CNN Carries An Untruth

IsraellyCool alerted us to a CNN story about the timeline of the 1978 Camp David peace accords between Israel and Egypt that claims that the Camp David Accords called for an end to Israeli settlements in the West Bank. And that "that part about the settlements and the transition is a bold-faced lie." 

How do we know?

Well, first of all, review the text.  The term "settlements" doesn't even appear.

And secondly, here is from Khaled Elgindy's Oslo and the Settlements: How the Oslo Accords Enabled Continued Settlement Growth.  He was a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy. He previously served with the Negotiations Support Unit in Ramallah as an advisor to the Palestinian leadership on permanent status negotiations with Israel (2004 –2009).

...the Oslo Accords, including the 1993 Declaration of Principles (“DOP”) and the 1995 Interim Agreement as well as subsequent agreements and protocols, did not deal directly with the issue of Israeli settlements, either with regard to their legal status (i.e., under international humanitarian law) or in terms of limiting their continued expansion.

...Oslo’s failure to bring about a genuine settlement freeze led to unprecedented settlement growth and severely undermined prospects for a negotiated two-state solution...we can identify at least three fundamental flaws in Oslo’s handling of Israeli settlements, which have had far-reaching implications:

...First and most obviously, the Oslo Accords failed to include an explicit reference to ending (or even limiting) Israeli settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Indeed, while Palestinians frequently cite continued settlement activity as a “violation of Oslo,” successive Israeli governments have assiduously pointed out that Oslo contains no reference to a settlement freeze as such...

That seems fairly clear so how did CNN flub it?

...the Oslo Accords deferred any resolution of the settlements, Jerusalem and other core issues of the conflict for a period of several years. Article V of the DOP (reiterated in Article XVII (1(a)) of the Interim Agreement) provided for a five year “transitional period” during which negotiations would take place on all remaining so-called “permanent status” issues, including Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders and other bilateral matters...not only did Israel continue to expand settlements throughout the interim period, the indefinite postponement of a permanent status agreement meant it would continue doing so indefinitely.

...Another problematic aspect of the Accords is their (and by extension, the PLO’s) implicit acceptance of Israeli definitions of key terms, including “settlements”, “West Bank” and “Jerusalem”. Article XII(5) of the Interim Agreement states:

For the purpose of this Agreement, “the Settlements” means, in the West Bank the settlements in Area C; and in the Gaza Strip – the Gush Katif and Erez settlement areas, as well as the other settlements in the Gaza Strip, as shown on attached map No. 2.

Meanwhile, Article XI(3)(c) defined “Area C” as “areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B… except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations…” [i.e., settlements and Jerusalem].

In addition, although the terms “West Bank” and “Jerusalem” were not expressly defined, various references throughout the agreement to “the Palestinian people of the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip” (Preamble, Article III(3), Article IV) make clear that these constitute separate and distinct geographic designations. In other words, whereas Palestinians (and international law) consider East Jerusalem an integral part of the West Bank, the Oslo agreements treat “Jerusalem” and “West Bank” as distinct and mutually exclusive geographic entities, in conformity with standard Israeli definitions and usage.

This has far reaching implications indeed. By lending de facto recognition to Israeli-defined “Jerusalem”, including the 70 square kilometers of the West Bank annexed by Israel in 1967 to unilaterally expand the Jerusalem municipality, both Oslo and its PLO negotiators confer a degree of legitimacy to Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem, thereby undermining the legal basis for territorial negotiations—the 1967 line—as well as Palestinian claims to Jerusalem. In practical terms, it meant that the dozen or so settlements located within Israeli-defined municipal Jerusalem, at the time comprising 54% of the settler population, were not counted as settlements under Oslo. More importantly, this state of affairs applies not only to the interim period, but also to the Oslo-defined future permanent status negotiations. In other words, when it came time to negotiate the permanent fate of the settlements, Israel could claim (and indeed has done so consistently) that Jewish “neighborhoods” within Israeli municipal Jerusalem were simply not on the table as they are not “settlements”...

More here and also here.

^

Is Netanyahu Reinstating a "Settlement Freeze"?

The news:

'Netanyahu orders freeze of West Bank settlement tenders'

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has ordered a freeze in tenders for West Bank settlement construction amid a US push to renew the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Army Radio reported Tuesday.

Netanyahu reportedly gave the order in a meeting with Housing and Construction Minister Uri Ariel (Bayit Yehudi).

The reaction:

UPDATE

Netanyahu promised Kerry to 'rein in' settlement construction until mid-June

According to senior Israeli officials, Netanyahu pledged to restrain planning and construction in West Bank, East Jerusalem, in light of U.S. efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian negotiations...A senior U.S. administration official declined to confirm reports that Netanyahu committed to "rein in" construction, yet said that the reason there is no new construction has to do with facts on the ground: "The fact is that since Obama's visit there are no new announcements and everything is quiet on the ground when it comes to settlement construction," he said. "Everyone is on their best behavior and don’t want to be blamed for preventing the peace talks from being re-launched."

^

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?

^

Problems with Pal. Propagandists

In response to this article, Palestinians can't bypass Israel, Oslo accords, I found this comment:

It is not unexpected to find distortions and half-truths in the above piece written by a fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at The Heritage Foundation. Let me just give two examples:

About the Oslo Accords, he wrote: "Mahmoud Abbas essentially turned his back on the 1993 Oslo peace accord with Israel." The truth is that the Oslo Accords, specifically Oslo II, explicitly prohibited any change in the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Instead, in violation of the accords, the building of settlements continued and Jewish settlers continued to move to the West Bank. Furthermore, bypass roads were built to connect these settlements.

He also wrote: "Israel agreed to an unprecedented 10-month halt on building settlements in the West Bank." The writer failed to mention that the 10-month housing freeze did not include East Jerusalem, which under international law is part of the West Bank. Of course, "international law and Israel" are an oxymoron.

Medhat Credi
Elmsford

Dear Medhat:

a) the Oslo Accords expressly excluded any reference to "settlements".

Here's an Arab source:

Oslo made no mention of a settlement freeze—formal or otherwise—and, in fact, deferred the settlement issue altogether until so-called “permanent status” negotiations to be held in five years...Notably, the Oslo Accords, including the 1993 Declaration of Principles (“DOP”) and the 1995 Interim Agreement as well as subsequent agreements and protocols, did not deal directly with the issue of Israeli settlements, either with regard to their legal status (i.e., under international humanitarian law) or in terms of limiting their continued expansion.

b) as for Bibi's non-inclusion of "East Jerusalem", well, again, with the Pals. demanding all-or-nothing, despite they being the aggressors since 1920, the practicers of terror since 1920 and those who sought the thwart international agreements as regards the "reconstitution of the Jewish national home" since 1922, when that right was recognized and formalized by the League of Nations, they will get nothing.

The problem with Arab propagandists is:

- they lie

- they prevaricate

- they tell only a part of the story

- they hide what is unpleasant

- they subvert language

- they cannot produce substantiated claims

and more.

^
^

Copycats

If you go here, you'll see one of the many ads the Yesha Council published leading up to the anti-freeze decision.

It's theme was based on quotations from ministers in the immediate past that the freeze was temporary and woul dnever be renewed.

Well, see who is copying that:

Yep, Peace Now.

They are trying to pressure the Labour Party to bolt the government on the same freeze issue and are using the same theme: quotations by ministers in favor of leaving if their policies are unachieved.

^

For the Record: Crowley on Jewish Communities, Etc.

From his press conference:

...And finally, just to kind of review where we were yesterday, I know we had a briefing here and then had a briefing in New York. But as we did acknowledge yesterday regarding the Middle East, we have determined that a moratorium extension will not at this time provide the best basis for resuming direct negotiations. In the coming days and weeks, we will engage with both sides on the core substantive issues at stake in this conflict and with the Arab states and other international partners on creating a firm basis to work toward our shared goal of a framework agreement on all permanent status issues, a goal to which we and the parties remain committed.

We will consult with the parties in the coming days as we move forward. And as we proceed, our position on settlements has not and will not change. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements, and we will continue to express that position.

We indicated that we – we’ll be having meetings and contacts with both the Israelis and the Palestinians in the coming day – days. Senator Mitchell will travel back to the region next week to consult both with the parties and also with other regional leaders.

QUESTION: So there are meetings both here at State and in the region next week?

MR. CROWLEY: We are and will remain in contact with the Israelis and Palestinians through this week. George Mitchell will be in the region next week. I don’t have particular days yet, anticipating your question. When we have more clarity on exactly where he’ll go, when, we’ll let you know.

QUESTION: This looks like a major step back from September 1st. It looks as if now everything is going back into indirect talks, no more face-to-face talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Some are even suggesting that this is a major failure for the Obama Administration. What’s your response?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, not at all. Let me work from back to front. We continue to pursue a framework agreement on the permanent status issues. We continue to believe that in order to resolve those core issues, direct negotiations will be required. And we will be consulting with the parties on the best way to achieve that shared goal. I would describe this as a change in tactics, not a change in strategy. It’s not a change in our objectives at all. To some extent, in our view after intensive discussions with the Israelis over a couple of weeks at the request of the Palestinians, we thought that this had, in a sense, become an end in itself rather than a means to an end. So we are shifting to a different path and we’ll be consulting with the parties in the coming days on how to move forward.

QUESTION: What is the different path?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we’re going to focus on the substance and to try to begin to make progress on the core issues themselves. And we think that will create the kind of momentum that we need to see – to get to sustained and meaningful negotiations.

QUESTION: So basically you’re going to ask the Palestinians next week to give up their own demands for freezing settlements and say, "Let’s go directly to the core issues."

MR. CROWLEY: Well, again –

QUESTION: That’s the Plan B.

MR. CROWLEY: We’ve had a very clear position all along that the parties should get into direct negotiations. That remains our point of view. The real issue is how to both achieve that and then make progress. We’re – so we’re just – we’re simply acknowledging that after intensive effort, the moratorium was not the best basis to move forward and, in essence, we’re shifting gears.

QUESTION: So are you looking for other confidence-building measures other than freezing settlements? Is that what you’re going to look for next week when you meet with the Palestinians and Israelis?

MR. CROWLEY: No, we’re looking to find a way to make progress on the core issues, to move towards that framework agreement and move toward the point where we end the conflict once and for all. So in other words, we’re talking about how do we get from here to there. We had pursued the concept of a renewal of a moratorium at the behest of the Palestinian delegation, and after intensive effort we’ve come to the conclusion that at this time that’s not the best way to proceed.

QUESTION: Next week will there be three-way talks? Will there be talks between the Israelis, the Palestinians, and the U.S. together in the same room? It doesn’t look like it. You’re just going to meet separately? It will be indirect proximity talks.

MR. CROWLEY: Again, George will be in the region next week. I’ll be able to describe where he’ll go and who he’ll see and in what form a little bit later.

QUESTION: Will there be meetings in Washington?

MR. CROWLEY: Right now, I’m not anticipating that we would have Israelis and the Palestinians in the same room at this time.

QUESTION: But if you’re saying the moratorium is not the best way to advance the peace talk and the same time you’re saying that you’re still adamant that the settlement issue is of major concern and you consider them illegitimate, isn’t that contradictory in terms? I mean, simply this position?

MR. CROWLEY: No, I mean, we have always supported direct negotiations as the only means to reach an agreement and, through an agreement, end the conflict. That remains our view. There was considerable thought given to moratorium as being a mechanism by which we could make the kind of progress we’re looking for and, at this point after an intensive effort, we’ve concluded that that particular course is just simply not going to bear fruit at this time and we’re going to move in a different direction.

QUESTION: So can you give us an idea what the other alternatives, I mean, if this is – if this path has been blocked and is not working. In the scope of thinking and new ideas that’s been thrown around, what other alternatives that you think you can pursue? How can you move the Palestinians from a position of saying, "We’re not going to negotiate unless you freeze the settlements," to say, "Now you have to overlook that because we’re looking in different direction now"? How can you –

MR. CROWLEY: We’re not looking at – we’re not overlooking anything. In other words, the core issues remain at the heart of this effort. We are going to shift the discussion and begin to focus intensively on the core issues and see if we can make progress on the substance itself. And we’ll be looking to see if these discussions and this effort creates the momentum that we would expect. Ultimately, we’ll have to move back into direct negotiations at some point.

QUESTION: Are you still giving incentives to the Israelis? That package of incentives is still on the table for the Israelis to take? The package of incentives that you gave – still there?

MR. CROWLEY: That is not under discussion at this time.

QUESTION: It’s not under discussion at this time?

QUESTION: Has it been withdrawn?

QUESTION: But it’s not been withdrawn, yeah.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, we are no longer – at this time we are not pursuing a settlement moratorium, renewal of the settlement moratorium. We’re moving in a different direction and that package is not currently under discussion.

QUESTION: Should the IDF then assume that it’s not going to get the 20 fighter jets?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we remain committed to Israel’s security, but that – those discussions will occur in a different context.

QUESTION: Did you rule out giving the Israel’s the F-35 fighter jets because –

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I – put it this way, I will rule in that we will continue to work with Israel as a friend and ally on its security requirements. We have done that over decades and that’s not going to change.

QUESTION: Can I ask you does the U.S. know yet how it plans to get the Israelis – I’m sorry, not the Israelis, the Palestinians to agree to any future talks? They’ve been pretty firm on holding that they’d like to see the settlement freeze before resuming any sort of negotiations.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we had to – Daniel Rubinstein in Jerusalem had two meetings with – well, all right. Daniel Rubinstein who is in Jerusalem had two meetings yesterday with President Abbas and we will continue our discussions with the Palestinians. And as we said, George Mitchell will be in the region next week.

QUESTION: As a result of those two meetings, did your consul general get any sense that the Palestinians are willing to move forward on talks without that settlement freeze as a prerequisite?

MR. CROWLEY: Again, we are explaining where we are and explaining – and also seeking Palestinian views on the best path forward.

QUESTION: I mean, take us – the next step. Are the Palestinians willing to move forward, based on your conversations with them?

MR. CROWLEY: Again, we’re having discussions with both sides, and we’ll just leave it there.
QUESTION: P.J., just to understand you clearly you’re saying that that package was contingent upon the Israelis agreeing to a settlement freeze and that that did not happen so the package is no longer --

MR. CROWLEY: We are – at this time, we are not pursuing a settlement moratorium, and we’re not pursuing that kind of discussion with the Israelis.

QUESTION: Okay. The spokesperson for the European Union yesterday said that the settlements were illegitimate and an obstacle to peace. Would you say the same thing?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, this is a concern, obviously for both the Israelis and the Palestinians. As we’ve made clear, both parties have responsibilities here. Both parties need to avoid unilateral actions that undermine trust and do impede the process. Our position on settlements is clear. I just reiterated it again. We’ll continue to express that view, but we are focused here on how can we get the parties to begin to work on the substance, and through that, move this effort forward.

QUESTION: Okay. Yesterday, just to follow up, a quick follow up --

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Yesterday you said or someone said that we will look for different ways to reignite basically – I mean I’m paraphrasing here – to revitalize the talks. Can you share with us what are these things of how --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, that’s the fundamental purpose of the contacts we’ve had over the last few days and the contacts we’ll have in the coming days, what is the best path forward, how can we begin to actually address the substance, the core issues inside this process. And we’re looking for ways to create forward movement and momentum. We had viewed the moratorium as one way to achieve that. We don’t think that’s going to bear fruit at this time, and we’re moving in a different direction to achieve the same objective.

QUESTION: And one last thing. You would not endorse a Palestinian effort to declare a state, I mean, or have --

MR. CROWLEY: Our view on that is not changed. Ultimately, again, to end the conflict you need an agreement. To get to an agreement you’re going to have to have direct negotiations. We continue to believe that is the only mechanism through which we achieve success. And we believe that bringing this issues to an international forum will be a distraction and will just add complexity to an already difficult circumstance.

QUESTION: So then how do you persuade President Abbas to stop his efforts to get countries in Latin America, possibly in Europe as well, from not recognizing a Palestinian state with (inaudible) borders.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, all I can tell you is President Abbas is very familiar with our position.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. going to take any measures against countries that recognizes a Palestinian State in a unilateral way?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, again, countries have the right to set their own polices. We believe strongly that as this moves forward we’re going to need international support for this effort. And that’s why we’ve worked effectively with the Quartet and others to support this process. This is why in addition to George Mitchell talking to the parties next week he’ll be talking to others in the region. So we want to have as much international support for this process as possible, and we continue to believe that international support for other avenues is ultimately a distraction.

QUESTION: Are you --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) for this direction – you didn’t really say the direction you’re going.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, no. There’s a clear plan for this direction, Lach.


QUESTION: You have a plan?


MR. CROWLEY: No. I mean we think we have the right plan. We think we have the right strategy. We are just adapting the tactics in support of that strategy.

QUESTION: Sorry. What’s the plan again?

MR. CROWLEY: Well --

QUESTION: Well, you’ve described it (inaudible) plan --

MR. CROWLEY: Thanks, Lach.

QUESTION: And now you’re saying you’re talking to the others about consulting with the parties on what the new path or plan will be. But – so --

MR. CROWLEY: Again, I mean, I can’t be more clear in saying that our – it is our belief at some point in this process the parties will have to return to direct negotiations. We don’t see an alternative to be able to resolve the core issues, get to a framework agreement, and ultimately get to a final agreement that ends the conflict once and for all. So at some point in time, we want to see a resumption of direct negotiations. What we’re talking about now is what is the means to get to that point. We try one avenue. That avenue has not borne fruit and now we’re pursuing a different avenue, but the destination is still the same.

QUESTION: Okay. What’s the avenue then? If we don’t ask about the plan, what about the avenue. What’s – I mean you seem to be leaving a gap here as to how you get from here to there.


MR. CROWLEY: That’s what we’re trying to figure out.


QUESTION: What is – you don’t know what the avenue is.

QUESTION: You’re not having --

MR. CROWLEY: No, no, no. I mean we – put it this way: There is a path forward. The real question is can the parties summon the political will to move down that road. And we understand that there are different political challenges on both sides. At the heart of this, this is not a substantive challenge. It is a political challenge, and for a combination of regions – reasons, the politics on both sides did not actually enable us to move forward along a path and through a settlement moratorium. So we are adapting our approach, but we’re not adapting our strategy. Ultimately, the parties themselves have to sit down together, work through the core issues. The core issues are very well known. Actually, the potential solutions are already outlined through previous efforts. We just have to figure out what combination works most effectively to get to the kind of sustained, meaningful dialogue that is required to get to a framework agreement, and ultimately to achieve peace in the region.

QUESTION: Given that the moratorium extension failed, do you believe that Netanyahu and his team were negotiating in good faith --

MR. CROWLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: -- in the last three weeks?

MR. CROWLEY: Yes. We believe that both sides are committed to this process, they want the United States to continue our involvement in this process, and we reached an impasse through the mechanism of a settlement moratorium, and we are simply trying to see if there’s another way to advance this effort.

QUESTION: On the political will, though --

QUESTION: P.J. --

QUESTION: -- settler groups were arguing --

MR. CROWLEY: One at a time.

QUESTION: Settler groups were arguing today that this is a victory over the Americans and their irrational pie-in-the-sky request. Do you believe that (inaudible) a political will to make this happen?


MR. CROWLEY: It’s not a victory for anybody. It’s not a loss for anybody. It is simply a recognition that an intensive effort at achieving a settlement moratorium as one mechanism to advance the process did not bear fruit. We are now going to look at other vehicles, one or more vehicles through which we can make the kind of progress we’re looking for.


QUESTION: Why is it not a victory for the settlers if they can continue at will to build wherever they want in the West Bank and East Jerusalem?


MR. CROWLEY: Well, it’s not a victory in the sense that both the Israelis and the Palestinians have significant interests in crossing this finish line – on the Palestinian side, a viable state, and on the Israeli side, the recognition and stability and peace that it has long sought. So the real question is: Choose the yard line that you’re on, just what is the means through which you can get from here to there. And there’s no one way to achieve that. We’ve tried one way and it didn’t enable the progress that we’re looking for, and so we’re moving in a different direction.

QUESTION: P.J., can I ask you, given that you’re changing your tactic now midstream, does the Administration still believe it can achieve the framework deal within a year --

MR. CROWLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: -- as it did originally? What do you base that optimism on? You seem to be the only one who’s --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, put it this way. We – our objective remains the same as it was back in August.

QUESTION: But the circumstances don’t appear to have improved.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, again, that’s – and that’s – we were clear-eyed when we entered into this in August. We’re clear-eyed today as we recognize that our efforts of the last four months have not given us the forward momentum that we’re looking for. And so we are shifting our approach, but we are still focused on the goal of a framework agreement within a year, and we believe that is still achievable.

Obviously, a lot of hard work is going to have to be done. It’s not going to be easy. But we haven’t changed our objective.

QUESTION: Can you say whether the ball has moved forward at all since early September when you launched this? I mean, are you really now starting again and trying to achieve this now --

MR. CROWLEY: No, we’re not starting again, we’ve – because both sides remain committed to this. We have reaffirmed that in our recent conversations. We’re just moving – we’re trying a different avenue to get to the same ultimate destination.

QUESTION: But can you say how the ball has moved forward in the intervening three months now that --

MR. CROWLEY: I think there’s – there is a commitment to the process. We have had conversations that touch on substantive issues. We just want to find the right mechanism to get into a more intensive, detailed discussion of the core issues. To some extent, as I mentioned a minute ago, it’s almost like the moratorium had become an end in itself rather than a means to move the process forward. We’re just shifting our approach.

QUESTION: Would you say that the right mechanism is to include other Arabic states in terms of the Arab peace plan and have a comprehensive peace deal similar to Madrid --

MR. CROWLEY: But the other states in the region are already involved. We’ve had --

QUESTION: But not on the Madrid-style conference.

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah – no, but we – the other states have been supporting this process. They have had their own conversations with the parties. And they remain as determined as we are to continue to find ways to move forward.

QUESTION: Can I just --

QUESTION: I cannot understand the optimism. I mean, talking about a few month from now, end of the year, everything failed so far. You’re not giving us any ideas --

MR. CROWLEY: We’re – again, we are --

QUESTION: -- of how you’re going to make this process --

MR. CROWLEY: -- clear-eyed and realistic about this. We knew going in this was going to be hard. It has proven to be as hard as we had anticipated. And it is difficult, it is emotional, it’s complex, it requires the leaders to summon the political support to advance this process. And we’re committed to that and we’re – we’ll be sending George back to the region next week to see how to – what’s the best route forward.

QUESTION: Will the Secretary talk about new ideas on Friday night at the Saban Center?

MR. CROWLEY: The Secretary will have a speech on Friday night. It will touch extensively on these issues and I’ll not step on the news that she’ll make.

QUESTION: P.J., you said --

QUESTION: Can you talk about --

MR. CROWLEY: Hey Laura, go ahead.

QUESTION: Can you talk about how this was announced yesterday, that essentially you’re – that the Administration is abandoning the moratorium idea? Sort of – I know you were asked it at the briefing yesterday and on the record, you didn’t speak to it, and then it was announced on background in Jerusalem by a U.S. official and then confirmed by U.S. officials on background yesterday.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, the --

QUESTION: I’m curious why you guys decided to do it that way.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, the only point to yesterday was that we were timing our announcements to meetings that were being held in the region where we were keeping both sides informed of our thinking.

QUESTION: And you didn’t want to wait till you had the Secretary to say what the positive new policy would be? I mean, it seems like all the headlines today, worldwide, are U.S.-Middle East policy.

MR. CROWLEY: Laura, as you know very well, holding information in the context of Middle East peace is a very difficult thing for the parties to do.

QUESTION: P.J., on the – you said that Mr. Netanyahu negotiated in good faith. So when he told you – what did he tell you: "I’m sorry, I cannot convince X number of my cabinet, I’m awfully sorry"? How did he say it? Where was the stone wall?

MR. CROWLEY: We do not have any quarrel with how either side has approached this, and we are convinced that both sides remain as committed to this process today as they were back in August. Again, there are substantive challenges to this and there are political challenges to this, and the political challenges are showing themselves to be complex, difficult. And we’re looking for the right combination that allows us to develop the political support necessary for leaders to make the hard decisions that they will have to make.

QUESTION: Wait, you don’t have any – you don’t have any quarrel with how either side approached this? Or do you have a problem with the way both sides approached this?

MR. CROWLEY: There’s no good in pointing fingers. We are committed to this process. We believe they are committed to this process. And we are trying to find the right mechanism to make – to move the – to move forward and get the kind of sustained and meaningful dialogue and negotiation that is necessary to achieve success.

QUESTION: P.J., some observers would say that, actually, you brought this upon yourself, the U.S. brought it upon itself, by making that such a huge issue. And then when it fell apart, it looks as if your strategy failed. What do you say?

MR. CROWLEY: Jill, settlements is a big issue on both sides. That’s obvious by the politics of both – on the Palestinian side and the Israeli side. This is not something that we brought upon ourselves. This is a reflection of a reality that still exists, and the real issue is how to move forward and be able to address the core issues in the current environment. We tried one tactic, and now we’re shifting to a different tactic.

QUESTION: Can I change the subject?

QUESTION: Sorry, just one more --

QUESTION: Can I just stay on here one second?

QUESTION: I thought I understood that the Palestinians and Israelis were going to come next week to Washington to discuss this. You said George Mitchell is going over there, so have you taken that --

MR. CROWLEY: We are having and will be having meetings on both sides prior to George’s travel.

QUESTION: On both sides (inaudible)?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. Hmm?

QUESTION: Say it again?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, again, we are – we expect to have discussions with senior representatives on both sides. We are still working to set those up.

QUESTION: So that could be in Washington?

MR. CROWLEY: It could be in Washington or it could be both in Washington and in the region.

QUESTION: Is it your understanding that an overwhelming majority of Mr. Netanyahu’s cabinet were opposed to the deal?

MR. CROWLEY: That’s a better question to ask the Israeli Government.

QUESTION: But you have negotiated with --

MR. CROWLEY: Again, that’s a – we understand the political challenge the prime minister has faced and is facing, but we’ll leave it to the Israelis to describe.

QUESTION: I guess my question is: Is it your feeling that with the current composition of the cabinet, is it insurmountable that we would actually reach --

MR. CROWLEY: If we thought it was insurmountable, we wouldn't be doing what we’re doing.

Again, we're back to the difference between "legitimacy" and "legality".

Can I be "legally" a resident revenant in Judea and Samaria and yet, "illegitimate" - morally, ethically?  If I am "legal", how can I not be "legitimate"?  In American Yiddish, this approach is facocta.


^

For the Record: Hot Fire Interferes with Construction Freeze

At Assistant Secretary of State Philip J. Crowley's Daily Press Briefing on
December 7, 2010, we read:

QUESTION: ...Ehud Barak today quoted as saying that the talks between the U.S. and Israel on getting the Israel-Palestinian talks resumed have been put on hold, and that the reasons include distractions like WikiLeaks. Is it true that the talks are suspended and are in some way on hold, and does WikiLeaks have anything to do with that?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, our talk – our efforts are not suspended. We are having conversations, even as we speak today, with both Israeli officials, with Palestinian officials. I mean, the Israeli Government itself has been fully occupied, understandably, in recent days with the challenge of the fires. We remain determined to work with the parties on a path forward and try to determine how best to advance the process back to direct negotiations and to, ultimately, a framework agreement.

I would just say that we’ll be meeting today with both sides. We may have more to say later in the day.

QUESTION: Why would he – do you have any idea why he would say flat out that the matter has been stopped entirely? That’s his words?

MR. CROWLEY: I will say that the process has not stopped. We obviously recognize that we face a difficult obstacle, and we will continue to engage the parties on the way forward.

QUESTION: Who’s speaking today? Who’s meeting today? You mentioned a meeting today.

MR. CROWLEY: I think Daniel Rubenstein will be meeting sometime today with President Abbas. We – a number of officials have been on the phone throughout the morning with the Israelis as well.

QUESTION: So, P.J., what is your assessment of, let’s say, Argentina and Brazil saying that they’re willing to recognize a Palestinian state?

MR. CROWLEY: We don’t think that we should be distracted from the fact that the only way to resolve the core issues within the process is through direct negotiations. That remains our focus. And we do not favor that course of action. As we’ve said many, many times, any unilateral action, we believe, is counterproductive.

...QUESTION: Okay. Both Mr. Barak and Mr. Fayyad will be in town and they will also participate in the same event with Secretary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton on Friday. What will they discuss before that, prior to that? Will there be any kind of discussion?

MR. CROWLEY: I – let me take the question. Obviously, there is the Saban event coming up on Friday. The Secretary will have a speech Friday evening. I’m just not able to forecast at this point whether there’ll be any meetings prior to that...

From 60 to 90 Is Not A Good Thing

I can't understand Netanyahu.

He is trumpeting the advantages of the new deal with the US but without getting into the really negative aspects, one point: at the end of September, the word was:

The U.S. is proposing that Israel extend a partial West Bank settlement freeze for 60 days.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has returned to Israel after more than a week in the United States with a package of U.S. ideas that include extending the freeze that expired over the weekend by 60 days, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s David Makovsky told POLITICO.

In the subsequent Netanyahu talks, the period rose to 90.  He's not a very good negotiator if the price Obama demands goes up, in an inflationary fashion, rather than down.

And whether or not these supposed guarantees go into writing, well, it seems a very insecure thing:

On Friday, the Obama administration confirmed publicly for the first time its readiness to give Israel written assurances on security issues. Mr. Netanyahu says he needs those guarantees to persuade members of his Cabinet to support the freeze, which is intended to revive peace talks with the Palestinians.

“If there is a need to put certain things in writing, we will be prepared to do that,” said the State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley. He declined to discuss the provisions that would be in such a document.

^

Anyone Say "Settlement Freeze"? "Suspension of Construction"?

You remember the 12-unit project down the street from my house and the sign?

This post.

Well, "take a look at her now" to misquote a lyric:

and you know what there foundations grow into, yes?

houses like this:

A Bronner Boner

Ethan Bronner of the NYTimes writes of the most latest round of Israel-PA talks:

Those negotiations began in Washington in early September, but soon faltered over Palestinian anger at resumed settlement construction, when a previous 10-month freeze ended.

Er, that freeze was announced last November and the Arabs delayed and waited for almost a full nine months to go by before, as it were, negotiating.

They knew that within a month the moratorium on construction would end. They knew 9 months previously that it would so why didn't they start negotiating in December last? And for the past 17 years they have been negotiating without any precondition of a suspension of building. So, Bronner can't include that?


^

Another Take on the 90-Day Feeze

Here:

With the new deal, the US might have given up all leverage over Jerusalem for the next two years, agreed to construction in Jerusalem (and ultimately, the rest of the West Bank), and seems to get nothing in return

and

By promising an automatic veto against any international move or any unilateral attempt by the Palestinians do declare independence, the Administration gave up any leverage over Jerusalem in 2011. And since 2012 is elections year, one can say that Netanyahu got a Carte Blanch from Obama and Clinton for the rest of his term.

Furthermore, the administration promised not to demand any more moratoriums, and to exclude Jerusalem from the current one. In other words, the White House agreed not to oppose construction in the settlements starting from January 2011, and to accept all construction in East Jerusalem right now. This is, by itself, a terrible move.

What did the Americans get in return? And what did the Palestinians get? apparently, nothing. The negotiations might resume, but it’s hard to believe that any breakthrough will be reached in the next couple of months.

I don't mind that.

^

Message To Bibi Netanyahu

U.S. Inflation

That's right.

The extension on construction in Jewish communities in Yesha has now gone up from two months (*) to three.

Israel's Netanyahu unveils U.S. plan for new talks

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu showed ministers a five-point U.S. peace plan that includes a 90-day settlement freeze, a diplomatic source said on Saturday.

That's definitely inflationary.


(*)

Last week, the White House denied that Obama sent Netanyahu a letter proposing a set of U.S. guarantees to Israel in exchange for Israel extending a freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank for another two months.

^

Secret Freeze

Seems, although officially uncorroborated, that there's a new freeze on, a secret one.

How is it working?

Well, it appears that Arab contractors and probably some Arab construction workers, have received notice that the GSS has revoked permits for their entrance to some of the communities. This, of course, effectively halts construction, at least for those who are using Arab labor.

A considerable number of Arab contractors have been served with this limitation all around the same time, so in essence, the freeze continues clandestinely while at the same time, Arabs can't obtain work which is a measure of coexistence.

Sneaky.

^

Interviewed for a Dutch Newspaper

"Colony"?
"Slag"?

Seems that's: 

settlers in Shiloh go directly into battle

- - -

Even Little Construction Starts Count?

.

- - -

Never Was Good At Math

Reported:-

In a meeting on Sunday with Tony Blair, the envoy of the so-called quartet of peacemakers — the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia — Mr. Netanyahu said that the Palestinians wanted “zero building in Judea and Samaria,” calling the West Bank by its biblical names, “and that will not happen. Israel cannot continue the freeze.”

“On the other hand,” he said, according to a diplomat who was briefed on the meeting but spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about it publicly, “we will not build all the tens of thousands of housing units that are waiting in the planning pipeline.”

So, on an average, median or otherwise, between zero and tens of thousands, what is the number to be built?



- - -

You Believe Polls?

^

New Poll!

I also edited it semantically:

Two-thirds of Israelis support a total or partial resumption of settlement building communities in the occupied West Bank Judea and Samaria, according to a poll broadcast on Wednesday, as peace talks are due to restart in Washington.

Thirty nine percent of those questioned said they favour construction resuming in all the settlements communities from September 26, when a partial 10-month moratorium imposed by the Israeli government under US pressure expires.

Another quarter said they thought construction should only restart in the larger settlement residency blocks [sic!: blocs] and not in smaller, isolated settlements communities, according to the poll, aired on private Channel Ten TV station.

Only 21 percent supported a continuation of the building freeze, with the remainder undecided.

The poll was carried out by the Gal Hadash Institute on behalf of Channel Ten, shortly after an attack in the Hebron area of the West Bank Judea on Tuesday that killed four Israeli settlers revenants.


- - -

The Freeze Ends

And I spotted this earlier this morning, put up overnight:

"The continuation of the freeze is the beggining of the uprooting.

Gideon [Saar], don't turn out to be an Olmert;

Attias, don't be a Der'i;

Evette, don't be a Bibi."

O Obama! What About My Rights

Found here:



(Kippah tip: Bob L)


No further caption necessary.


- - -