- Details
-
Written by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post Staff Writer Glenn Kessler, Washington Post Staff Writer
-
Category: News News
-
Published: 24 April 2008 24 April 2008
-
Last Updated: 25 April 2008 25 April 2008
-
Created: 24 April 2008 24 April 2008
-
Hits: 4825 4825
Many experts say new settlement construction undermines the political
standing of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas -- who is to
meet with Bush today at the White House -- and adds to Palestinian
cynicism about the peace process. Palestinians view the settlements as
an Israeli effort to claim Palestinian lands, and in a meeting
yesterday with Rice, Abbas said settlement construction was "one of the
greatest obstacles" to a peace deal.
U.S. and Israeli officials privately argue that Israel has greatly
restricted settlement growth outside the settlements it hopes to retain
in a peace deal with the Palestinians, and Olmert has said Israel has
stopped building new settlements and confiscating Palestinian lands.
Housing starts -- not counting the Jerusalem settlements -- have
declined 33 percent since 2003, according to the Israeli Central Bureau
of Statistics. But officials say it is politically damaging for Olmert
to admit that, so instead he publicly emphasizes that he is adding to
the settlements, which now house about 450,000 Israelis.
"It was clear from day one to Abbas, Rice and Bush that construction
would continue in population concentrations -- the areas mentioned in
Bush's 2004 letter," Olmert declared in an interview with the Israeli
newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, published Sunday. "I say this again today:
Beitar Illit will be built, Gush Etzion will be built; there will be
construction in Pisgat Ze'ev and in the Jewish neighborhoods in
Jerusalem," referring to new settlement expansion plans. "It's clear
that these areas will remain under Israeli control in any future
settlement."
In a key sentence in Bush's 2004 letter, the president stated, "In
light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major
Israeli populations 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."
In a companion letter to "reconfirm" U.S.-Israeli understandings,
Weissglas wrote Rice that restrictions on the growth of settlements
would be made "within the agreed principles of settlement activities,"
which would include "a better definition of the construction line of
settlements" on the West Bank. A joint U.S.-Israeli team would "jointly
define the construction line of each of the settlements."
Weissglas said that the letter built upon a prior understanding between
then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and then-Secretary of State Colin L.
Powell, which would allow Israel to build up settlements within
existing construction lines. But Powell denied that. "I never agreed to
it," he said in an e-mail.
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." 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.
National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, at a news briefing in
January, suggested that Bush's 2004 letter was aimed at helping Sharon
win domestic approval for the Gaza withdrawal. "The president obviously
still stands by that letter of April of 2004, but you need to look at
it, obviously, in the context of which it was issued," he said.
Weissglas said that in 2005, when Sharon was poised to remove settlers
from Gaza, the Bush administration made a secret agreement -- not
disclosed to the Palestinians -- that Israel could add homes in
settlements it expected to keep, as long as the construction was
dictated by market demand, not subsidies. He said the agreement was
necessary because Sharon needed the support of municipal leaders in the
main West Bank settlements. The settlement leaders, he said, focused on
the "inner contradiction" of Bush's letter, mainly that it made no
sense to have a settlement freeze in places that Bush said would become
part of Israel.
Weissglas said he then negotiated a "verbal understanding" with deputy
national security adviser Elliott Abrams that would permit new
construction in those key settlements; Rice and Sharon then approved
the Weissglas-Abrams deal. "I do not recall that we had any kind of
written formulation," Weissglas said.
"There is no understanding," said White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe.
Indeed, as settlement starts soared after the Middle East peace
conference in Annapolis in November, Rice said "the United States
doesn't make a distinction" among settlement locations.
Powell said that in 2004, he did not anticipate that Bush's letter
would be perceived as a green light by Israel for adding to the
settlements. "I consistently spoke against settlement growth, but as
you know all I could do is talk against it," Powell said. "There would
be no consequences and there still aren't."