Did the “natural growth” agreement ever kick in?

The back and forth in the past week or so over whether the Bush-era agreement on "natural growth" in the settlements should apply in the age of Obama raises a question: Was there ever such an agreement?

The answer, I think is yes, in principle — but never in practice.

What prompted this train of thought was the Republican Jewish Coalition release today needling the Obama administration over whether it will uphold the alleged agreement. As Eric notes, Hillary Rodham Clinton has already answered,  and clearly: No.

With respect to the conditions regarding understandings between the United States and the former Israeli government and the former government of the United States, we have the negotiating record. That is the official record that was turned over to the Obama Administration by the outgoing Bush Administration. There is no memorialization of any informal and oral agreements. 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. And there are contrary documents that suggest that they were not to be viewed as in any way contradicting the obligations that Israel undertook pursuant to the Roadmap. And those obligations are very clear.

So why is the RJC asking? Well, the RJC should enlighten us. But let me venture a guess, based on how the RJC release conflates two separate issues:

* Will the Obama administration reaffirm the Bush administration’s April 2004 letter recognizing that it would be unrealistic for Israel not to hold on to some settlemnent blocs in a final status agreement — a letter that was published at the time and, as the RJC notes, endorsed by Congress;

* And will the Obama administration recognize what may have been an agreement to allow some settlement growth; an agreement that — if it ever really existed — was never made explicit, at least in public.

The conflation is clumsy and renders the statement virtually nonsensical, but it gets at an embarrassing truth: The Obama administration is equivocating over whether it will abide by the Bush administration’s 2004 letter.

So why not nudge Obama on the letter alone? Because — and I bet the RJC recognizes this — it’s entirely likely that the Obama administration will come around to reaffirming the Bush letter, as soon as the Netanyahu administration recommits to a two-state solution.

Such statements  (and of course the National Jewish Democratic Council has done the same in the past) are not meant to elicit a real answer, they’re meant to draw blood. And say in three or six or even 12 months, the Obama administration explicitly recommits to the Bush letter; within an hour, you can bet the NJDC would dig up any RJC call for a recommitment to the letter and demand an apology, if not outright abject recognition by the RJC that the Obama administration is God’s gift to the Jewish people, yadda yadda yadda. (I exaggerate. Slightly.)

On the other hand, the Obama administration — as Clinton attests — is not likely to ever recommit (at least publicly) to settlement growth. So by mashing the two discrete issues together, however inartfully, the RJC gets a thorn under Democratic skin that (it evidently believes) will not come out without blood.

So why am I mindreading the RJC? Because it raises the issue of what, exactly, is the status of the "look the other way" agreement that the Bush and Sharon governments supposedly made in 2004.

Over at the Middle East Forum, Steve Rosen has a terrific post that does much of my work for me.

First, Steve quotes Elliott Abrams as telling the Washington Post that "there was something of an understanding realized on these questions, but it was never a written agreement." That comports with Clinton’s view.

They may, however, both be wrong; a written reference to the agreement does exist, after a fashion.

Steve notes that Dov Weisglass, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s top adviser at the time, alludes to such an agreement in the (then little-noticed) letter he wrote to Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser:

Restrictions on settlement growth: within the agreed principles of settlement activities, an effort will be made in the next few days to have a better definition of the construction line of settlements in Judea & Samaria. An Israeli team, in conjunction with Ambassador Kurtzer, will review aerial photos of settlements and will jointly define the construction line of each of the settlements.

"Restrictions on settlement growth" suggests much greater leeway than "stopping" or "freezing" settlement growth. Additionally, defining construction lines would only apply if it was agreed construction could take place within those lines.

Furthermore, as Steve notes, Daniel Kurtzer, then the U.S. ambassador to Israel argued – and from a vantage point of opposing such a deal – that the Bush administration’s mere acceptance of Weissglass’ letter implied agreement. Here’s Kurtzer to the Washington Post:

Daniel Kurtzer, then the U.S. ambassador to Israel, said he argued at the time against accepting the Weissglas letter. "I thought it was a really bad idea," he said. "It would legitimize the settlements, and it gave them a blank check."

So there you have it: An agreement exists.

Or not.

Kurtzer goes on to say that he and Weisglass never took those West Bank flyovers; the Bush administration (all too typically) wasn’t keen on following up:

In the end, Kurtzer said the White House never followed up with the plan to define construction lines. "Washington lost interest in it when it became clear it would not be easy to do," he said.

So the critical element of this agreement — defining where settlements could "naturally" grow — never kicked in.

A conditional agreement, absent fulfillment of the condition – definition of settlement lines – is no agreement at all.

Israeli officials, as I’ve reported, are proposing reviving the condition, or a version of it. Israel will publish periodic reviews of settlement activity; American officials will  validate the reports on the ground.

I also understand that under this formula, the Americans will continue to call the arrangement a "freeze" while the Israelis are likely to call it a "freeze, with waivers."

And here’s a prediction: Neither side will ever confirm this formula on the record.