The Republican Jewish Coalition is asking the Obama administration "to give a clear and unambiguous answer to the question of whether they will honor the understanding established by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon regarding settlements," noting that State Department spokesmen have "refused to answer the question" about whether stopping settlements includes "natural growth" in certain major population centers.
"We are seeing a steady, step-by-step withdrawal by the Obama administration from key elements of the U.S.-Israeli alliance," said RJC executive director Matt Brooks. "The President who promised ‘transparency’ in his administration should be forthcoming about his intentions, his position, and his policies regarding these very sensitive issues. It is time for a clear and unambiguous answer to the question of whether the U.S. will stand by its past agreements and stand with our ally Israel."
In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a fairly clear answer in recent days: No, the understanding on settlements is not valid.
"There is no memorialization of any informal and oral agreements,” she said Friday. “If they did occur, which of course, people say they did, they did not become part of the official position of the United States government.” She made similar remarks in an interview that aired over the weekend on ABC’s This Week, in which she said, "That was never made a part of the official record of the negotiations as it was passed on to our administration. No one in the Bush administration said to anyone that we can find in our administration…"
The RJC’s press release is after the jump: [[READMORE]]
RJC to Obama administration:
Will you honor past agreements with Israel?
Washington, D.C. (June 9, 2009) — The Republican Jewish Coalition calls on the Obama administration to give a clear and unambiguous answer to the question of whether they will honor the understanding established by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon regarding settlements.
In a 2004 exchange of letters, an agreement was reached by the two countries about conditions under which Israel could build new housing within certain existing settlement areas. The Obama administration has taken the position that Israel must implement a "total freeze" on settlement activity, including natural growth in large population centers, which raises the question of whether the administration will adhere to the agreement made by the United States and Israel.
Commentators have noted that administration spokesmen have refused to answer this question as many as 21 times in the last two weeks. According to journalists who participated in recent press conferences with State Department spokesman Ian Kelly, deputy spokesman Robert Wood, and Assistant Secretary of State Philip J. Crowley, these State Department officials have danced around this question nearly two dozen times [1].RJC Executive Director Matthew Brooks said, "We are seeing a steady, step-by-step withdrawal by the Obama administration from key elements of the U.S.-Israeli alliance. The President who promised ‘transparency’ in his administration should be forthcoming about his intentions, his position, and his policies regarding these very sensitive issues. It is time for a clear and unambiguous answer to the question of whether the U.S. will stand by its past agreements and stand with our ally Israel."
Background:Dov Weissglas, a senior aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, told the New York Times [2] about the agreement. Weissglas recounts that an agreement reached by the two countries in a 2004 exchange of letters stated that housing could be built within the boundaries of certain settlement blocks as long as no new land was taken from Palestinians, no special economic incentives were offered to move to settlements, and no new settlements were built. Those exceptions were key to Israel accepting the Road Map and taking the extraordinary risks involved in the disengagement from Gaza.
President Bush’s letter to Prime Minister Sharon noted: "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." This formal recognition by the U.S. was endorsed by a joint resolution of Congress [3] and was incorporated into Israel’s disengagement plan. [4]
The Obama administration has repeatedly refused to state whether or not it will honor that understanding.
[1] http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/richman/67671, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/richman/68182, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/richman/68311, and
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/124303.htm
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/world/middleeast/04israel.html
[3] http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/bills/108/hc460ih.txt.pdf
[4] http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/richman/67671
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
