Bush’s Secret Settlement Freeze Agreement
The latest twist in US-Israeli relations is that the Israeli government is claiming that it’s unfair of Barack Obama to attempt to enforce America’s longstanding nominal policy position against Israeli settlement expansion because the Bush administration reached a secret agreement “that allowed Israel to build West Bank settlement housing within certain guidelines while still publicly claiming to honor a settlement ‘freeze.’”
Now it would certainly be interesting to know if any such secret agreement was ever formally put down. It was widely understood that the Bush administration had a policy of winking at Israeli violations of Bush’s stated position on this issue, but a formal “we didn’t really mean it” clause would be good to know about.
Still, it’s not clear why Barack Obama would consider this, rather than longstanding official American policy, publicly released documents (i.e., the “road map”), international law, and basic common sense to be controlling. Nor is it clear what standing the Netanyahu administration even has to point to these kind of agreements, given that Netanyahu has repeatedly made it clear that he has no intention of following earlier Israeli commitments to work toward a two-state solution. Bottom line is that settlement expansion makes peace impossible and should be halted. A settlement freeze hardly ensures peace, but its absence precludes it.
31 Responses to “Bush’s Secret Settlement Freeze Agreement”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 4th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Yes, yes, and I like the tone of steely resolve that pervades the post.
Also, this was much easier to read than Obama’s Cairo speech, which required a second cup of coffee just to skim the topic sentences.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:08 am
There will be no peace until the triumphal march of Bibis’ legions through the streets of Damascus.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:15 am
That NYTimes story has a classic in the annals of purported reasons for anonymity grants:
The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity so that they could discuss an issue of such controversy between the two governments.
I really wish Bill Keller would just stop insulting his readers’ intelligence by pretending they have some kind of “policy” and admit that they’ll grant anonymity to anyone, anytime, whether it be for purposes of trashing their opponents or for any other reason.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:21 am
“that allowed Israel to build West Bank settlement housing within certain guidelines while still publicly claiming to honor a settlement ‘freeze.’”
I’m unclear on what gave the Bush administration the ability to exempt Israel from international law.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:27 am
I’m guessing that lots of people in the Middle East are physically addicted to their feuds. What’s the plan to wean them from their addiction if Israel stops playing the bogeyman? Do the addicts turn to a new enemey? If so, who is that? What new enterprise or calling can replace the delicious fix?
June 4th, 2009 at 10:30 am
I’m guessing that lots of people in the Middle East are physically addicted to their feuds.
Yeah, you know how those people are.
Is Marty Peretz going by “ferd” now?
June 4th, 2009 at 10:30 am
“Not everything is written down,” one of the officials said.
Well, then, that was a mistake on your part, wasn’t it?
In any event, it seems to me at most this could be used as an argument that the Obama Administration should be careful about claims that all settlement expansion in the relevant period violated U.S.-Israel agreements (explicitly exclusing multi-lateral agreements, since the Bush Administration could not secretly bind other parties to these agreements). Other than that, Obama is certainly under no obligation to continue these claimed policies.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:30 am
PeakVT,
Easy. Conservatives don’t believe in international law.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:37 am
I’m unclear on what gave the Bush administration the ability to exempt Israel from international law.
I think Yoo wrote a memo.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Rather than holding ferd wrong for believing this of people in the ME, I’d hold him wrong for not believing it of everybody.
Hate is an oddly pleasing self-indulgence. Any self-indulgence is addictive in some percentage of the population.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Are the Israelis saying that the Bush regime lied to the American people and the world??? Say it isn’t so…
June 4th, 2009 at 10:59 am
I had a secret agreement with my old boss that I could show up for work late, not do my job, claim overtime on my timesheet that I hadn’t earned, etc. Then I got a new boss who fired me for that stuff. Outrageous!
June 4th, 2009 at 11:04 am
On the one hand, it’s very likely the Israelis are lying.
On the other hand, I can very easily believe that the Bush administration diplomatic dream team – ahem ahem – managed to give the Israelis the impression they were authorizing settlement expansion without intending to.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:05 am
I’m unclear on what gave the Bush administration the ability to exempt Israel from international law.
Um, Elliot Abrams did?
June 4th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Well, there’s a little known codicil …
June 4th, 2009 at 11:14 am
The Israelis made this exact same argument last year and even the Bush Administration denied it–maybe the US government as a whole, outside of the hardcore neocons, is finally feeling abused by the Israelis and that’s why Elliott Abrams is the only one vouching for the Israeli version of events. It’s a weak case when your only witness is a convicted perjurer.
Same argument last year, “Israelis Claim Secret Agreement With US”: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/23/AR2008042303128.html
June 4th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Now it would certainly be interesting to know if any such secret agreement was ever formally put down.
I think it’s clear there is not — the Israeli’s aren’t even claming this. They are just claiming a clear informal agreement without which they would not have signed on to the roadmap.
But I agree with the analysis: it’s bizarre the new Israeli administration would think the new US administration is bound to informal agreements the old US administration made with the old Israeli administration.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Even if Bush had a PUBLIC agreement, who gives a rip? In the absence of an actual — you know — treaty or law, presidents are not bound by the pronouncements of their predecessors.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Don’t treaties have to be approved by the Senate?
June 4th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Is this why Obama is making nice with Egypt — the Arab world’s most powerful military? Sending a message to Bibi?
I personally think the 82 Airborne appearing in Jordan would be a better approach.
Hmmm. But why give the Israel Lobby talking points? After all, what is covert action for? There are plenty of groups out there that hate Bibi. Who should the CIA talk to first?
June 4th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
This is how the Bush syndicate conducts business: a wink, nod and handshake behind the veil of a carefully engineered cover story. It isn’t Obama’s fault that Bush treated the Israelis like just another crony.
June 4th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Re Don Williams
Since Bibi is basically a wimp, I think that removing him from office would be a good thing for the Government of Israel. Replacing his with Uzi Landau, who would have no difficulty in telling President Osama to go fuck himself, is just what is needed.
June 4th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
When two countries want to agree on something by which they will be bound, regardless of change of govts, they create a treaty, or other formal written agreement.
A wink-and-a-nod does not fall in that category, and it’s unreasonable to think it should be binding.
June 4th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
“What’s the plan to wean them from their addiction if Israel stops playing the bogeyman?”
Well, I for one, would like to think that our actions both directly and indirectly in support of Israel, would have a little more moral legitimacy for starters. When “our” side has taken real steps toward achieving a solution to an intractable problem, I’m much more comfortable putting pressure on “their” side to take the next step.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
SLC wrote: “Since Bibi is basically a wimp, I think that removing him from office would be a good thing for the Government of Israel.”
I was going to object that the U.S. should not interfere with the affairs of a democratically elected government, especially in the sensitive Middle East, but kept laughing too hard.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Zionism is a disgrace.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
What’s the plan to wean them from their addiction if Israel stops playing the bogeyman?
I dunno, but it’d sure nice to have to find out.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Re abb1
Zionism today, Zionism tomorrow, Zionism forever.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Bla-di-blah today, bla-di-blah tomorrow, bla-di-blah forever.
Oh, and HAMA RULEZ!
June 4th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
“There will be no peace until the triumphal march of Bibis’ legions through the streets of Damascus.”
Let me see if I understand the concept behind this statement: the world is inexorably divided between the Dar al-Yehudeen and the Dar al-Harb, the division persisting until Dar al-Yehudeen triumphs, conquering all foes, and finally bringing peace through domination.
Huh. It does seem somehow familiar. I can’t quite place it. It doesn’t quite sound like what Theodore Herzl wrote, or other normal forms of Zionism that I’m familiar with, but it seems familiar from somewhere.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Matt, it’s the “Netanyahu Government”, not “administration” as you write. Parliamentary system and so on.