Did Israel And Bush Admin Have “Understanding” On Settlements? Even Bushies Say No.
With the Obama administration slowly wheeling into action to confront the Israel-Arab conflict, a key assertion made by some on the right is that the Bush administration and Israel reached an “understanding” by which Israel could proceed with certain types of settlement expansion.
The only problem with this assertion is that even Bush administration officials say it’s false.
This claim is important because it undercuts the Obama administration’s current approach to the region, which is partly to demand of Israel that settlements cease in all forms. It allows people on the right, as well as some senior Israeli officials, to complicate current diplomacy by portraying this as an abandonment of previous United States promises to Israel.
This assertion was made most recently by Elliott Abrams, who handled Mideast affairs at the National Security Council throughout the Bush years. “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,” Abrams wrote the other day in an Op ed piece that’s being heavily debated in diplomatic circles.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently rebutted this general claim, saying that the Bush administration and Israel reached “no informal or oral enforceable agreements” about settlements. So who’s right? Well, former Bush administration officials seem to side with Hillary.
In an April 24, 2008 article in the Washington Post, Bush White House spokesperson Gordon Johndroe flatly denied any agreement. “There is no understanding,” he said.
In that same article, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, too, denied any such understanding. “I never agreed to it,” he said.
Daniel Kurtzer, the U.S. ambassador to Israel from 2001-2005, has also denied any such arrangement, claiming that “there was no such understanding.”
This claim of an “understanding” between the Bush administration officials and Israel over settlements will likely continue to bedevil this process as it unfolds. So it’s worth keeping in mind that multiple Bush officials say it never happened.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
In Byzantine world of the late Bush Administration, I expect that such an undertanding was reached with the Vice-President’s office, as Elliot Abrahms worked for VP Cheney and is a neo-con of long lineage, including a history of law breaking. The ends justify the means.
Greg: A Wikipedia search on Eliot Abrams will tell one how effectively he watched out for Israel’s interests in succession of a Republican held White House. So, it is reasonable to assume that the settlers enjoyed some protection on their expansion program here in the US.
Sorry Greg: not well phrased. Eliot Abrams served in the White House for 3 Republican President. He managed the Israel file. His sister lives in Israel and is also well connnected at that end. Dual US-Israel citizenship must place a atrain on loyalties, n’est pas?
Rickster, Alan, Thanks to both of you, these are interesting points about how murky this really is. We’re hoping to dig into it further. Any other insights or questions or suggestions would be appreciated…
Oh, what fun! Another assignment for our Department of Anal-Retentive Parsing, Division of Non-Denial Denials.
The informal, oral agreements between Sharon and Bush are not enforceable.
I never agreed to those agreements between Sharon and Bush.
Those agreements between Sharon and Bush are not quite identical to what you just described.
BTW, what Rickster said sounds eminently plausible.
Abrams himself published an op-ed in the editorial pages of the Washington Post on April 8th in which Abrams not only failed to assert the existence of a secret agreement but said the following with regard “natural growth” of settlements:
“For the past five years, Israel’s government has largely adhered to guidelines that were discussed with the United States but never formally adopted: that there would be no new settlements, no financial incentives for Israelis to move to settlements and no new construction except in already built-up areas.”
Given that Abrams op-ed was arguing against a U.S. policy prohibiting natural growth of settlements, Abrams failure to mention any secret agreement permitting natural growth and instead insist that the issue of natural growth was merely “discussed” between the U.S. and Israel is inexplicable. Furthermore, isn’t Abrams’ concession in his April 8th op-ed that Israel had not in fact limited itself to “natural growth” a fact that severely undercuts Israeli claims that such an agreement exists between the U.S. and Israel?
By late May Abrams was being quoted in the Washington Post as saying there was “something of an agreement” regarding natural growth.
Abrams’ shifting and exceedingly equivocal assertion of a secret agreement would appear an insufficient basis to reject the denial of every other Bush and Obama admin. official. I think Abrams needs to explain why he never mentioned a secret agreement in his April 8th op-ed and what he meant when he said an agreement regarding natural growth was “never formally adopted.”
I fail to see how it would matter. Even if you accept Israel’s version, the facts show that they failed to abide by it, either.
thomas c – Very informative post. Thankyou. And jzap nails the language tricks in here nicely. The denials from Bush admin officials have no credibility given past experience and given the obvious desireability (from their viewpoint) of keeping such tacit agreements under cover then and now.