State Department Loses Diplomatic Points

As a friend with a background in international law wrote on the matter of the problem Arabs and the media have with Jewish residency in Yesha, which I redacted -

They make unprecedented demands on the issue of the Jewish communities so as to avoid negotiations, and this government made an unprecedented concession (a 10 month freeze) in order to try to lure them back to the talks. After the Israeli concession they still refused to talk, so how can they presume to be able to come back and demand further unilateral concessions from the Israelis on the issue. Whatever concerns the Arabs have about the communities can be resolved easily by getting serious about negotiations.

and as two others noted:

the issue of "settlements" was part of final status negotiations and not a precondition for talks. Israel’s record proves that it has made and kept peace deals notwithstanding settlement construction—for instance, Israel has a peace deal with Egypt notwithstanding settlements in the Sinai prior to that deal. The Palestinian record, by contrast, shows that they have not kept previous deals to end terrorism and resolve all differences at the negotiating table. Whereas Israel never agreed to stop financial incentives in settlements, the Palestinians did agree to negotiations without preconditions on settlements. Anyone serious about peace has to press the Palestinians to live up to their previous commitments on "settlements".

now consider this palabra from the State Department's
Daily Press Briefing of January 31, 2012 -

QUESTION: ...The Israeli Government has announced plans to actually encourage settlers to move into the West Bank and to begin – and also to begin a process that would – that could end up in legalizing what are now illegal outposts. I’m assuming that your position on both of these things hasn’t changed, so I’m wondering --


MR. TONER: You assume correctly.


QUESTION: Yeah.


MR. TONER: You know we’ve said multiple times --


QUESTION: What is it – can you maybe make it a little bit more clear, because it seems to be apparent that the Israelis, or at least Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government, don’t understand exactly what it is that you, as their prime benefactor and large – huge ally, want from them.


MR. TONER: Well, Matt, we’ve said this many times from this podium and from elsewhere that we view any move that would jeopardize getting these two parties back to the negotiating table, and indeed, we’ve obviously seen them back – face-to-face negotiations over the past couple of weeks – that we find those unconstructive and unhelpful.


QUESTION: And that would include what they have announced today?


MR. TONER: Yes, that would include that.


QUESTION: All right. So what is the consequence, then, for Israel for them continuing to defy – not only defy but really to do – not just to say no, we don’t agree with that, but then to actually actively -


MR. TONER: Well, again --


QUESTION: -- oppose or actively take active steps that fly in the face of what you say is helpful?


MR. TONER: Well, again, we’re seeking clarity on what is actually being proposed here. We did have an initial round of direct talks in Jordan. Those talks have ended, but they did show signs of progress and we certainly want to see them continue. And these kinds of actions don’t help create the kind of atmosphere that are conducive to these talks continuing.


Now, David Hale is in the region. He’s going to have meetings in Amman as well as Jerusalem and Ramallah, and he’ll be back in Washington later this week. But – obviously, he’s there in his capacity, but also I think he’ll make some of these concerns – convey them to the Israeli Government.


QUESTION: Well, these concerns have been conveyed over and over and over to the Israelis. What is the consequence for them continuing to do this?


MR. TONER: Well, again, this is about getting them back to the negotiating table. And what we make clear is that whenever these kinds of actions take place, that they hamper that process.


QUESTION: So there is no consequence at all?


MR. TONER: Well, again, it’s not about carrots and sticks. What it’s about is trying to encourage these parties to get back to the negotiating table.


QUESTION: Why not? It’s about carrots and sticks everywhere else in the world. Why isn’t it about carrots and sticks here?


MR. TONER: In this case, it’s in both their --


QUESTION: What are you doing --


MR. TONER: -- it’s in both parties’ best interests to continue negotiations towards a comprehensive settlement.


QUESTION: But the actions of at least – one could argue the actions of both parties, but in this series of questions, which is about the announcements by the Israeli Government --


MR. TONER: Right.


QUESTION: -- they are not acting in the best interests of that, according to you.


MR. TONER: Again --


QUESTION: Correct? So what is the consequence of that? The consequence is they don’t get back to talks that they apparently don’t seem to want?


MR. TONER: Well, again, you’ll have to ask the Israeli Government what their intent is here. But you’re absolutely right that this has to be something that both sides want to pursue and to do so in a meaningful and committed fashion. And again, we are very outspoken when we see actions by either side that we believe hampers the chance for these parties to get back into direct negotiations. It’s certainly – as we’ve said many times, it’s in both of their interests to be in direct negotiations.


QUESTION: All right. Two more very quick ones --


MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.


QUESTION: -- and then I’m done. You talk about meaningful and committed fashion. Are the actions of the Israeli Government something that you would consider meaningful and committed to be – is what they’re doing, is that something that you consider to be acting in a meaningful and – now I’ve forgotten the other word --


MR. TONER: That’s okay.


QUESTION: Committed.


QUESTION: -- and committed fashion?


MR. TONER: Thanks, Andy. Again, I think I’ve been very clear that actions by either side that we view as unconstructive to the process --


QUESTION: So they are not acting in a meaningful and committed fashion?


MR. TONER: Well, again, we have had talks in Jordan over the past few weeks that we believe offered a good start. We want to see those talks continue. David Hale is in the region. He’s consulting with all sides as well as the Jordanians.


QUESTION: Mark, that’s a great answer to a question, but it’s not the question I asked. Is Israel asking in a meaningful – acting in a meaningful and committed fashion toward getting a peace – towards encouraging these talks?


MR. TONER: Again, we’ve said that these kinds of actions are not constructive.


QUESTION: I think it’s a yes-or-no question.


MR. TONER: And I’m going to answer you the way I’m answering you, which is that it’s not constructive.


QUESTION: It’s not constructive, all right. And then the last one is just Hale – he is where at the moment right now?


MR. TONER: That is a good question. I believe he’s in Amman today.


QUESTION: Okay. And was he aware – was he aware of this before he went or --


MR. TONER: I don’t know. I haven’t – I didn’t talk to him.


QUESTION: Did this come out as a complete surprise to you guys?


MR. TONER: I do not know whether he was aware of it or not.


QUESTION: What about the rest of the building?


MR. TONER: Again, I believe that we were – again, I’m not going to get into what we may or may not have known. What we’re seeing here is actions that we believe aren’t constructive.


QUESTION: Mark, just a --


MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure, Said.


QUESTION: -- quick follow-up on this. Now, you keep saying that the path to statehood is through direct negotiations. Seeing how the settlement processing increased by 20 percent in 2011 and with today’s announcement, and in fact, since the beginning of this month we are likely to see an increase if they continue at this pace – like a 40 percent increase in settlement activities. So what incentive is there for the Palestinians to go into these negotiations to sort of get a state that is viable – as you keep saying – that is viable and contiguous and independent and sovereign?


MR. TONER: Well, the motivation should be clear, and that is the sooner they sit down with Israel and work through these issues in a comprehensive fashion so that we can get a clear way forward in terms of borders, then the sooner they have that comprehensive settlement and that statehood that they so desire.


QUESTION: But isn’t there a pattern that every time there is some sort of a negotiation and, in fact, a visit by a high-level U.S. official and so on to Israel, that the Israelis always counter by announcing a new settlement and increase the settlements and so on?


MR. TONER: Again, you’re asking me to speak to the motivations behind this decision. I don’t know.


QUESTION: Okay. So you talk about incentives for the Palestinians, but do you have any kind of disincentive for the increased Israeli settlement activities?


MR. TONER: Well, we’ve always been clear that – and Israelis themselves have commented that the status quo is unsustainable. So that’s --


QUESTION: So then the expression of anger and perhaps a little pouting, there is nothing that you can do?


MR. TONER: I disagree. David Hale is right now in the region. He is consulting with our partners as well as the parties. And we’re committed to getting them back into direct negotiations.


QUESTION: Can you tell us the last time that your position that was made very clearly to the Israelis did have an impact on stemming the settlement activities?


MR. TONER: Again, we are very outspoken when we see these kinds of actions by either side. We convey those to the Israelis, but you’re asking me to --


QUESTION: But you expressed a little recollection on that --


MR. TONER: -- elaborate on some kind of actions that I can’t.


QUESTION: In the last 12 months, you have not been able to sort of dissuade the Israelis from settlement activities. Are you aware of any time that you were able to persuade them?


MR. TONER: Again, Said, it is a question better directed to the Israeli Government. What we’re trying to do without preconditions, we’re trying to get the parties back to the negotiating table, and we’ve had a good start.

Amazing, no?

^