dissolves and is replaced by something else. None of these are likely to happen for a long, long time.
Marty Peretz, in a post entitled "Broken Promises," says this about those so-called "oral understandings:" "The first was in the New York Times. Written by Ethan Bronner (with whom I sometimes disagree but who never dissimulates or fibs), the piece treats the Israeli claims that the Obama administration is explicitly disavowing Bush administration pledges to the previous governments of Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert while denying it knows of these pledges. I know who's right here… and you know who's right here." http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_spine/archive/... Who's a fibber?
Bronner completely rewrote the story at Adam's link to add new sources and to double down on the theme that Israel is howling with outrage that the Obama Administration won't acknowledge the "agreement" with the Bush Administration. Yet try as he might, Bronner can't come up with any US witness other than Elliott Abrams to confirm the agreement. Bronner also leaves out the fact that the Bush Administration and Condoleeza Rice herself have also publicly denied any such agreement in April of 2008 when Israel tried the exact same argument. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti... Israel laments that anyone could think that they have "cheated and dissembled."
Dare one hope that the Obama administration is serious this time? Maybe they have figured out that if the choice is clearly put to Americans, most will choose Obama over Netanyahu — even most Jews, I think.
Who cares about Osama bin Laden? He's irrelevant. The only people who think he's got something important to say are the MSM. Besides, the guy's dead, if not dying. I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories but this one sits well with me: OBL always remained a CIA agent. Nothing he's ever done has helped the Muslims, in fact, just brought more misery to them. Off topic, but has anyone heard of a bomb blast in Shinkiari, Pakistan in the news somewhere? I got family there and they reported a powerful bomb went off. I just find it so fishy that there wasn't any mention of it in any media, not even Pakistani one. Thing is, Shinkiair is home to a huge military base. So it happened right under the noses of the military, who's supposedly winning over the Taliban.
Wexler has a spin which worries me — he is caling for the policy to only apply to settlements outside the Wall.
Many people admit that the original bin Laden operations were US-sponsored (in Kosovo for instance) — they really only differ on when (if ever) it became 'blowback', i.e., uncontrollable. Some of us certainly think it is still US-controlled.
I wouldn't worry. It won't gain a shred of traction in the executive branch. Pres. Obama is clearly looking at the big picture. He cannot but see that the root of the problem is systemic Israeli belligerence. The colonies are its most visible and damaging manifestation, but their removal is only a prerequisite to a final-status agreement just and stable enough to meet US security objectives. I obviously don't know exactly what Pres. Obama is going to try to do, but I feel completely confident he won't be diverted from it by little word games from small minds.
Colin BrainMan Murray: "the root of the problem is systemic Israeli belligerence" Uh huh. The 2,000,000 Muslims slaughtered in the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait, massacres of tens of thousands by Assad in Syria, invasion and occupation of Lebanon by Syria, asassinations (succcessful and attempted) by Syria in neighboring Lebanon and Jordan, hundreds of Palestinean terrorist splinter groups slaughtering each other, Saudi repression, clitoridectomies, genocide in Darfur, suicide bombing in Pakistan, international pariah behavior in Iran, mass arrests of gays in Egypt, slavery, rape, honor killings, poverty alongside mind-boggling petro-wealth, more and more… …and Colin thinks that ISRAEL is the root of the problem. Listen to Obama. Face the truth. Arabs have to blame themselves for their own problems. Israel has nothing to do with Arab backwardness. Too hard for a dedicated bigot to accept?
You are hearing what you want to hear, instead of what is. I am not blaming Israel for all Arab problems, including the ones you list. I am only blaming Israel for the subset of problems that it does cause, particularly those that in turn cause problems for America. There is no blowback onto us from internal Arab problems that we have nothing to do with. Do you seriously think that the 9-11 hijackers committed suicide because of our disapproval of clitoridectomy? American neocons, Israel-firsters, and pro-colonization Zionists have involuntarily involved a mostly unwitting America citizenry into financial, political, and military subsidization of Israeli ethnic cleansing and colonization of Arab land. The multifaceted blowback from this constitutes a very serious and unnecessary threat to American national security. Asking for our help to defend Israel is one thing, taking from us without asking to give to thieving colonial religious lunatics is quite another. You extremists Zionists seem to think that the rest of us have to choose between you and the Arabs, and that of course we should choose you. That is comically arrogant and self-centered. We do not. I choose America, my country. We don't need you, and the fate of your country matter not a whit to America's future. The talk of America's perpetual and undying support is just that: talk. Do you foolishly take the words of politicians at face value? A genuine attitude adjustment will eventually be necessary for even defensive American support to remain a reality. I and many others are willing to support the defense and well-being of a truly democratic Israeli state within the 1967 borders, not because we owe you a damn thing, but because at present it is still the right thing to do. However, we are not interested in reaping what you sew either in the Occupied Palestinian Territories or in your perpetual hostility to your other neighbors.
I don't think I can accept Marty Peretz as a reliable judge of who "dissimulates or fibs."
Somehow it seems a bit paranoid to me to think that 9/11 was a US-controlled operation. You might as well argue that the Holocaust was a Zionist conspiracy to set the stage for the creation of a Jewish state.