HILLARY IS WRONG ABOUT THE SETTLEMENTS
Elliott Abrams
Wall StreetJournal, June 26, 2009

Despite fervent denials by Obama administration officials, there were indeed agreements between Israel and the United States regarding the growth of Israeli settlements  on the West Bank . As the Obama administration has made the settlements issue a  major bone of contention between Israel and the U.S. , it is necessary that we review the recent history.

In the spring of 2003, U.S. officials (including me) held wide-ranging discussions with then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem . The "Roadmap for Peace" between Israel and the Palestinians had been written. President George W. Bush had endorsed Palestinian statehood, but only if the Palestinians eliminated terror. He had broken with Yasser Arafat, but Arafat still ruled in the Palestinian territories. Israel had defeated the intifada, so what was next?

We asked Mr. Sharon about freezing the West Bank settlements. I recall him asking, by way of reply, what did that mean for the settlers? They live there, he said, they serve in elite army units, and they marry. Should he tell them to have no more children, or move?

We discussed some approaches: Could he agree there would be no additional settlements? New construction only inside settlements, without expanding them physically? Could he agree there would be no additional land taken for settlements?

As we talked several principles emerged. The father of the settlements now agreed that limits must be placed on the settlements; more fundamentally, the old foe of the Palestinians could--under certain conditions--now agree to Palestinian statehood.

In June 2003, Mr. Sharon stood alongside Mr. Bush, King Abdullah II of Jordan, and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas at Aqaba , Jordan , and endorsed Palestinian statehood publicly: "It is in Israel 's interest not to govern the Palestinians  but for the Palestinians to govern themselves in their own state. A democratic Palestinian state fully at peace with Israel will promote the long-term security and well-being of Israel as a Jewish state." At the end of that year he announced his intention  to pull out of the Gaza Strip.

The U.S. government supported all this, but asked Mr. Sharon for two more things. First, that he remove some West Bank settlements; we wanted Israel to show that  removing them was not impossible. Second, we wanted him to pull out of Gaza totally--including every single settlement and the "Philadelphi Strip" separating Gaza from Egypt ,  even though holding on to this strip would have prevented the smuggling of weapons to Hamas that was feared and has now come to pass. Mr. Sharon agreed on both counts.

These decisions were political dynamite, as Mr. Sharon had long predicted to us.
 In May 2004, his Likud Party rejected his plan in a referendum, handing him a resounding political defeat. In June, the Cabinet approved the withdrawal from Gaza , but only after Mr. Sharon fired two ministers and allowed two others to resign. His majority in the Knesset was now shaky. After completing the Gaza withdrawal in August 2005, he called in November for a dissolution of the Knesset and for early elections.
He also said he would leave Likud to form a new centrist party.... Four weeks later he suffered the first of two strokes that have left him in a coma.

Throughout, the Bush administration gave Mr. Sharon full support for his actions
 against terror and on final status issues. On April 14, 2004, Mr. Bush handed Mr. Sharon a letter saying that there would be no "right of return" for Palestinian
refugees. Instead, the president said, "a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel ."

On the major settlement blocs, Mr. Bush said, "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." Several previous administrations had declared all Israeli settlements beyond the "1967 borders" to be illegal. Here Mr. Bush dropped such language, referring to the 1967 borders--correctly--as merely the lines where the fighting stopped in 1949, and saying that in any realistic peace agreement Israel would be able to negotiate keeping those major settlements.

On settlements we also agreed on principles that would permit some continuing growth.
Mr. Sharon stated these clearly in a major policy speech in December 2003: " Israel will meet all its obligations with regard to construction in the settlements. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line, no expropriation  of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements."

Ariel Sharon did not invent those four principles. They emerged from discussions  with American officials and were discussed by Messrs. Sharon and Bush at their Aqaba meeting in June 2003.

They were not secret, either. Four days after the president's letter, Mr. Sharon's
Chief of Staff Dov Weissglas wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that "I
wish to reconfirm the following understanding, which had been reached between us:
1. 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."

Stories in the press also made it clear that there were indeed "agreed principles."
On Aug. 21, 2004 the New York Times reported that "the Bush administration . . .
 now supports construction of new apartments in areas already built up in some settlements,as long as the expansion does not extend outward."

In recent weeks, American officials have denied that any agreement on settlementsexisted. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated on June 17 that "in looking atthe history of the Bush administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements. That has been verified by the official record of the administration and by the personnel in the positions of responsibility."

These statements are incorrect. Not only were there agreements, but the prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation....It is true that there was no U.S.-Israel "memorandum of understanding".... But she  would do well to consult documents like the Weissglas letter, or the notes of the  Aqaba meeting, before suggesting that there was no meeting of the minds.

Mrs. Clinton also said there were no "enforceable" agreements. This is a strange  phrase. How exactly would Israel enforce any agreement against an American decision to renege on it? Take it to the International Court in The Hague ? Regardless of  what Mrs. Clinton has said, there was a bargained-for exchange. Mr. Sharon...asked for our support and got it, including the agreement that we would not demand a total settlement freeze.

For reasons that remain unclear, the Obama administration has decided to abandon  the understandings about settlements reached by the previous administration with the Israeli government. We may be abandoning the deal now, but we cannot rewrite  history and make believe it did not exist.