Lost on the Roadmap

After reading this,

EU's Ashton 'deeply regrets' new settlement building

European Union Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton on Thursday criticized Israel for offering tenders this week for the construction of 1,213 new homes in east Jerusalem.  Ashton said in a statement that she "deeply regrets" moves to add 607 units in Pisgat Zeev and 606 units in Ramot.

..."During 2011 and 2012 the EU High Representative has expressed her profound disappointment on a number of occasions concerning the expansion of nearby Har Homa settlement. Together these developments continue the process of separating East Jerusalem from the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory," the statement added.

"Continuous expansion of settlements, wherever this takes place, further complicates ongoing diplomatic efforts to avoid deterioration in the prospects for a return to negotiations at this critical time," Ashton said.  "The EU has repeatedly urged the Government of Israel to immediately end all settlement activities in the West Bank, including in east Jerusalem, in line with its obligations under the Roadmap."

I was wondering, how many times has Lady Ashton similarly criticized PA infractions, violations and other naughty acts not in line with the Roadmap?

^

Obama: 'Settlements' vs. Pal. Terror (UPDATED)

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release September 4, 2009

Statement by the Press Secretary on Israeli Settlements

We regret the reports of Israel's plans to approve additional settlement construction. Continued settlement activity is inconsistent with Israel's commitment under the Roadmap.

As the President has said before, the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement expansion and we urge that it stop. We are working to create a climate in which negotiations can take place, and such actions make it harder to create such a climate.

We do appreciate Israel's stated intent to place limits on settlement activity and will continue to discuss this with the Israelis as these limitations are defined.

The U.S. commitment to Israel’s security is and will remain unshakeable. We believe it can best be achieved through comprehensive peace in the region, including a two-state solution with a Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel.

That is the ultimate goal to which the President is deeply and personally committed.

Our objective remains to resume meaningful negotiations as soon as possible in pursuit of this goal. We are working with all parties – Israelis, Palestinians, and Arab states -- on the steps they must take to achieve that objective.

The 'legitimacy'?

Is that worse than illegal?

When was the last time the White House condemned terror by Pals. which is also an "inconsistent commitment under the Roadmap"?

January 23, 2009:

He [Obama] asked for Saudi support for efforts to stop weapons smuggling into Gaza and expressed interest in continuing counter-terrorism cooperation.

and

April 9, 2009:

SUBJECT: Waiver and Certification of Statutory Provisions Regarding the Palestine Liberation Organization Office

Pursuant to the authority and conditions contained in Section 7034(b) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2009 (Div. H, Public Law 111 8), I hereby determine and certify that it is important to the national security interests of the United States to waive the provisions of Section 1003 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, Public Law 100-204.

This waiver shall be effective for a period of 6 months. You are hereby authorized and directed to transmit this determination to the Congress and to publish it in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

Not a very good record, eh?

Moral relativism? Preference for terror over Jewish residency in areas of their national patrimony, I'd say.

============

UPDATE

Looking around I found this example of Obama's thinking from May 2008:

Is Obama naïve enough to think that an extremist ideological organization like Hezbollah can be mollified with a less corrupt patronage system and some electoral reform? Does he really believe that Hezbollah is a normal social welfare agency seeking more government services for its followers?

...so I spoke with Obama Tuesday to ask him what he meant by all this. Right off the bat he reaffirmed that Hezbollah is “not a legitimate political party.” Instead, “It’s a destabilizing organization by any common-sense standard. This wouldn’t happen without the support of Iran and
Syria.”

...The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of
problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”

...he continued: “There are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms. We can strengthen those elements that are making practical calculations.” Obama doesn’t broadcast moral disgust when talking about terror groups, but he said that in some ways he’d be tougher than the Bush administration...

How a Diplomat Skirts

Last week, on December 6, there was an USINFO Webchat starring Thomas H. Goldberger, director of the Office of Israel and Palestinian Affairs in the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. The topic was the next steps after the Annapolis Conference on the Middle East.

Here's my question and the reply of Thomas Goldberger:-

Q [YMedad]: The Annapolis Declaration skirted the 14 objections that the previous Sharon Government of Israel insisted need be adopted so that the Road Map diplomacy proceed. As those 14 objections were ignored by the U.S. administration and, as we have been witness, the Road Map has entered basically a dead-end due to its inadequacies, how will peace be achieved unless Israel's security is to be endangered, again?

A [Thomas Goldberger]: The United States is well aware of the reservations Israel has made to the Roadmap. At the same time, we have agreed to Israel's request -- which the Palestinians also made -- that the Roadmap serves as the basis for the implementation of peace. The United States will assist both parties implementing the Roadmap.

Notice how he skirted the main issue?

What a diplomat!

P.S. I think I was the only pro-Israel participant out of maybe 40 people.

Two Ladies Talking

From Condi Rice's JTA interview:-

QUESTION: I would say even amongst people who are inclined to support a
two-state solution in the Jewish community, the biggest criticism we've been hearing, or concern about the upcoming conference, is that given the large gap
between Israeli and Palestinians' positions and expectations that there's a real fear that, like in 2000, some sort of -- the perception of a failed meeting actually runs a risk of launching a new wave of violence that would create a situation that's worse than the current status quo. What do you say to those people?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first, I've been out there. I've been talking to the parties a lot. I think their views of what Annapolis can do are converging. And I think this focuses much more now on the day after, as Foreign Minister Livni had called it, because the day after is really when you have to get down to the business of trying to come to an agreement.

They're not going to create the Palestinian state at Annapolis. They're not going to create it four days after Annapolis. That is work that has to be done in detailed, ongoing, continuous negotiations. And so Annapolis is for the parties to come together, to have the international community launch them, to have an opportunity for Prime Minister Blair to talk about what he is doing to build the capacity of Palestinians so that they could govern a state, I would hope for the Arabs to make clear that they are prepared to both support the
Palestinians and to reach out to the Israelis, and to have some confidence-building measures that are based on phase one obligations of the roadmap to show that this is all serious. I think that's where we are converging.

Now, there was an earlier time when there was a question about whether their joint document was going to try to have the basics of the deal. I think it's not surprising that when people recognize that there's going to be a day after, they start to focus on the day after, not the day of.

...QUESTION: One of those obligations is on -- the Palestinians cite often as the
settlement issue. And I wanted to know if -- have you -- what kind of efforts from the Israelis have you gotten on that issue and are you satisfied with Israel's cooperation?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, American -- the American position on this is clear, which is the roadmap position that settlement activity is not consistent with the roadmap. And what I've heard the -- but I -- but there are a lot of other elements of the roadmap as well, including for the Palestinians to dismantle the infrastructure of terror.

From Tzipi Livni's Knesset speech:-

...the talks being held today with them hold no immediate concessions. That was the condition for embarking on this dialogue. That was part of the basic understandings, and we are still making progress. I am not crazy about every word in the Roadmap, but I do think that its fundamental principle, that the way to a Palestinian state is through a war on terror, is the correct principle and it is important for us to insist on it every step of the way.

The Roadmap establishes the principle of the Palestinian obligation to fight terror and incitement, alongside Israel’s obligations, and only after fulfillment of this stage will there be a dialogue which will lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state according to the conditions of the permanent arrangement.

Israel has decided to conduct a dialogue alongside the implementation of the first stage of the Roadmap. After that, the condition for carrying out all the understandings reached in the dialogue will be the execution of all stages of the Roadmap, including fighting terror...

...Limor Livnat mentioned the question of leaving Gaza. I still think that the decision to get out of Gaza and the decision on disengagement was right, and it’s a good thing we got out of there. But as I said even then, and today I say it again, part of what we need to do is to try and reach an agreement, and not just to throw the key to the other side. Part of our duty is also to determine what will happen on the other side of the border, and if we reach understandings -that will be good. And if we don’t reach understandings, then we certainly won’t move forward with implementation.

If anyone thinks that inaction represents Israel’s best interests, he is wrong on every count. At the moment, the next step is entering a dialogue. Annapolis, I’m sorry to say, has become, for various reasons, the main event. The big drama. It’s not the drama.

...All issues must be placed on the table, and we need to demand and insist on everything we require, for many reasons including the situation today in the Palestinian Authority territories and in the entire Middle East.

It’s true that we are starting the dialogue simultaneously with the implementation of the first stage of the Roadmap. However, it’s a fact that we stipulated that there must be full implementation of the Roadmap before Israel takes the steps it will have to take to enable the creation of a Palestinian state.

To calm the worriers - up until Annapolis and at Annapolis, the idea is to start a process, and not to arrive there with understandings on the core issues of the conflict.

Rice Actually Being Robust

As I am subscribed to the State Department list, I just received the text of Secretary Condoleezza Rice's interview yesterday with Nadia Bilbassy-Charters of Al Arabiya.

Some questions (in italics) and her responses:-

QUESTION: As you head into the region to convene this trilateral meeting between President Abbas and the Israeli Prime Minister, we heard that a senior U.S. official has given a letter to President Abbas to say that the U.S. would
not recognize the unity government even if they recognize or they abide by the
Quartet conditions if Hamas is part of it. Is this the case?

SECRETARY RICE: Oh, we have given no such letter to President Abbas. In
fact, we have said that we will wait until the government is formed and then
we'll make a decision about how to deal with that government. We have made
clear that the Quartet principles continue for the United States, and indeed
continue now for the Quartet, to be the basis on which we would judge any
government. But we are waiting to see when the government is formed. There isn't a
government yet, and so I don't think we want to be in a position of making a
decision about it before it's actually formed.

QUESTION: That's true. We don't have a government, but we have the blueprint
for a government. We know how many ministers are going to be in the
government. We know who's going to be from Hamas and Fatah and independent.
So if they implicitly recognize Israel, are you going to negotiate with this government?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think it's extremely important that these principles,
which are not principles just for the sake of principles, but when you think
about it, if you are going to have a two-state solution you have to recognize
the right of the other party to exist. If you are going to have negotiations
for peace, you have to renounce violence. If you are going to be trusted with
agreements, you have to honor past agreements. And so that's why the Quartet
principles are there.

QUESTION: Now you are going to convene this meeting. What's going to be on
the agenda? I mean, behind the niceties and tying to restart the peace
process, what the actual agenda is going to look like?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I'm going to start by asking the parties what they
think is on the agenda. It's been a long time since they've talked about broad
issues. We have a roadmap and everyone needs to fulfill the conditions of the
roadmap. But at the end of the roadmap, there is a destination called the
Palestinian state, and I think it makes sense to begin to talk about how you
get to that destination, what the Palestinian state will look like, what has to
be achieved in order to get to a Palestinian state. And I hope that the agenda
will include some of that discussion, but we're going to take it one step at a
time.

It's important for me to recognize that Prime Minister Olmert and President
Abbas have also established a bilateral channel in which they have made
progress, and I hope that I can bring some energy, perhaps some ideas to get
the parties talking about these issues. But the one thing that I don't want to
do is to make this an American initiative, and so I hope that eventually the
conversation will be joined by particularly the regional states because the
Arab states have an important role to play in bringing about a Palestinian
state.

QUESTION: Are we expecting that the final status issues -- Jerusalem, the
refugees, the border, the settlements -- are we likely to put them on the table
at least to get the parties talking about it?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, all these issues, of course, are contained in the
roadmap and at some point in time they're all issues that have to be addressed
if there's going to be a Palestinian state. We also have to be able to address
capacity of the Palestinian state to govern. We have to be able to address
what the international community can do to support the development of a
Palestinian state. We have to talk about what kind of security arrangements
can assure both Israelis and Palestinians that they can indeed live together in
peace.

QUESTION: What do you expect? I mean when you say, we have to wait for this
formation of this government? Do you want them to spell out what the Quartet
wants, or are you willing to accept that if they say we recognize, we respect
all the previous agreement, that would be good enough to start the process?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, one of the elements is to adhere to the existing
agreements. That's an important element. But it is also important to
recognize that you have to renounce violence. You can't have it both ways.
You can't say that you're going to be part of a democracy and be part of a
peace process but keep an option on violence.

But How Can You Tell the Difference?

Foreign Minister Tzippi Livni is asked at today's press conference:-

Could you tell us if you are for or against negotiations with the Palestinians subject to implementation of the phases of the Roadmap?
FM Livni: I believe in creating a very clear distinction between moderate and extremist groups in the Palestinian Authority, and these two issues must run in parallel. On the one hand, it is important and advisable to continue Israeli and international pressure on the Authority. We saw this in the Quartet's recent announcement that the terms demanded by the international community from every Palestinian government must remain intact, and this pressure will continue. On the other hand we have to create a process with the moderate group so as to ascertain what can be achieved, enabling Israel to present its demands. These should include security and other needs which are linked to the progress in any peace process.

I am talking of complete separation between discussion or dialogue on the one hand, and authorization and implementation on the other. The Roadmap speaks of authorization and implementation in phases, the first of which, of course, is the requirement to wage war on terror and the disarmament of the terrorist organizations. This does not prevent us from meeting and attempting to ascertain what each party would like to see in the future. But we must distinguish between discussions, concessions, and actual implementation. That is why I feel it is important to progress with the discussions while ensuring that the implementation on the ground will be in accordance with the principles laid down in the Roadmap, which, in the first phase, express Israel's security requirements.