Thursday, August 4, 2011

President Bush on Settlements in the 1967 Territories of the West Bank in Israel: Chief of Mossad Halevy

..
.
.
This source page provides information relevant to the article that former Israel Mossad Chief Efraim HaLevy submitted to the NY Times on 10/24/12, two weeks before the election:


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/opinion/who-threw-israel-under-the-bus.html   

This article is perhaps the single most important article written about U.S.- Israel relations in 50 years (Efraim Halevy was the director of the Mossad from 1998 to 2002 and the national security adviser to the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, from October 2002 to June 2003, and before that, a Mossad agent for decades .)

[1] Halevy begins the October 24th article rejecting Mitt Romney's presidential debate assertion that Barack Obama had "thrown Israel under the bus".  

[2] Halevy denied that Obama ever reached the threshold of "throwing Israel under the bus".   

[3] Halevy asserts that no Democratic president has reached this threshold.

[4] Halevy asserts that the only presidents who ever reached this threshold were Republican presidents.  

[5] Halevy indicts President GW Bush's conduct, behavior, and attitude toward Israel, as one who 'threw Israel under the bus' 

Halevy describes events that illustrate the meeting of the threshold.  He also describes events with language to illustrate the meaning of "throwing Israel under the bus"  ( the latter are highlighted below in red):

Halevy: "Indeed, whenever the United States has put serious, sustained pressure on Israel’s leaders — from the 1950s on — it has come from Republican presidents, not Democratic ones. This was particularly true under Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush..." 
( Halevy goes on to excoriate George W Bush as having been among the top 3 presidents who threw Israel under the bus- followed by Eisenhower and HW Bush.)

Subsequently Halevy further describes the benchmark : "Not only was Israel strong-armed by a Republican president, but it was also compelled to simply acquiesce and swallow the bitterest of pills." ( Halevy says this in the context of President GW Bush's conduct toward Israel.) 

Halevy continues later  "Despite the Republican Party’s shrill campaign rhetoric on Israel, no Democratic president has ever strong-armed Israel on any key national security issue.". 

Further, after more examples concerning George W Bush, Halevy details events during the adminstrations of Herbert Walker Bush and Eisenhower.  Halevy then concludes:
"In all of these instances, a Republican White House acted in a cold and determined manner, with no regard for Israel’s national pride, strategic interests or sensitivities. That’s food for thought in October 2012."


We have not seen any authorities contradicting former Mossad Chief Halevy's conclusions {1} no former or current Mossad CHIEFS, {2} no former or current IDF CHIEFS {3} no former or current ShinBet CHIEFS {4} no former Israel National Security Council Advisors {5} no comparable authorities to the chiefs mentioned in {1} - {4}.  We actually haven't seen any opposing position at all by anyone of similar authority.   

Halevy's article cuts through nonsense and compels us to cast aside years of massive confusion, years of mindless hysteria, years of erroneous thought, and years of internalizing propaganda regarding Bush, Obama, and Israel.  Of note is the fact that Halevy's article was a prepared submission.
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/interview-between-efraim-halevy-and-aaron-david-miller

Halevy's article also at http://www.usmep.us/usmep/2012/10/23/who-threw-israel-under-the-bus/

Two weeks prior to the October 24th article, Halevy gave an interview to Al Monitor where he heralded Obama's performance with regard to Iran as exemplary and "courageous".  
The article is called  "Former Israeli Spymaster: We Need To Talk to Iran"  located here:  http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2012/al-monitor/israelsecurityiran.html  {OBAMA #2} 

Fmr. Mossad Chief Efraim Halevy: "Negotiating with Iran is perceived as a sign of beginning to forsake Israel. That is where I think the basic difference is between Romney and Obama. What Romney is doing is mortally destroying any chance of a resolution without war. Therefore when [he recently] said, he doesn’t think there should be a war with Iran, this does not ring true. It is not consistent with other things he has said. […]
Obama does think there is still room for negotiations. It’s a very courageous thing to say in this atmosphere.
In the end, this is what I think: Making foreign policy on Iran a serious issue in the US elections — what Romney has done, in itself — is a heavy blow to the ultimate interests of the United States and Israel."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMB56scrIGU
http://www.usmep.us/usmep/senior-advisors/efraim-halevy/
http://www.usmep.us/usmep/2012/09/01/former-mossad-chief-an-attack-on-iran-likely-to-foment-a-generations-long-war/ 

Now let's look at important details of Bush's harmful conduct regarding the state of Israel:
For the duration of this article we offer quotes and sources of background useful for familiarizing oneself on the matter of Israel and American relations under President George W Bush from 2001 through 2009.

Bush's Playbook during the height of the Intifada 2001 - 2002

During the suicide terror bombings of the Palestinian Intifada, when day in and day out Jews were being murdered by Palestinian terrorists at a murder rate never before seen in the state of Israel, President GW Bush gave a U.S. policy speech in the Rose Garden on April 4, 2002, ( as Jews were being blown up during the week following the Passover Massacre of 3/27/02).  During the press conference Bush demanded Israel stop defending herself the way Israel was choosing to proceed ( the Palestinian Intifada started back in September 2000).  Bush's  words were communicated with an air of verbal expressions of friendship  for Israel.  Alongside these verbal expressions of friendship Bush pushed through 2 Security Council Resolutions 1402 ( March 30, 2002) and 1403 ( April 4, 2002) ( 1403 demanded that 1402 be implemented-- ).  Bush stabbed ( using the common description referring to Obama)  Israel in the back 3 times by aligning with the International Community against Israel... demanding Israel cease defending herself from the terrorists ... and Bush did this the day after Israel began Operation Defensive Shield ( 3/29/02) rooting out the terrorists in the West Bank.

Bush stabbed Israel for the third time in a number of weeks on March 12, 2002 with Security Council Resolution 1397 as he aligned the U.S. with the International Community against Israel  just 2 weeks prior to the Passover Massacre ( ie. 19 months after the Intifada began by terrorists. 


By HERB KEINON of the Jerusalem Post....
July 31, 2014 – 6:30 P.M.  Just over a week after Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield in March 2002, moving IDF forces back into West Bank cities to neutralize the terrorist infrastructure at the height of the second intifada, US president George W. Bush held a press conference in Crawford, Texas, with visiting British prime minister Tony Blair.   The Mideast, of course, dominated the discussion.  Israel, Bush declared as Blair concurred, “should halt incursions in the Palestinian-controlled areas and begin to withdraw without delay from those cities it has recently occupied.” To make sure everyone understood, Bush reiterated in an answer to a follow-up question: “Without delay.”
Bush’s comments were followed with explanatory words made in interviews by his national security adviser at the time, Condoleezza Rice.
“The US is putting a lot on the line here,” she said in one interview. “The president said to prime minister [Ariel] Sharon: ‘I really ask you to listen to me as a friend. I really ask you to think of the consequences of what you’re doing here, and it’s important it must end without delay.’ The president several times yesterday used the word ‘now.’”
Sharon’s answer: Israel would continue to “fight relentlessly” against terrorism; the Prime Minister’s Office said Israel would continue to “take all the necessary measures to uproot the terrorist infrastructures.”
Following Bush’s call, Israel moved back from a few small Palestinian towns. But it took another month to withdraw from the major cities: Nablus, Jenin, Ramallah and Bethlehem. In other words, Bush demanded “now”; Sharon replied “when I see fit.”
http://www.herbkeinon.com/2014/07/31/israel-us-tension-over-gaza-no-surprise-nor-that-netanyahu-is-not-following-obamas-order/

See below "More on the Passover Massacre " for saddening details of what Israel experienced under GW Bush before, during and after the Passover Massacre".  

Coverage of the Israeli bombing of Qana in Lebanon illustrates a case where reporting of an event shows up in the press one way at the time the event takes place, but then significant information shows up only years later:  First from a NY Times article about the Israeli strike on Qana, afterwards see the 2014 assertion about the event from Danny Ayalon:
NYTimes: "Halfway into the war, on July 30, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Jerusalem, telling the Israeli defense minister, Amir Peretz, of her concern about killing civilians. Mr. Peretz listened but did not reveal what he knew: eight hours earlier Israel had killed more than two dozen of them in the village of Qana.
"When a senior aide told her of wrenching television coverage of the deaths, Ms. Rice cut the meeting short and accepted a Lebanese request that she not travel next to Beirut, as planned, with a draft cease-fire resolution. She got Israel to accept a 48-hour cessation of most airstrikes which, in her view, was broken within hours.
"Still, it was two more weeks before Ms. Rice, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney suggested to the Israelis that the war was starting to undermine Israel’s long-term interests. Even then, Mr. Bush and his aides did not demand a cessation of hostilities, waiting instead for the Israelis to reach the same conclusion.
"Asked in a recent interview with The New York Times whether the administration had to get the Israelis to stop their attacks, Ms. Rice said no. “I wasn’t going to give the Israelis military advice,” she said, adding that she “had a lot of sympathy for what the Israelis were dealing with.”
"It was another example of Washington’s intimate relationship and patience with Israel."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/world/middleeast/13israel.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/world/middleeast/31mideast.html?hp&ex=1154404800&en=5dc673f19afd66aa&ei=5094&partner=homepage/

The following was ONLY revealed 8 years later in August 2014 about Israel's bombing in Qana:
Times of Israel: "Former deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon, who served as Israel’s ambassador in Washington from 2002 until 2006, said Netanyahu should bite the bullet, meet Obama “at the earliest possible time,” and try to repair whatever damage was done over the last few weeks. “No, it’s not a major crisis yet, but it’s a signal that we might be on the verge of a larger crisis,” Ayalon said. “This is why it is important to straighten out the relationship. We don’t want it to get out of hand.”   Many mistakes were made on both sides of the Atlantic, Ayalon said, but the onus is on Israel to ensure this spat doesn’t turn into something bigger that could cause yet more harm to the crucial bilateral relations.  “I can tell you there were also many crises, but we contained them,” Ayalon reminisced about his time as Israeli envoy to Washington. In 2006, for example, then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice was “furious” about Israel’s deadly airstrike on the village of Qana, during the Second Lebanon War, he recalled. In her anger, she refused to authorize a planned shipment of bunker busting bombs from the US to Israel. “I called her, we reasoned, and then she signed it,” Ayalon said. “Nothing leaked to the press. That intimacy and mutual trust is what’s missing now...”
"...Even Ronald Reagan, widely considered one of the friendliest US presidents from an Israeli perspective, withheld delivery of F-16 jets because he was unhappy about Israel’s bombing of Beirut during the First Lebanon War in 1982. “There was a temporary embargo on arms shipments to Israel,” Ayalon noted. “It’s not something that is unique or unprecedented. But it has to be taken care of immediately.”
http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-new-us-israeli-quarrel-how-bad-is-it-really/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/world/middleeast/13israel.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

THEN AFTER THE 2006 LEBANON WAR WAS OVER....
"During George W. Bush’s second term, relations also took a turn for the worse – in spite of some very friendly rhetoric – following the Second Lebanon War, when the administration delayed transferring weapons requested by Israel to replenish stockpiles, including the Joint Direct Attack Munition, which turns unguided munitions into “smart bombs.” During that dust-up, the US went so far as to block military contractor Northrop Grummond from revealing details on US-made missile defense technology that Israel hoped to purchase, effectively suspending the deal altogether. An Israeli military delegation’s trip to the US was canceled as media reported that relations had hit an all-time low for the Bush administration."
"Then, as now, both sides appeared to share a vested interest in publicly downplaying the rift. Indeed, the amiable rhetoric averted a larger crisis. But can this latest crisis have a similar outcome?"


Monday, December 25, 2006
U.S. Blocks Arms, Technology To Israel (gesture to Saudis)
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=32206
TEL AVIV [MENL] 23 December 2006 -- The Bush administration has blocked
arms and technology transfers to Israel.

Israeli and U.S. sources said the State Department has blocked the transfer of weapons and technology to the Jewish state over the last three months. The sources said the halt reflected deteriorating relations between the two countries since the end of the war in Lebanon in August 2006.
"Nobody will say openly that there is a problem," a government source said. "But there is a serious problem that reflects the marginalization of  Israel in U.S. strategy." The unofficial suspension of U.S. arms deliveries began in late  September, the sources said. They said the suspension halted the airlift of air-to-ground and other munitions conducted during and immediately after the Israeli war with Hizbullah. "Several weeks after the war, the U.S. supplies stopped," the source said. "There was no real explanation." The sources said the administration has held up a list of weapons requested by Israel in wake of the Lebanon war. They said the weapons and 
equipment -- including the Joint Direct Attack Munition, or JDAM -- were  meant to replenish munitions and other stocks in preparation for a larger  war that would include Syria in mid-2007.
"The administration has not rejected any Israeli request," a U.S.  official said. "Instead, the State Department and Defense Department have said that all requests must be examined."
The administration refusal to approve the Israeli requests has also  hampered military cooperation between the two countries. In November, the  Israel Air Force canceled plans to send delegations to the United States to  examine air systems and munitions. A U.S. official said the White House was deeply disappointed by the  Israeli failure to defeat Hizbullah. The official said the war undermined U.S. confidence in Israel's military and government.
"The word in the White House was that Israel lost the war," the official  said. "That alone led to a plummet in Israel's stock in the administration,  particularly the Pentagon." The U.S. refusals have also hampered Israeli defense programs. The  sources said the State Department has prevented the transfer of data and
technology, even from projects that included Israeli participation. In one case, State prevented Northrop Grumman from providing details of its Skyguard laser weapon, which the company has sought to sell to Israel. The ban led to the suspension of Israeli negotiations to procure Skyguard, designed to intercept short-range rockets and missiles. The sources said the halt in U.S. weapons exports to Israel was designed to assuage Saudi Arabia. They said Riyad has increasingly linked regional  cooperation with Washington to pressure on Israel to halt attacks on Palestinian insurgency strongholds in the Gaza Strip.
"The White House believes that Saudi help is vital for the United  States in Iraq," a diplomatic source said. "There's nothing like stopping the weapons flow to Israel to show the Saudis that the United States means
business." http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=32206


http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2006/122206.htm
Middle East Newsline - December 22 , 2006
TEL AVIV [MENL]- The Bush administration has blocked arms and technology transfers to Israel.
Israeli and U.S. sources said the State Department has blocked the transfer of weapons and technology to the Jewish state over the last three months. The sources said the halt reflected deteriorating relations between the two countries since the end of the war in Lebanon in August 2006.
"Nobody will say openly that there is a problem," a government source said. "But there is a serious problem that reflects the marginalization of Israel in U.S. strategy."
The unofficial suspension of U.S. arms deliveries began in late September, the sources said. They said the suspension halted the airlift of air-to-ground and other munitions conducted during and immediately after the Israeli war with Hizbullah.
"Several weeks after the war, the U.S. supplies stopped," the source said. "There was no real explanation."
The sources said the administration has held up a list of weapons requested by Israel in wake of the Lebanon war. They said the weapons and equipment -- including the Joint Direct Attack Munition, or JDAM -- were meant to replenish munitions and other stocks in preparation for a larger war that would include Syria in mid-2007.
"The administration has not rejected any Israeli request," a U.S. official said. "Instead, the State Department and Defense Department have said that all requests must be examined."
The administration refusal to approve the Israeli requests has also hampered military cooperation between the two countries. In November, the Israel Air Force canceled plans to send delegations to the United States to examine air systems and munitions.
A U.S. official said the White House was deeply disappointed by the Israeli failure to defeat Hizbullah. The official said the war undermined U.S. confidence in Israel's military and government.
"The word in the White House was that Israel lost the war," the official said. "That alone led to a plummet in Israel's stock in the administration, particularly the Pentagon."
The U.S. refusals have also hampered Israeli defense programs. The sources said the State Department has prevented the transfer of data and technology, even from projects that included Israeli participation.
In one case, State prevented Northrop Grumman from providing details of its Skyguard laser weapon, which the company has sought to sell to Israel. The ban led to the suspension of Israeli negotiations to procure Skyguard, designed to intercept short-range rockets and missiles.
The sources said the halt in U.S. weapons exports to Israel was designed to assuage Saudi Arabia. They said Riyad has increasingly linked regional cooperation with Washington to pressure on Israel to halt attacks on Palestinian insurgency strongholds in the Gaza Strip.
"The White House believes that Saudi help is vital for the United States in Iraq," a diplomatic source said. "There's nothing like stopping the weapons flow to Israel to show the Saudis that the United States means business."



CIA Reduces Exchange with Israel Middle East Newsline
Middle East Newsline - September 1, 2004 WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The U.S. intelligence community has reduced its cooperation withIsrael.
Israeli and U.S. officials said the CIA has dampened its intelligence exchange with Israel's Mossad over the last 16 months in wake of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Both sides said the reduction in intelligence cooperation stemmed from distrust over the use of the information as well as U.S. concern of an Arab backlash.
The reduction in CIA-Mossad ties could affect the entire spectrum of Israeli-U.S. intelligence cooperation. The director of the CIA has been deemed interim national intelligence director in a move that grants him authority to determine intelligence collection priorities, manage collection, and resolve disputes in the tasking of national collection assets.
The disclosure of the reduction in the Israeli-U.S. intelligence exchange has belied frequent assertions by senior officials in Jerusalem and Washington regarding the unprecedented level of strategic relations between the two countries. Officials said Israel and the United States maintain a high level of cooperation regarding Iraq, but said this has not been reflected in other areas.
Officials appear to agree that the U.S.-led war in Iraq was the trigger for a decrease in CIA cooperation with the Mossad. They said CIA director George Tenet was dismayed by what he felt was the high level of Israeli influence in U.S. intelligence assessments regarding the Saddam Hussein regime and its survival.
President George Bush has nominated Rep. Porter Goss, a former CIA officer, as the next director of the agency. Goss, a Republican from Florida, was said to share Tenet's view regarding the limits of the intelligence cooperation with Israel.
"The CIA view is that intelligence cooperation with Israel must be limited and depend on whether the agency can obtain the same or equivalent information from other U.S. allies," an official said.
Officials said a key source of friction between the intelligence communities of Israel and the United States was that Mossad assessments on Iraq and Iran were often seen in Congress and in Pentagon circles as more authoritative than those of the CIA. This attitude was said to have angered Tenet and led to friction with the Israeli intelligence community.
By late 2003, officials said, Tenet began expressing concern that information from U.S. reconnaissance satellites were being processed and analyzed by Israeli intelligence ahead of the CIA. The result was that on several occasions Tenet made caustic remarks to his Israeli interlocutors that the Mossad had planted an agent high up in the administration.
"The Israelis chuckled the first time they heard this, pretending this was a joke," an official said. "The second time, there was less laughter, and by the third time, the Israelis knew Tenet was serious. Finally, one of the Israelis said, 'If you're so sure that we have a spy, then find this person.' After that, Tenet began to reduce his meetings with Mossad chiefs."
Israeli officials said the CIA has withheld information from the Mossad on a range of subjects. They said CIA reports on Iranian intermediate-range missile and nuclear weapons programs became vague and that Washington shelved Israeli requests for information on missile production programs in Pakistan and North Korea, key suppliers to Teheran.
In 2003, the officials said, the CIA also refused to relay information on Libya's nuclear weapons and missile program. The CIA move was said to have angered Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, a keen consumer of intelligence, who regarded Tripoli as an emerging threat to the Jewish state.
"At the time, we told ourselves that it was because the CIA felt we couldn't keep a secret," an Israeli official said. "There was some truth to this. But it later became apparent that the CIA did not want us to use this information, particularly in dealing with Congress and the White House."
By late 2003, officials from both countries said, the CIA was blocking information from Israel on Al Qaida's network in Asia and the Persian Gulf. Moreover, the CIA refused to respond to an Israeli offer to search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, believed shipped abroad on the eve of the U.S.-led war against Baghdad.
Israeli officials said they believed Tenet reduced such cooperation to avoid revisions in U.S. foreign policy. They said the CIA did not want to bolster Israel's argument that Iran was accelerating its nuclear weapons program and approaching the point of indigenous capability, an assertion adopted by Undersecretary of State John Bolton, the key administration official on nonproliferation. Tenet viewed the Mossad reports on Iran as an Israeli attempt to pressure the administration to consider U.S. military measures against Teheran.
Tenet also wanted to ensure that Arab states would not be harmed by CIA information to the Mossad, officials said. Tenet as well as the State Department cited Israeli pressure for the imposition of U.S. sanctions on Damascus in May 2004.
Officials said Tenet also sought to prevent any Arab backlash connected to the U.S.-Israeli intelligence exchange. Officials said an increasing amount of intelligence on Al Qaida was coming from Saudi Arabia and Syria, who insisted that the information not be shared with Israel.
By 2004, the Mossad began to retaliate and withheld information from the CIA, officials said. This was said to have angered Tenet, who thought Israel was sharing information on Iran with pro-Israeli circles in the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency. Tenet was said to have suspected that Israel was creating a lobby within the U.S. intelligence and military community for a U.S.-Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Over the last six months, Israel has quietly complained that its intelligence exchange with the United States has been lopsided, officials said. They said in areas where the U.S. military required information -- such as Iraq -- Washington has cooperated with Israeli military intelligence. But they said that regarding Iran, Libya and Al Qaida -- key areas for the Mossad -- the CIA has withheld significant intelligence.
The question of Israeli-U.S. intelligence cooperation comes as the FBI has been investigating a range of Pentagon officials regarding their contacts with Israel. The FBI has been questioning the senior Iran analyst at the Pentagon, Larry Franklin, on suspicion that he relayed a classified document to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee. So far, no arrests have been reported.

________________________________________________________________________

We continue to survey the Bush playbook regarding security and the settlements and his attempts at strong arming Israel:

PART 2 The settlements in the West Bank under 
President GW Bush:

Daniel Kurtzer, U.S. Ambassador to Israel – May 29, 2002 – Ha’aretz
 “Our opposition to the settlements is political. Washington feels that Israel would be better protected and more accepted inside borders where there are no settlements, so a decision on their future must be accepted on the basis of their feasibility. It is a fact that we have opposed the settlements for decades and you continue to build them and we have done nothing untoward to you [in response]. If Israel wants, it can even expand to the borders promised in the Bible. The question is whether it is able to do so from a security and political standpoint.”

By , and Arnon Regular | May.27, 2005 | 12:00 AM 
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/bush-end-expansion-of-settlements-1.159722

 President GW Bush: "Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides. While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous."
President Bush  January 10, 2008: at the King David Hotel Jerusalem
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080110-3.html 

Bush June 24, 2002 introduces the Road Map on June 24, 2002 in the Rose Garden in a speech President Bush Calls for New Palestinian Leadership, the first introduction to the Road Map that was formally announced by Bush March 14, 2003 in the Rose Garden.  The United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted the Road Map on November 19, 2003.

Below Bush explains -in one of his many public pronouncements- that he is going to fast track the peace process - in this process he claims a Palestinian state with provisional borders should be created in 3 years with a quickly created Palestinian state with provisional borders ( the provisional borders allow for a quick officially created state in the West Bank and Gaza, something Bush kept referring to fast tracking...which was deemed something very attainable because the absence of negotiating final borders, and other "tough" questions until after the state was established, the state would be established and no one would be able to backtrack once the UN recognized this provisional state.
(the situation of course changed through Ariel Sharon's decision to stop Bush's fast track Palestinian state by executing the Gaza Withdrawal) 
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/print/20020624-3.html

June 25, 2002
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/25/israel.usahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/25/israel.usa 
Excerpted from "President Bush Calls for New Palestinian Leadership "
The Rose Garden/ THE PRESIDENT:
   "....In the situation the Palestinian people will grow more and more miserable. My vision is two states, living side by side in peace and security. There is simply no way to achieve that peace until all parties fight terror... 
I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror...
And when the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbors, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders and certain aspects of its sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the Middle East....
As we make progress towards security, Israel forces need to withdraw fully to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000. And consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop....
As new Palestinian institutions and new leaders emerge, demonstrating real performance on security and reform, I expect Israel to respond and work toward a final status agreement. With intensive effort by all, this agreement could be reached within three years from now. And I and my country will actively lead toward that goal....  "  
"I can understand the deep anger and anguish of the Israeli people. You've lived too long with fear and funerals, having to avoid markets and public transportation, and forced to put armed guards in kindergarten classrooms. The Palestinian Authority has rejected your offer at hand, and trafficked with terrorists. You have a right to a normal life; you have a right to security; and I deeply believe that you need a reformed, responsible Palestinian partner to achieve that security. ...
"I can understand the deep anger and despair of the Palestinian people. For decades you've been treated as pawns in the Middle East conflict. Your interests have been held hostage to a comprehensive peace agreement that never seems to come, as your lives get worse year by year. You deserve democracy and the rule of law. You deserve an open society and a thriving economy. You deserve a life of hope for your children. An end to occupation and a peaceful democratic Palestinian state may seem distant, but America and our partners throughout the world stand ready to help, help you make them possible as soon as possible...."

It is very important for the reader to recognize [1] the sequence and [2] time frame of what Bush was promoting, namely, in 3 years ...
(a) the Palestinians would have a new leadership ( Abbas Queureri Fayyed etc...) 
(b) new security structures in place ( the entire IDF and Mossad establishment by 2007/8 were all claiming that the PA was doing with 100% effort:
(c) as "b- new security structures were developing, Israel would withdraw fully to positions held prior to September 28, 2000 and settlement activity would stop.  This would later be called by Bush "natural growth" and this major requirement of President Bush would be forced on Israel in the "Roadmap" ( confirmed by the Head of the Mossad at the time, Efraim Halevy).
We ask the reader to compare this to Obama's request for Israel to stop settlement activity prior to the establishment of the Palestinian state- Obama's request took place years after Israel built up and past the legal official settlement borders referred to in Bush's Road Map, meaning that outward activity in settlements in 2009 and onward violated the Bush imposed natural growth settlement freeze. 

                                   __________________________________ 

Israel's immediate rejection of main Road Map Requirement
On May 12, 2003 it was reported that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had rejected Israel's main road map requirement, a settlement freeze, as "impossible" due to the need for settlers in the West Bank to build new houses and start families. Ariel Sharon asked then US Secretary of State Colin Powell "What do you want, for a pregnant woman to have an abortion just because she is a settler?".[2] This stance was consistent with Sharon's earlier rejection of a settlement freeze as part of the Mitchell Report which he justified by asking rhetorically, "Let's assume that a family is going to have a baby ... What should they do, abortion?"[3][4]


Bush demands end to Israeli 'occupation'
January 10, 2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1575175/Bush-demands-end-to-Israeli-occupation.html

"...There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967," Mr Bush told reporters.
"...Now is the time to make difficult choices.
"...The agreement must establish a Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people."
"...I am confident that with proper help the state of Palestine will emerge."
 "...Swiss cheese isn't going to work when it comes to the territory of a state," he said. "In order for there to be lasting peace ... Abbas and prime minister Olmert have to come together and make tough choices and I'm convinced they will....
"...I believe it's going to happen, that there's going to be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office."  

 


More Background
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/april02/bush_4-4.html 
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june05/israel_4-11.html
President George W. Bush’s Rose Garden Address – April 4, 2002 
"....Yet, Israel must understand that its response to these recent attacks is only a temporary measure. All parties have their own responsibilities, and all parties owe it to their own people to act. 
"...Israel faces hard choices of its own. Its government has supported the creation of a Palestinian state that is not a haven for terrorism.
 "... Israel also must recognize that such a state needs to be politically and economically viable. Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognize boundaries consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338.....
".....Ultimately, this approach should be the basis of agreements between Israel and Syria and Israel and Lebanon.....
"Israel should also show a respect -- a respect for and concern about the dignity of the Palestinian people who are and will be their neighbors. It is crucial to distinguish between the terrorists and ordinary Palestinians seeking to provide for their own families....
"The Israeli government should be compassionate at checkpoints and border crossings, sparing innocent Palestinians daily humiliation....
"Israel should take immediate action to ease closures and allow peaceful people to go back to work....
"Israel is facing a terrible and serious challenge. For seven days, it has acted to rout out terrorists' nests. America recognizes Israel's right to defend itself from terror.
Yet, to lay the foundations of future peace, I ask Israel to halt incursions into Palestinian-controlled areas and begin the withdrawal from those cities it has recently occupied.
"I speak as a committed friend of Israel. I speak out of a concern for its long-term security, the security that will come with a genuine peace.
As Israel steps back, responsible Palestinian leaders and Israel's Arab neighbors must step forward and show the world that they are truly on the side of peace.
The choice and the burden will be theirs. The world expects an immediate cease-fire, immediate resumption of security cooperation with Israel against terrorism, and an immediate order to crack down on terrorist networks. I expect better leadership, and I expect results.
These are the elements of peace in the Middle East, and now we must build the road to those goals. Decades of bitter experience teach a clear lesson: Progress is impossible when nations emphasize their grievances and ignore their opportunities.
The storms of violence cannot go on. Enough is enough.
"... As a step in this process, he will work to implement United Nations Resolution 1402 -- an immediate and meaningful cease-fire, an end to terror and violence and incitement; withdrawal of Israel troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah; implementation of the already-agreed-upon Tenet and Mitchell plans, which will lead to a political settlement.
"I have no illusions -- we have no illusions -- about the difficulty of the issues that lay ahead. Yet our nation's resolve is strong. America is committed to ending this conflict and beginning an era of peace."


Bush invokes and embraces the Mitchell Report.  He didn't have to do so.  He chose to do so.  Here is a relevant passage from the Mitchell Report:
The Mitchell Report – April 30, 2001
“During the half-century of its existence, Israel has had the strong support of the United States. In international forums, the United States has at times cast the only vote on Israel’s behalf. Yet, even in such a close relationship there are some difficulties. Prominent among those differences is the U.S. government’s long-standing opposition to the Government of Israel’s policies and practices regarding settlements.” …..“The GOI should freeze all settlement activity, including the “natural growth” of existing settlements. The kind of security cooperation desired by the GOI cannot for long co-exist with settlement activity described very recently by the European Union as causing “great concern” and by the United States as “provocative.”
The Mitchell Report – April 30, 2001


Following is the text of the report submitted by the investigatory committee set up to look into the cause of violence that began in mid-2000. It is named after the chairman of the committee, former U.S. Senator George Mitchell ( embraced by GW Bush....) 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/Mitchellrep.html  ( from the Mitchell Report)
"Settlements: The GOI also has a responsibility to help rebuild confidence. A cessation of Palestinian-Israeli violence will be particularly hard to sustain unless the GOI freezes all settlement construction activity. Settlement activities must not be allowed to undermine the restoration of calm and the resumption of negotiations.....On each of our two visits to the region, there were Israeli announcements regarding expansion of settlements, and it was almost always the first issue raised by Palestinians with whom we met. The GOI describes its policy as prohibiting new settlements but permitting expansion of existing settlements to accommodate “natural growth.” Palestinians contend that there is no distinction between “new” and “expanded” settlements; and that, except for a brief freeze during the tenure of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, there has been a continuing, aggressive effort by Israel to increase the number and size of settlements....
http://books.google.com/books?id=iVJR9UZnTVAC&pg=PA529&lpg=PA529&dq=The+GOI+should+freeze+all+settlement+activity,+including+the+%E2%80%9Cnatural+growth%E2%80%9D+of&source=bl&ots=5E8WssfWpo&sig=Kzw5DNiwaJonnttArQqEeS2Nu8I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Wo6rUNjiJ8bJ0QGu-YCADQ&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=The%20GOI%20should%20freeze%20all%20settlement%20activity%2C%20including%20the%20%E2%80%9Cnatural%20growth%E2%80%9D%20of&f=false
and 
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2009/01/21/191425/settlement_freeze/ 



 Palestinian Terrorism and Bush's decision to nudge out Arafat results in a forced delay in implementation of Bush's 3 year fast track approach to a provisional Palestinian state. 
Abbas is installed and then Bush is back on the fast track - until Sharon announces the Disengagement adopted by the GOI June 6, 2004 and implemented Summer 2005.


Bush's Road Map fast track resumes for 2 state solution including the West Bank even prior to the Disengagement Summer 2005

Bush On Settlement Expansion in the West Bank

(April 5, 2005)


President Bush responded to questions following a meeting of his cabinet. The following was a reference to an Israeli announcement about moving forward with long-planned construction to connect Jerusalem and the town of Ma'aleh Adumim.
Q Mr. President, Prime Minister Sharon has said he intends to expand the largest Jewish settlement in the West Bank. Other officials say no construction is imminent. Are you satisfied? And what will you tell Sharon when you see him about the settlements?


THE PRESIDENT: "Our position is very clear that the road map is important, and the road map calls for no expansion of the settlements. I'm optimistic we can achieve a peace in the Holy Land. I'm optimistic because I firmly believe that Ariel Sharon wants to have a peaceful partner, wants there to be a democracy in the Palestinian Territories, and I believe President Abbas wants the same thing. And there's a lot of hard work to be done, but we're making progress. And I look forward to meeting the Prime Minister in Crawford to continue to work with the parties to advance peace."


Source: The White House

What was going to happen in Crawford? CNN reports:  "Sharon in Texas to meet with Bush (April 10, 2005).  Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon landed in Texas Sunday for a Monday meeting with President Bush amid a dispute between the allies over Israel's plan to expand a Jewish settlement in the West Bank.  Sharon's government has announced it plans to build 3,500 housing units in Ma'aleh Adumim, its largest settlement in the West Bank. Sharon says the expansion would be a natural extension of a Jerusalem suburb, but the plans have drawn criticism from the Bush administration and infuriated Palestinians who envision Jerusalem as their future capital."
( so all of the propaganda we read about the 2004 letters meaning that he could build in Maaleh Adumim type settlements in the West Bank was nonsense)

http://articles.cnn.com/2005-04-10/world/bush.mideast_1_terrorist-capabilities-and-infrastructure-freeze-settlement-construction-mideast-quartet?_s=PM:WORLD


MSNBC: "Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon brushed off a warning from President Bush not to allow further West Bank settlement growth, indicating Israel would continue to solidify its hold on areas it considers of strategic importance....Sharon, speaking to reporters before flying to Washington for talks Tuesday with U.S. lawmakers and Jewish leaders, said the dispute was decades-old and did not mar the meeting between the two leaders, which he called a great success.....At the ranch, Bush told Sharon that any further building on the settlements would be in violation of the internationally backed “road map” peace plan, which both the Israelis and the Palestinians have formally accepted, but which has been long dormant with both sides failing to carry out their initial obligations....“I’ve been very clear. Israel has an obligation under the road map. That’s no expansion of settlements,” Bush said.....But later, Sharon said that while U.S. opposition to the settlements dated back to when Israel first captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 Middle East war, Israel has nevertheless continued to build communities to keep a hold on the land......
“It was not to antagonize the U.S., but to keep areas that seem strategic to Israel,” Sharon told reporters.  The latest dispute stems from differing interpretations of a statement made by Bush last year, and reaffirmed Monday, where he recognized Israel’s need to keep large settlement blocs in the West Bank. Bush cited “new realities on the ground.”  ....Israel believes this allows for expansion of exiting settlements, while the U.S. says this would endanger peace with the Palestinians.....
The issue reappeared last month when Israel announced plans to add 3,650 homes to the West Bank’s largest settlement, Maaleh Adumim. The plan would cut off Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. The United States objected......Sharon said Israel will keep large settlement blocs like Maaleh Adumim. “The blocs will be part of Israel, with everything that that entails,” Sharon said, indicating the construction that will link Maaleh Adumim to Jerusalem will continue.
f Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza comes off successfully, then, “I think we’ll have a different frame of mind” more conducive to pursuing peace, Bush said. “To me, that’s where the attention of the world ought to be, on Gaza.”
But there will be no progress after the Gaza pullout unless “the Palestinians completely fulfill their obligations of stopping terror attacks, waging a war against terror, destroying the terror infrastructure and reforming their security services,” Sharon said.
“I have no intent, in no way, of progressing with the road map ... until they fulfill all their obligations,” he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7447917/ns/world_news/t/sharon-brushes-warning-bush/#.UPaMnfKAmJ8

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/bush-end-expansion-of-settlements-1.159722

April 11, 2005 a radio piece from NPR ( ed. note;* Bush and Sharon are not in the room, this is a transcription of MARGARET WARNER' radio piece with sound bites of Sharon and Bush included:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june05/israel_4-11.html
MARGARET WARNER: There have been fierce protests from the pro-settler right wing in Israel. But Prime Minister Sharon is pushing ahead with his plan to remove all 21 Israeli settlements in Gaza this summer, plus four in the northern West Bank.
...many Palestinians suspect the Israelis will use the Gaza pullout as cover to expand their settlements in the occupied West Bank. Those suspicions were inflamed two weeks ago, when Israel announced plans to expand a large West Bank settlement, Maale Adumim, just three miles East of Jerusalem; 3,500 housing units will be added where 30,000 Jewish settlers already live. Palestinian officials angrily protested that the expansion would cut off their access to east Jerusalem and end hopes that it could become the capital of an eventual Palestinian state. Israel's announcement was swiftly criticized as well by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She told the Los Angeles Times the move was "at odds with American policy," and called for a "full stop" of the project.
So expectations were high about a possible confrontation today when Prime Minister Sharon met with President Bush at his Texas ranch in their first face-to-face discussion in months. And the press conference afterwards did focus heavily on the expansion of Maale Adumim.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I've been very clear about Israel has an obligation under the road map. That's no expansion of settlements. I look forward to continuing to work and dialogue with Israel on this subject.
ARIEL SHARON: It is the Israeli position that the major Israeli population centers will remain in Israel's hands under any future final status agreement.
MARGARET WARNER: President Bush agreed that some major West Bank population centers would likely remain under Israeli control as part of final status negotiations with the Palestinians.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: But there is a road map, there is a process, and we've all agreed to it. And part of that process is no expansion of settlements.
MARGARET WARNER: But Sharon came back on the settlement in question.
ARIEL SHARON: Maale Adumim is one of the blocs of Jewish population, and our position is that this would be part of Israel. And of course we are very much interested that it will be a contiguity between Maale Adumim and Jerusalem. But I think altogether we are too early, because everything that happens there really altogether might take many years.
MARGARET WARNER: Sharon also said Israel won't talk about further West Bank withdrawals after the Gaza pullout until Palestinians do more to clamp down on terror.
ARIEL SHARON: Only after the Palestinians fulfill their obligations -- primarily a real fight against terrorism and the dismantling of its infrastructure -- can we proceed toward negotiations based on the road map.
REPORTER: Mr. President, do you support the prime minister's position, as he stated now, that after the disengagement, there will be no other political steps until a final and complete dismantling of terror organizations?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: "Basically, he's saying that, you know, until he sees more progress, he doesn't have confidence. And I suspect if we were to have a frank discussion about it, the Palestinians would say, "we don't have confidence in Israel."
"So what's needed is confidence. And I'm convinced the place to earn to gain that confidence is to succeed in the Gaza. I just suspect that if there is success in the Gaza -- in other words, if there's a state that's emerging -- the prime minister will have a different attitude about whether or not it makes sense to continue the process. And so I want to focus the world's attention on getting it right in the Gaza."
MARGARET WARNER: And to help us understand, first of all, why this proposed expansion is so contentious and what really happened at today's meeting we turn to our team of Middle East analysts, David Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East policy. He's the former executive editor of the Jerusalem Post and the diplomatic correspondent for Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz. And Hisham Melhem, Washington bureau chief for the Lebanese newspaper An-Nahar; he also hosts a weekly program on the Arab satellite channel, al-Arabiya.
Welcome back gentlemen. All right, help decode this meeting for us. I'll start with you, David. What really happened on this expansion of the settlement? Did either man blink or did they just agree to disagree?
DAVID MAKOVSKY: I think they agreed to disagree. I think if you counted the number of times the president said during his press conference, support the Gaza disengagement plan, I think you see that focus today was more Gaza and less the West Bank.
MARGARET WARNER: How did you see it?
HISHAM MELHEM: I agree essentially. Sharon's plan is the focus of the president's attention who called on the rest of the world to focus on only on the Gaza implementation disengagement plan. I think Sharon gave the president what he wanted to hear in a sense saying we will dismantled some of these so-called unauthorized settlements.
MARGARET WARNER: Other settlements.
HISHAM MELHEM: But on the real issue of major settlements, like Maale Adumim and others, the president unfortunately is the one who did the blinking. We have seen a return -- it's a deja-vu all over again. Last year the president told Ariel Sharon that he agrees with him essentially that Israel should not withdraw back to 1949 armistice lines. And Sharon is using that to justify the expansion of Maale Adumim and other settlements.
MARGARET WARNER: So, David, how does this fit with Secretary Rice's reaction when this announcement was made? I mean, she was pretty blunt there with the LA Times.
DAVID MAKOVSKY: I think what you're seeing is a high-wire act by the administration trying to see if they can work both on the domestic base of Sharon at this critical moment and the domestic base of Mahmoud Abbas, the new Palestinian leader. I just got back from Ramallah, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv. And it's clear that there's like different universes, parallel universes.
And each one is focused on their domestic situation. From where Sharon is standing he has 100,000 demonstrators in the street, the Shin Bet security service saying there are 200 people wanting to assassinate him. His party is completely divided believing he's utterly betrayed his principles by evicting eight thousand settlers from their home and there's talk of the Shin Bet, somebody's trying to blow up the Temple Mount -- all Jews -- the people who want to kill Sharon are Jews not Palestinians. So Sharon is focused domestically.
Mahmoud Abbas also new in the post Arafat era is trying to put together his new situation. He's encountering different -- difficulties from the old guard. The Bush administration is trying to split the difference essentially saying Gaza is the focus because if Gaza succeeds as you just heard the president in the set-up piece then many other things are possible. But you should know for the record our position is against this one zone.
MARGARET WARNER: So take us back to the administration. How do the Palestinians read the apparent difference between Secretary Rice and the president? Do they think Secretary Rice was just trying to send a nice signal to the Palestinians, or do they think that she really did feel that what Sharon did was a thumb in the eye to this new administration, to her as a new secretary of state and the fact that there's a new leadership in the Palestinians?
HISHAM MELHEM: There was some talk about contradictory signals from the secretary of state and the president, but I think the president set the record straight today. He said there was no such contradictions and that he's clear on new expansion of settlements. But he admitted that this issue is not settled. He admitted that it is not going to engage Sharon with a confrontation at this stage. That's why he talked about continuing dialogue with Israelis on this issue.
Now for the Palestinians the real issue is what will happen the day after the Gaza disengagement plan. Sharon is essentially saying by his words and his deeds nothing will happen. And the Palestinians who are saying we need contiguity; we need viability for the state to survive are listening to Sharon talking about contiguity between Israeli settlements, and Maale Adumim and others, with Jerusalem under Israeli control -
rest of transcript located at above link.
Bush: "End expansion of settlements "

May 27, 2005 Haaretz By , and Arnon Regular | May.27, 2005 | 12:00 AM regarding West Bank

 "U.S. President George Bush yesterday demanded that Israel halt all settlement construction, specifically mentioning Jerusalem in this context, during his first meeting with Mahmoud Abbas since the latter's election as chairman of the Palestinian Authority.
"Bush also gave American backing to a key Palestinian negotiating demand, declaring at a press conference following their White House meeting that any border deviations from the 1949 armistice lines would have to be by mutual Israeli-Palestinian consent. And he made only vague, general statements about the need to fight terror....
"Bush, who referred to Abbas consistently as "Mr. President," did not give the Palestinian leader any written pledges, but his speech at the press conference was a clear statement of American policy regarding a final-status agreement - and it delighted his Palestinian guests. Officials in Abbas's entourage expressed particular pleasure over Bush's statements on the settlements and his explicit mention of Jerusalem as one of the issues on which Israel must not prejudice final-status negotiations.... 
"While Bush's call for a halt to settlement expansion was not new, his explicit mention of Jerusalem in this context was, and reflects American concern over Israeli building plans in Ma'aleh Adumim and the greater Jerusalem area.
"With regard to borders, Bush said explicitly that "any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 armistice lines must be mutually agreed to." This statement was aimed at assuaging Palestinian concern over his letter to Sharon last year, in which he stated that "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."
The president then added: "A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations."
Israel, Bush continued, must "work with the Palestinian leadership to improve the daily lives of Palestinians, especially their humanitarian situation. Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudices final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem."
"Therefore, Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion. The barrier being erected by Israel as a part of its security effort must be a security, rather than political, barrier. And its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities."
Bush also reiterated the road map peace plan's demand that Israeli forces withdraw to their positions as of September 28, 2000, but added that this should happen "as we make progress toward security," rather than unconditionally.
Bush also promised to give $50 million in direct aid to the PA, to be earmarked for "new housing and infrastructure projects" in the Gaza Strip.... 
"Bush also announced that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will go to Jerusalem and Ramallah prior to the disengagement from Gaza to discuss Israeli-Palestinian coordination of the withdrawal and "the way back on the road map." Bush did not make any specific demands of Abbas at the press conference regarding the need to fight terror, merely stating that "all who engage in terror are the enemies of a Palestinian state, and must be held to account." Instead, he praised Abbas for his stance on terror, saying: "The United States and the international community applaud your rejection of terrorism."
"In response to questions afterward, Bush said that the U.S. has not changed its view that Hamas is a terrorist group, but offered no objections to Hamas running in the PA elections { editor's note: Chief of Mossad Efraim Halevy states in the above article that GW Bush forced Israel to allow Hamas to run in the elections}. However, he added, "you cannot have a democracy based upon rule of law if you have armed bands of people who will use their weapons to try to achieve a political outcome...."

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N6/wn6_long3.6w.html
NYTIMES.com
Israel Pullback Not To Replace Peace Roadmap, Sharon Says
By James Bennet The New York Times -- JERUSALEM
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel courted U.S. support on Thursday for his proposal for “unilateral disengagement” from the Palestinians, saying that it would not replace President Bush’s peace initiative, known as the road map.
In a speech and a three-hour meeting here with envoys from Bush, Sharon said he was committed to the road map. He defended his plan for withdrawing from most of the Gaza Strip as necessary for Israel’s security should the Palestinians fail to abide by the peace plan. “We will not wait for them forever,” he said.
Sharon’s aides had previously said he would only implement his proposal once he judged that the road map had failed. But the Bush administration appears reluctant to have anyone make that judgment.
Warning of a potential “security and political vacuum” in Palestinian areas, Sharon said in his speech, “we must be realistic” and prepare other steps.
But, he continued, “I would like to stress that this disengagement plan is a security measure and not a political one. The steps that will be taken will not prevent the possibility of implementing the president’s vision in reaching an agreed settlement if and when there will be a reliable partner on the Palestinian side.”
Palestinian officials accuse Sharon of deliberately undermining the governing Palestinian Authority. They say he wants to avoid negotiations that might force him to yield more land than he plans to turn over unilaterally.
Neither side has abided by its first obligations under the road map, a three-phase plan for reciprocal, simultaneous concessions to achieve a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza and a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace in three years.
While Sharon has left the West Bank outposts largely alone, he is now proposing a far bolder step politically -- evacuating most of the established settlements in Gaza. He would take that step not as part of an agreement but as a unilateral measure to draw what he called “security lines.” He said any Israeli steps would be “fully coordinated” with the United States.
Saying he had not seen “even the slightest signs” of Palestinian action against terrorism, Sharon warned that his plan would leave the Palestinians with “much less” than they would have had if they followed the road map.
With the plan under sharp criticism within his coalition government and his dominant faction, Likud, Sharon is trying to build support in the Bush administration, which has been seeking a fuller explanation of his plans. He met Thursday with Elliott Abrams, director of Middle East affairs at the National Security Council; Stephen Hadley, the deputy national security adviser, and William J. Burns, head of the Middle East bureau at the State Department regarding the West Bank.


“Our position on settlements, I think, has been very consistent, very clear. The secretary expressed it not too long ago. He said settlement activity has severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope, preempts and prejudges the outcome of negotiations, and in doing so, cripples chances for real peace and prosperity. The U.S. has long opposed settlement activity and, consistent with the report of the Mitchell Committee, settlement activity must stop.”
Richard Boucher, U.S. Department of State – Daily Press Briefing – November 25, 2002
Following article was the published text of the RoadMap in the NY Times March 1, 2003:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/01/world/mideast-peace-proposal-proposal-for-final-comprehensive-settlement-middle-east.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/bush040505.html


Below are 3 General Assembly Resolutions and 7 Security Council Resolutions in which President Bush had the American U.S. Rep to the UN vote COUNTER to the will of the Government of Israel with complete suppression of criticism by the Republican party:

(December 10, 2001) President Bush abstains from General Assembly Resolution 56/63 that condemns Israel for it's occupation activities in the Golan Heights
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unga56_63.html

(December 11, 2002) President Bush abstains from General Assembly Resolution 57/128 that condemns Israel for it's occupation activities in the Golan Heights
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unga57_128.html

(December 17, 2003) President Bush abstains from General Assembly Resolution 58/100 that condemns Israel for it's occupation activities in the Golan Heights 
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unga58_100.html


Below are Security Council Resolutions voted on with "YES" by President GW Bush or where President Bush had the U.S. abstain from voting allowing passage of a resolution that has the force of international law ( counter to the will of the Government of Israel):

March 12, 2002   SCR 1397  ( see below:   U.S. votes YES  counter to the will of the State of Israel who was engaged in military operations hunting down terrorists during the Intifada. 
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unres1397.html

March 30, 2002 SCR 1402  ( U.S. votes YES subsequent to Passover Massacre after Israel initiated a new military operation to stop the terorrists.  The vote is counter to the will of the State of Israel.  Resolution has the force of International Law. 
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unres1402.html

April 4, 2002 SCR 1403(  U.S. votes YES subsequent to Passover Massacre after Israel initiated a new military operation to stop the terorrists.  The vote is counter to the will of the State of Israel.  Resolution passed and has the force of International Law.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unres1403.html    

September 24, 2002 SCR 1435 ( demands Israel's military operations cease.  U.S. abstains and the SCR passes.    The vote is counter to the will of the State of Israel.  Resolutionpassed and has the force of International Law.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unres1435.html    

December 17, 2002 SCR 1451 ( demands Israel's military operations cease.  U.S. votes YES and the SCR passes.    The vote is counter to the will of the State of Israel.  Resolution passed and has the force of International Law.   
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unres1451.html

November 19, 2003 SCR 1515 endorses Bush's Roadmap  U.S. votes YES and the SCR passes.    The vote is counter to the will of the State of Israel ( see extensive history and the October 24, 2012 submission to the NY Times by the Chief of the Mossad Efraim Halevy { at the time the Roadmap was passed, he was the head of the Mossad.}  Resolution passed and has the force of International Law.   
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unres1515.html        

May 19, 2004 SCR 1544 called on Israel to stop demolishing homes in southern Gaza. The resolution passed with a 14-0 vote. The United States abstained. The vote is counter to the will of the State of Israel.  Resolution passed and has the force of International Law.  
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unres1544.html     

 2008
(Jump ahead three years after the Gaza Disengagement that resulted in- and forced-  the temporary delay on a the future of the West Bank permanent....)
JANUARY 10, 2008: Pres. GW Bush: "The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967... 



"The establishment of the state of Palestine is long overdue. The Palestinian people deserve it. And it will enhance the stability of the region, and it will contribute to the security of the people of Israel. The peace agreement should happen, and can happen, by the end of this year. I know each leader shares that important goal, and I am committed to doing all I can to achieve it.... "

Jerusalem Post: 
"Rice: US entirely opposed to Har Homa"
HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, HERB KEINON and KHALED ABU TOAMEH 01/08/2008
Rice tells 'Post' Israel must honor Road Map commitments; President Bush en route to Israel.
"On the eve of US President George W. Bush's visit to Israel and the region, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice placed the issue of settlement activity in the West Bank and east Jerusalem at center stage, telling The Jerusalem Post that "Har Homa is a settlement the United States has opposed from the very beginning." Rice, who was accompanying Bush en route to Israel overnight Tuesday, said that "the United States doesn't make a distinction" between settlement activity in east Jerusalem and the West Bank and that Israel's road map obligations, which include a building freeze, relate to "settlement activity generally." Rice's comments underlined that the settlement issue will be high on the agenda of the talks between Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.  
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/rice-har-homa-homes-harm-talks-1.234841
Latest update 01:30 09.12.07

Rice: Har Homa homes harm talks

By Barak Ravid and Jonathan Lis
U.S.Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday the plan to build 307 new housing units in Jerusalem's Har Homa neighborhood beyond the Green Line does not help the peace process.
"I've made clear that we're in a time when the goal is to build maximum confidence between the parties, and this doesn't help to build confidence...."
"Rice said she had brought up the matter with Livni in a phone call and at Brussels. "It is even more important now that we are really on the eve of the beginning" of negotiations, she said.
Government officials said there is no tension between Israel and the U.S. over Har Homa.
Livni said in a speech at NATO headquarters that Israel is ready to do its part in the road map, but expects the Palestinians to fight terror. She said only the two parties in the conflict can make decisions about their future.
"Housing Minister Ze'ev Boim was critical of Rice's statements on Har Homa.
"Secretary Rice is to be praised for her part in getting the peace process restarted, but it is inconceivable that at every opportunity this will be tied to construction in Jerusalem," he said.
"The neighborhood of Har Homa is within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem to which Israeli law applies. Accordingly, there is no obstacle to building there as there is no obstacle to building anywhere else in Israel."
___________________________________________________________________

Bush: "End expansion of settlements"

By , and Arnon Regular | May.27, 2005 | 12:00 AM 
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/bush-end-expansion-of-settlements-1.159722
 President GW Bush: "Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides. While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous." President Bush 
January 10, 2008: at the King David Hotel Jerusalem
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080110-3.html 


In 2008 GW Bush brokered a deal with Olmert to offer Abbas the most far ranging offer including East Jerusalem, saying in his memoirs, " Decision Points": 
"With my approval, Condi oversaw a separate channel of talks directly between Olmert and Abbas. The dialogue culminated in a secret proposal from Olmert to Abbas. His offer would have returned the vast majority of the territory in the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians, accepted the construction of a tunnel connecting the two Palestinian territories, allowed a limited number of Palestinian refugees return to Israel, established Jerusalem as a joint capital of both Israel and Palestine, and entrusted control of the holy cites to a panel of nonpolitical elders."  



PM Ehud Olmert also describes the secret deal to the Israeli Media: " on August 31, 2008, three weeks before he resigned, he offered 100 percent of West Bank land (minus 6.8% in land swaps ), 10,000 Palestinian refugees returning to Israel’s final borders, and the holy basin of Jerusalem’s Old City coming under joint Israeli-Palestinian-American- Jordanian-Saudi control ." [ the land swaps means that Israel would cede to the Palestinians land that is currently part of the borders of the State of Israel from back in 1949; just to be clear this land that is to be swapped is land that even the United Nations recognizes as part of the legal borders of the state of Israel.
http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=218340  

Har Homa crisis / Waiting for Bush 

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/har-homa-crisis-waiting-for-bush-1.235942
Aluf Benn December 26,2007
har homa

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is scheduled to meet Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas tomorrow in an attempt to solve the so-called settlement crisis that has plagued negotiations since the Annapolis summit late last month.  
The Palestinians are upset over a tender by the Housing Ministry for the construction of 307 housing units in the southeast Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Homa, on the Palestinian side of the Green Line.
In the framework of the mutual accusations between the two parties, the Palestinians are trying to portray Israel as intransigent in its refusal to stop its settlements while trying to establish a fait accompli.
Official sources in Jerusalem say the Har Homa imbroglio is the result of a decision by low-ranking government bureaucrats in the Housing Ministry. They say that Olmert was not informed of the decision in advance, but on the international front, these explanations do not seem to be enlisting much support.

"Moreover, the Har Homa affair exposed the differences in the perceptions that both parties adhere to. As far as Israel is concerned, the neighborhood is an integral part of unified Jerusalem, and not part of the territories."

"The Palestinians and their supporters in the international community do not make that distinction. To them, any Israeli construction east of the Green Line, which was Israel's border before the 1967 Six-Day War, is an illegal settlement. They treat construction in East Jerusalem much the same as they treat construction in the settlement blocs in the West Bank."

" To the Palestinians, construction in the territories is an obstacle to peace and an act that jeopardizes the negotiations. In addition, the Palestinians realize that Israel - which is expecting its first visit by U.S. President George W. Bush next month - is at a disadvantage internationally as far as settlements are concerned. Their objective is to dominate the headlines until Bush arrives."

"But the problem goes deeper than head-butting in the media. Israel has demanded that the Palestinians fulfill their duties according to the road map plan for peace, which the U.S. devised for both parties. But Israel has failed to meet its own obligations such as the evacuation of settlements, a total freeze on all construction in the territories and allowing the Palestinians to reopen their institutions in East Jerusalem."

Bush in Israel: The West Bank Problem

Tim NcGurk January 9, 2008 

"At a joint press conference with Olmert on Wednesday, Bush said that illegal Jewish outposts in the West Bank "have to go.""
"Meanwhile, Abbas will bend Bush's ear the other way, claiming that no peace accord is possible unless the settlements are dismantled and the wall torn down. Bush alone among U.S. Presidents has said that any future agreement should be based on "facts on the ground," given that more than 250,000 Israelis now live on land that Israel seized from Jordan in the 1967 war and is now claimed as part of a future Palestinian state.""Israel drew rare criticism from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice soon after the Annapolis peace summit in November when Olmert's government authorized the extension of a controversial Jewish settlement known as Har Homa, built on confiscated Palestinian land near Bethlehem. Coming so soon after Annapolis, this also enraged the Palestinians. Meeting with Olmert on Dec. 27, Abbas warned that unless Israel froze building on the settlements, the Palestinians would break off peace talks."
"Olmert reassured Abbas that under the terms of Bush's peace "road map," Israel would not confiscate more land or allow the construction of more settlements in the West Bank. Olmert also countered that Abbas had failed to live up to the Palestinian end of the road map, since he had failed to halt militants from attacking Israel."

Israel Plans New Homes in East Jerusalem
by Mark Lavie Associated Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120400541_pf.html
JERUSALEM -- Israel announced plans Tuesday to build more than 300 new homes in a disputed east Jerusalem neighborhood, drawing quick Palestinian condemnation that the move will undermine newly revived peace talks.

Condi Rice Hangs a "No Jews Allowed" Sign
By Michael Freund December 23, 2007
Speaking at a private session at the close of the Annapolis conference, America's top diplomat said that having grown up "as a black child in the South, being told she could not use certain water fountains or eat in certain restaurants, she also understood the feelings and emotions of the Palestinians."....
"I know what it is like to hear that you cannot go on a road or through a checkpoint because you are Palestinian," the Washington Post (November 29) quoted her as saying. "I understand the feeling of humiliation and powerlessness," she added....
"Moreover, Rice's comparison between Israeli security measures and America's Jim Crow laws is both intellectually dishonest and morally obscene....

Rice calls Israel's plan for disputed East Jerusalem area a 'settlement'

January 9, 2008 
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice brought East Jerusalem's disputed status to the forefront of President George W. Bush's Mideast tour, saying a planned housing project on the disputed area of Har Homa constitutes Israeli settlement activity and is opposed by the U.S.
"Har Homa is a settlement the United States has opposed from the very beginning," the Jerusalem Post quoted Rice as saying in an interview published on the first day of Bush's visit to Israel.
Israel has said that Har Homa falls within Jerusalem's borders and is therefore not a settlement.
Rice's comment, made Monday before her and Bush's departure to the region, marked a deviation from the traditional U.S. position on the dispute over Har Homa, a rural hillside on the edge of East Jerusalem known to Arabs as Abu Ghnaim.
It also echoed Palestinian criticism of Israel's plans announced last month to build 300 more apartments on the land, which already houses some 7,000 Israelis.
The plan has infuriated Palestinian negotiators, who see it as a flagrant violation of Israel's obligations under the U.S.-shaped road map, and has threatened to derail peace talks launched between the two sides following a U.S.-sponsored conference in November.

                     East Jerusalem's Har Homa Neighborhood Hit By Political Turmoil Despite Affordable Housing

Rice: US Entirely Opposed to Har Homa
The Jerusalem Post ^ | January 8, 2008
Posted on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 12:42:45 AM by Cecily
On the eve of US President George W. Bush's visit to Israel and the region, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice placed the issue of settlement activity in the West Bank and east Jerusalem at center stage, telling The Jerusalem Post that "Har Homa is a settlement the United States has opposed from the very beginning."
Rice, who was accompanying Bush en route to Israel overnight Tuesday, said that "the United States doesn't make a distinction" between settlement activity in east Jerusalem and the West Bank and that Israel's road map obligations, which include a building freeze, relate to "settlement activity generally."
Rice's comments underlined that the settlement issue will be high on the agenda of the talks between Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Right-wing activists set up two new outposts on Tuesday evening. According to Israel Radio, the outposts were established near Efrat and Psagot. The activists planned to expand 10 more existing outposts.


Did Olmert agree to a building suspension in Jerusalem?

December 8, 2007 

http://israelmatzav.blogspot.de/2007/12/did-olmert-agree-to-building-suspension.html

Yesterday, the government came under attack by US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice:
Israeli plans to build more than 300 new homes in the disputed east Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Homa won't help efforts to build confidence with the Palestinians under the revived Middle East peace process, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday.

"We're in a time when the goal is to build maximum confidence between the parties and this doesn't help to build confidence," Rice told reporters after a meeting with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on the sidelines of a NATO meeting.



http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-09191D76-AA0350F2/natolive/opinions_8819.htm?selectedLocale=en
NATO press conference 
MODERATOR: We have one final question. Sue Pleming, Reuters.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, in your discussions with Tzipi Livni, did you bring up the issue of Israel deciding to build 300 new homes just outside Jerusalem? And do you think that actions such as this by Israel will scupper peace talks, and what is your role going to be in trying to sort of act as an honest broker in this issue?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I did, in fact, bring up Har Homa, both earlier in a phone call and then today in our meeting. I've made very clear about seeking clarification on precisely what this means. I've made clear that we're in a time when the goal is to build maximum confidence between the parties and this doesn't help to build confidence. And so recognizing that there just shouldn't be anything that might try and judge final status, the outcomes of final status negotiations. It's even more important now that we are really on the eve of the beginning of those negotiations. So I've made that position clear to the Israeli Government.
MODERATOR: Thanks.
SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much.


Criticism grows over construction of Israeli settlements
AM - Monday, 10 December , 2007  08:16:00
Reporter: David Hardaker


MARK REGEV: In our perspective, it's part of Jerusalem, it's part of our capital. What I can say is because of the Annapolis process, we're starting a dialogue this week with the Palestinians on all the core issues and hopefully we'll be able to reach understandings.  But to say that today, as we sit, that the Israelis and the Palestinians have identical positions along Jerusalem on how we want to solve the issues of course, not true.

DAVID HARDAKER: Mr Regev, about you playing with words here, I mean, wouldn't it be in the spirit of Annapolis, for Israel to cease any building in this disputed area while there are attempts to restart the peace process?

MARK REGEV: It's very important to know that there's really nothing new here. We're talking about an existing neighbourhood. I'd also remind you that the current construction is inside the built-up line, inside an existing area. It's not like we're taking up more empty land to make this place larger.

DAVID HARDAKER: Ten years ago, then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ignored international objections about construction at Har Homa. Now it's home to more than 5,000 people. (sounds from a busy construction site)
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has an objection about the building of 307 more houses. However it seems her concerns haven't reached the ears of salesman Avia Greenblatt.

Despite US Pressure, Har Homa Construction Continuing Quietly

The Chairman of Har Homa authority in southern Jerusalem says construction in the neighborhood is continuing apace, US demands notwithstanding.
Construction at Har Homa is continuing apace, the chairman of the authority in charge of developing the southern Jerusalem neighborhood said Wednesday.
Building in the neighborhood of Homat Shmuel within Har Homa continues, Chairman Herzl Yechezkel told Arutz Sheva's Hebrew service. “I want to remind Jerusalemites and all of the Nation of Israel that a little more than a year ago, [then-US Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice was pressuring us not to build in Jerusalem,” he said. “We held a demonstration against stopping construction.”
"It turns out that these pressures come upon us for a limited time, and we stay here forever,” Yechezkel went on. “No one knows where Condoleezza Rice is now but we are still here. As far as we are concerned, we leave the diplomatic side to the government but we will make sure that the construction continues.”


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/ehud-olmert-still-dreams-of-peace/story-e6frg76f-1225804745744
Olmert details in the most detail account of the offers to Abbas by: Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor From: The Australian 
November 28, 2009 
EHUD Olmert offered "the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, the most extensive concessions any Israeli leader has ever brought to the table in the search for a settlement. In Sydney this week, I conducted, perhaps, the longest interview and discussion Olmert has undertaken with any media since leaving office in March after more than three years as prime minister....
"For 90 minutes in the boardroom of Sydney's Park Hyatt, and then over a relaxed lunch....Olmert talked ....and, while I can't speak for him, even if he can't say it publicly and formally, he recognises that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people."
[I ask Olmert to compare the failure of Abbas to conclude a peace agreement with him, with the opportunity Yasser Arafat passed up at Camp David in 2000. It is one of the few times Olmert cuts off a question with a declarative response: "The two are not alike. Yasser Arafat never wanted to make peace with Israel. Yasser Arafat was a murderer and a terrorist and remained so until the last day of his life. Abu Mazen (the name by which Israelis and others in the region commonly refer to Abbas) wants peace."]....
"Olmert is similarly positive about Obama, implicitly rebuking those Israelis who see Obama as hostile to Israel's security interests: "I'm entirely free of any suspicions or complaints about the Obama administration. I think the Obama administration is very friendly to Israel. I know a lot of the people in the administration and they are committed to Israel. Many people in this administration are intimately acquainted with all the facts of the Middle East - Hillary Clinton, Dennis Ross, Rahm Emmanuel, Jim Jones."...."From the end of 2006 until the end of 2008 I think I met with Abu Mazen more often than any Israeli leader has ever met any Arab leader. I met him more than 35 times. They were intense, serious negotiations."
"These negotiations took place on two tracks, Olmert says. One was the meetings with the two leaders and their senior colleagues and aides (among them Kadima leader Tzipi Livni on Olmert's side). But Olmert would also have private, one-on-one meetings with Abbas."
"On the 16th of September, 2008, I presented him (Abbas) with a comprehensive plan. It was based on the following principles:
"One, there would be a territorial solution to the conflict on the basis of the 1967 borders with minor modifications on both sides. Israel will claim part of the West Bank where there have been demographic changes over the last 40 years."
This approach by Olmert would have allowed Israel to keep the biggest Jewish settlement blocks which are mainly now suburbs of Jerusalem, but would certainly have entailed other settlers having to leave Palestinian territory and relocate to Israel."
"In total, Olmert says, this would have involved Israel claiming about 6.4 per cent of Palestinian territory in the West Bank: "It might be a fraction more, it might be a fraction less, but in total it would be about 6.4 per cent. Israel would claim all the Jewish areas of Jerusalem. All the lands that before 1967 were buffer zones between the two populations would have been split in half. In return there would be a swap of land (to the Palestinians) from Israel as it existed before 1967.
"I showed Abu Mazen how this would work to maintain the contiguity of the Palestinian state. I also proposed a safe passage between the West Bank and Gaza. It would have been a tunnel fully controlled by the Palestinians but not under Palestinian sovereignty, otherwise it would have cut the state of Israel in two.
"No 2 was the issue of Jerusalem. This was a very sensitive, very painful, soul-searching process. While I firmly believed that historically, and emotionally, Jerusalem was always the capital of the Jewish people, I was ready that the city should be shared. Jewish neighbourhoods would be under Jewish sovereignty, Arab neighbourhoods would be under Palestinian sovereignty, so it could be the capital of a Palestinian state.
"Then there was the question of the holy basin within Jerusalem, the sites that are holy to Jews and Muslims, but not only to them, to Christians as well. I would never agree to an exclusive Muslim sovereignty over areas that are religiously important to Jews and Christians. So there would be an area of no sovereignty, which would be jointly administered by five nations, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Palestinian state, Israel and the United States.
"Third was the issue of Palestinian refugees." This issue has often been a seeming deal-breaker. The Palestinians insist that all Palestinians who left Israel - at or near the time of its founding - and all their spouses and descendants, should be able to return to live in Israel proper. This could be more than a million people. Olmert, like other Israeli prime ministers, could never agree to this: "I think Abu Mazen understood there was no chance Israel would become the homeland of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian state was to be the homeland of the Palestinian people. So the question was how the claimed attachment of the Palestinian refugees to their original places could be recognised without bringing them in. I told him I would never agree to a right of return. Instead, we would agree on a humanitarian basis to accept a certain number every year for five years, on the basis that this would be the end of conflict and the end of claims. I said to him 1000 per year. I think the Americans were entirely with me.
"In addition, we talked about creating an international fund that would compensate Palestinians for their suffering. I was the first Israeli prime minister to speak of Palestinian suffering and to say that we are not indifferent to that suffering.
"And four, there were security issues." Olmert says he showed Abbas a map, which embodied all these plans. Abbas wanted to take the map away. Olmert agreed, so long as they both signed the map. It was, from Olmert's point of view, a final offer, not a basis for future negotiation. But Abbas could not commit. Instead, he said he would come with experts the next day.
"He (Abbas) promised me the next day his adviser would come. But the next day Saeb Erekat rang my adviser and said we forgot we are going to Amman today, let's make it next week. I never saw him again."
Olmert believes that, like Camp David a decade earlier, this was an enormous opportunity lost: "I said `this is the offer. Sign it and we can immediately get support from America, from Europe, from all over the world'. I told him (Abbas) he'd never get anything like this again from an Israeli leader for 50 years. I said to him, `do you want to keep floating forever - like an astronaut in space - or do you want a state?'
"To this day we should ask Abu Mazen to respond to this plan. If they (the Palestinians) say no, there's no point negotiating."
 
http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2011/10/rice-memoir-reveals-olmert-offered.html

Rice Memoir Reveals Olmert Offered Abbas 94% and joint East Jerusalem
.....Rice says, that Olmert told her the details of his groundbreaking proposal.
“‘I know what he needs. He needs something on refugees and on Jerusalem. I’ll give him enough land, maybe something like 94 percent with swaps. I have an idea about Jerusalem. There will be two capitals, one for us in West Jerusalem and one for the Palestinians in East Jerusalem. The mayor of the joint city council will be selected by population percentage. That means an Israeli mayor, so the deputy should be a Palestinian. We will continue to provide security for the Holy sites because we can assure access to them.’"

"That’s probably a nonstarter, I thought," Rice writes. "But concentrate, concentrate. This is unbelievable. He continued, ‘I’ll accept some Palestinians into Israel, maybe five thousand. I don’t want it to be called family reunification because they have too many cousins; we won’t be able to control it. I’ve been thinking about how to administer the Old City. There should be a committee of people—not officials but wise people—from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinians, the United States, and Israel. They will oversee the city but not in a political role.’”
“Am I really hearing this? I wondered,” Rice writes. “Is the Israeli prime minister saying that he’ll divide Jerusalem and put an international body in charge of the Holy sites? Concentrate. Write this down. No, don’t write it down. What if it leaks? It can’t leak; it’s just the two of us.”
“The next day I went to see Abbas and asked to see him in the little dining room adjacent to his office,” she continues. “I sketched out the details of Olmert’s proposal and told him how the prime minister wanted to proceed.”
The breakdown, Rice describes, came during a meeting between Olmert and Abbas in which the Prime Minister urged Abbas to sign an agreement then and there. Abbas said he wanted to consult his experts, but Olmert refused to give him the map with the proposed borders of a future Palestinian state.
“The Israeli leader told me that he and Abbas had agreed to convene their experts the next day. Apparently that meeting never took place,” writes Rice.
She continues to say that she wanted to preserve Olmert’s offer and as such, asked Bush to host Olmert and Abbas one last time before he left office.
“I worried that there might never be another chance like this one,” Rice writes. “Tzipi Livni urged me (and, I believe, Abbas) not to enshrine the Olmert proposal. ‘He has no standing in Israel,’ she said. That was probably true, but to have an Israeli prime minister on record offering those remarkable elements and a Palestinian president accepting them would have pushed the peace process to a new level. Abbas refused.”
“We had one last chance,” she recalls. “The two leaders came separately in November and December to say good-bye. The President took Abbas into the Oval Office alone and appealed to him to reconsider. The Palestinian stood firm, and the idea died.”


"PA chief says he agreed with Olmert on an open Jerusalem with two municipalities.
"In perhaps the most surprising revelation, Abbas said that before negotiations were broken off with Israel during Operation Cast Lead, he had come to an agreement with Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Jerusalem, one of the thorniest issues in the negotiations. Abbas said that the two had agreed to keep Jerusalem a unified city which would remain open to both Israeli and PA residents, with two city halls operating in different parts of the city responsible for municipal affairs in each section. All residents and visitors would have full access to all parts of the city, including the holy places, and each municipality would be responsible for ensuring the safety of visitors and residents. The proposal sounded to many similar to one made numerous times in the past by former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, to divide the city into “boroughs,” which would be self-administering, but part of the same unified entity."
"Abbas added that Israel had agreed to recognize the PA's right to establish its capital in Jerusalem during the administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush, but that Israel kept looking for ways to avoid implementing those understandings. Abbas urged Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to accept the understandings with Barak and Bush as the basis of future negotiations."
5/20/12 Olmert relents on united Jerusalem   "Former Israel PM, Says City Must Be Partitioned JERUSALEM — Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday urged Israeli leaders to relinquish the idea of a unified Jerusalem if they truly want peace, contending in a pair of interviews that years of government neglect have kept the Jewish and Arab sectors irreparably divided."

( editor's note: as of 2008 the situation changed from above with respect to the PA implementing security against terror and combatting terror: all of Israel Mossad, IDF, and Shin Bet leaders consistnetly maintain the Abbas crew is doing everythign it can to stop terror in the West Bank)


___________________________________________________________________________


   

The following video is a must listen 6:43 minutes and is entitled:
Ambassador Dennis Ross speaking on the relationship between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu:
https://vimeo.com/52995350
 

The Clinton Administration
March 09, 1993
 “There is some allowance for--I wouldn't use the word "expansion" but certainly continuing some activity--construction activities in existing settlements.
And that's basically… in terms of natural growth and basic, immediate needs in those settlements. I want to get away from the word "expansion" per se…”
Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Edward Djerejian Redefines Settlement Policy, March 09, 1993
Foundation for Middle East Peace Website, http://www.fmep.org/reports/vol03/no3/05-djerejian_redefines_settlement_policy.html, September 18, 2006

On Being an Ally
WILLIAM SAFIRE (April 11, 2002): "President Bush is being pushed into a minefield of mistakes. Badgered by a pro-Palestinian U.N., Democrats in Congress and nervous Arab dictatorships, Bush has been maneuvered into ''engaging'' -- a code word for imposing a settlement requiring vulnerable U.S. troops to enforce. As Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak learned the hard way, it is an engagement with one side intending no marriage."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/11/opinion/on-being-an-ally.html 

"But what was the Bush reaction to Arafat's refusal of a cease-fire, bolstered by Saudi and Egyptian urging to fight harder? Day by day, Bush's resolve has been crumbling. He [ GW Bush ] ingratiated himself with appeasers by pressuring Israel to stop fighting ''now'' -- which would enable the Arab terror coalition to regroup, to get new shipments of arms from Iran and rewards from Saudis and Saddam to infiltrate more human missiles into Jerusalem..."

" ....What is persuading Bush to become a wavering ally as Israel fights for survival? It is the fear that al-Jazeera's one-sided TV incitement will lead to the overthrow of the regimes we prop up in Egypt and Jordan. But if they are that weak, we are wasting our money. As the wise and courageous Fouad Ajami wrote in The Wall Street Journal yesterday, ''the way out of political ruin is an Arab break, once and for all, with the false consolations of terror.''
or http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?471-Bravo-again-William-Safire&s=bf7b6a05dca0b6b807dc1478c66e7a71
( Reader, notice the insertion of propaganda by Safire with the words  " Bush is being pushed" whereas when less deleterious pressure is applied to the government of Israel regarding just natural growth of current settlements the word choices of the Republicans in media are that Obama is always making the decisions on his own, is ruining the relationship with the U.S. and Israel, doesn't like Israel, considers Israel a problem instead of a friend, etc.... Do to his world outlook even the literary Master Safire couldn't break through the eyes of propaganda.
OBAMA #3 )
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/27/opinion/post-oslo-mideast.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/11/opinion/on-being-an-ally.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/01/opinion/a-talk-with-sharon.html


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/26/opinion/sharon-trusting-bush.html

Sharon and Bush had private telephone calls that resulted in fights that were communicated to the public by Bush's staff.   ( sources cited below in this article)

On April 4th, after the 3rd Resolution, Bush took the occasion to rebuke Israel with this formulation: " ...Israel faces hard choices of its own. Its government has supported the creation of a Palestinian state that is not a haven for terrorism. Yet, Israel also must recognize that such a state needs to be politically and economically viable. Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop. And the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognize boundaries consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338. Ultimately, this approach should be the basis of agreements between Israel and Syria and Israel and Lebanon. Israel should also show a respect, a respect for and concern about the dignity of the Palestinian people who are and will be their neighbors."
http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/2002/9158.htm

http://www.cmep.org/content/us-statements-israeli-settlements_short

President GW Bush: "Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides. While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous." President Bush 
January 10, 2008: at the King David Hotel Jerusalem
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080110-3.html 

The wording of Bush's above statement is understood by all familiar with the PUBLIC record of the evolution of the negotiations from 2000 through 2008; the negotiations contained discussions on the 'how' and 'what' that would consist of [a] swaps ( adjustments) to accommodate settlement blocks into the State of Israel { current realities  } and [b] swaps ( adjustments) to accommodate a new viable and contiguous Palestinian entity despite the ceding of territory to the State of Israel in a final settlement; in other words, 'mutually agreed adjustments' to reflect  'current realities' are the settlement blocks that would be kept upon a final settlement and 'mutually agreed adjustments' to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous" are the portions of the current formally internationally recognized 1949 borders of the State of Israel that would be ceded to the new Palestine.  What is left out of this above statement, but which is in the public record of the negotiations through 2008, was that land would be ceded to Israel that would bring the final settlement to a Palestinian state containing the equivalent of 100% of the measure of square mileage of West Bank even if it was not helping achieve contiguity and viability.
Over time from 1999 to 2008 negotiations changed from a new Palestinian entity that would contain LESS than 100% of equivalent square mileage in the future Palestinian state over to 'equal swap' negotiations ( ie. to result in a final settlement consisting of parts of the West Bank becoming part of the State of Israel and parts of the actual State of Israel becoming part of the new Palestinian state).  As mentioned above, the only formal final settlement offer that took place at any time during the Bush Adminstration was the August 2008 offer that Bush brokered which contained a 100% swap ( ie. a 1:1 swap of State of Israel land for an equal amount of West Bank land.  During the Clinton Adminstration no formal offer to the New Palestinian entity ever included 100% of the land 'mileage' of the West Bank, rather, only less than 100% of the land 'mileage' of the West Bank)


In 2008 GW Bush brokered a deal with Olmert to offer Abbas the most far reaching offer that included turning East Jerusalem into a joint capital ( with a small part of it an international capital): This is Bush in his memoirs...

GW Bush in his book" Decision Points": "With my approval, Condi oversaw a separate channel of talks directly between Olmert and Abbas. The dialogue culminated in a secret proposal from Olmert to Abbas.  His offer would have returned the vast majority of the territory in the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians, accepted the construction of a tunnel connecting the two Palestinian territories, allowed a limited number of Palestinian refugees return to Israel, established Jerusalem as a joint capital of both Israel and Palestine, and entrusted control of the holy cites to a panel of nonpolitical elders."


PM Olmert also described the secret deal to the Israeli Media:
" ....On August 31, 2008, three weeks before he resigned, he offered 100 percent of West Bank land (including 6.8% in land swaps ), 10,000 Palestinian refugees returning to Israel’s final borders, and the holy basin of Jerusalem’s Old City coming under joint Israeli-Palestinian-American- Jordanian-Saudi control ." [ the land swaps means that Israel would cede to the Palestinians land that is currently part of the borders of the State of Israel from back in 1949; just to be clear this land that is to be swapped is land that even the United Nations recognizes as part of the legal borders of the state of Israel.  This was a 100% square milage give away that exceeded every offer of Barack under Clinton to Arafat at Camp David. 

http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=218340  
 
Bush and Olmert's claims of what was offered remain undisputed.

William Saffire in 2002  ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/27/opinion/post-oslo-mideast.html ) thought that Bush would become more sophisticated in his approach to peace and yet by 2008 Bush was pushing a final deal under a hail of rockets from Gaza ( this deal contained more territory turned over to the Palestinians than any Clinton deal (  The Bush deal = 100% of the mileage of the territories with swaps of equal mileage and internationalizing part of East Jerusalem and turning the rest into a joint capital.) 

Efraim Halevy: Israel forced into accepting Roadmap
May 26, 2003  http://articles.cnn.com/2003-05-25/world/israeli.cabinet_1_palestinian-state-mideast-quartet-road-map?_s=PM:WORLD

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/opinion/who-threw-israel-under-the-bus.html?src=mv&ref=general

The George W. Bush Administration
“[T]hey should not be expanding the settlements. There should not be expansion of the settlements and outposts should be removed.”
Sean McCormack, Spokesman, Daily Press Briefing – September 7, 2006
"The Security Council underlines the need for the Palestinian Authority to prevent terrorist attacks and dismantle the infrastructure of terror. ... It reiterates its view that settlement expansion must stop and its concern regarding the route of the barrier."
John R. Bolton, U.S. Ambassador to the UN -- February, 2006, while Bolton was serving as president of the Security Council and just weeks after Hamas won Palestinian elections.
“Israel must continue to work with Palestinian leaders to help improve the daily lives of Palestinians. At the same time, Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes its road map obligations, or prejudices the final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. This means that Israel must remove unauthorized posts and stop settlement expansion.”
President George W. Bush speaking with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas – October 20, 2005
“Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudice final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Therefore, Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion.”
President George W. Bush speaking with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas – May 26, 2005
“Now, our position on settlement activity has not changed. We have said to the Israelis that they have obligations under the roadmap, they have obligations not to increase settlement activity."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Interview with LA Times – March 24, 2005
“I would say that we continue -- our policy continues to be that Israel should freeze settlement construction.”
Daily Press Briefing by Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman – December 31, 2003
"Settlement activity must stop. And it has not stopped to our satisfaction."
Secretary Colin Powell – September 21, 2003
"Israel has got responsibilities. Israel must deal with the settlements. Israel must make sure there is a contiguous territory that the Palestinians can call home."
President George W. Bush – June 3, 2003
“Our position on settlements, I think, has been very consistent, very clear. The secretary expressed it not too long ago. He said settlement activity has severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope, preempts and prejudges the outcome of negotiations, and in doing so, cripples chances for real peace and prosperity. The U.S. has long opposed settlement activity and, consistent with the report of the Mitchell Committee, settlement activity must stop.”
Richard Boucher, U.S. Department of State – Daily Press Briefing – November 25, 2002 
“Our opposition to the settlements is political. Washington feels that Israel would be better protected and more accepted inside borders where there are no settlements, so a decision on their future must be accepted on the basis of their feasibility. It is a fact that we have opposed the settlements for decades and you continue to build them and we have done nothing untoward to you [in response]. If Israel wants, it can even expand to the borders promised in the Bible. The question is whether it is able to do so from a security and political standpoint.”
Daniel Kurtzer, U.S. Ambassador to Israel – May 29, 2002 – Ha’aretz
“Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338.”
President George W. Bush’s Rose Garden Address – April 4, 2002
“During the half-century of its existence, Israel has had the strong support of the United States. In international forums, the United States has at times cast the only vote on Israel’s behalf. Yet, even in such a close relationship there are some difficulties. Prominent among those differences is the U.S. government’s long-standing opposition to the Government of Israel’s policies and practices regarding settlements.” …..“The GOI should freeze all settlement activity, including the “natural growth” of existing settlements. The kind of security cooperation desired by the GOI cannot for long co-exist with settlement activity described very recently by the European Union as causing “great concern” and by the United States as “provocative.”
The Mitchell Report – April 30, 2001



The Israeli Cabinet voted Sunday to accept the U.S.-supported "road map" to a Mideast peace agreement -- clearing the way for a series of steps that would lead to the creation of a Palestinian state within three years.
The 12-7 vote, with four abstentions, marked the first time an Israeli government has formally accepted the principle of a Palestinian state.
It followed a meeting that ministers in Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's conservative government later described as stormy.
The Palestinian Authority accepted the plan last month after it was drafted by the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations, the so-called Mideast Quartet.



The Bush record on East Jerusalem 
The myth that developed asserting Bush was silent on land areas of East Jerusalem and its suburb environs is merely false propaganda.  Furthermore the spin offered by Sharon and Olmert was rebuffed by the Bush Administration in every public statement ever made referencing the letters of understanding between Sharon and Bush throughout.  Below are numerous citations of the explicit statements to this effect.
Summary: at every point after the "letters of understanding" of 2004 were made public, the Bush Administration completely rejected ANY interpretation of them as allowing natural growth of settlements for any reason;  All references to 'realities on the ground'  both [1] in the letters and [2] referenced by every single Bush Adminstration authority for the duration of the Bush Adminstration refer to American expectations of a final deal and NEVER reference approval in any way, shape, or form of natural growth of settlements in any of the territories including East Jerusalem.  Below you will see a self evident explication of this matter in an IsraelNationalNews article ( Arutz Sheva) cited below.  The article calls out Sharon for misleading the citizens of Israel about what the "letters" meant. 
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/82861#.T2F6QHmAZJo

and
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124701#.TkLEhGERrAE  
( Regarding Elliot Abrams' post-Bush Administration rhetoric on the subject: {1}EVERY single person of authority in the Bush Administration including Bush himself from the time of the letters of understanding to the present contradict Elliot Abrams' assertion of oral understandings that natural growth prior to a final settlement would heretofor be allowed.  
Elliot Abrams' offers statements contradicted by the entire public record.  Abrams' history of committing felonies and lying about them and cutting deals with Congress for Iran- Contra and his subsequent pardon by HW Bush for the same matters just clarify for us the nature of Elliot Abram's absurd propaganda.

Here are some of the public reports on Bush and the Bush Administration's repudiation of the Sharon interpretations of the letters of understandings and any verbal interpretations of them:

As Bush ramps up to Annapolis so does Bush's repudiation of  natural gorwth of settlements :

"Jerusalem Post: Rice: US entirely opposed to Har Homa
HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, HERB KEINON and KHALED ABU TOAMEH 01/08/2008 08:39
Rice tells 'Post' Israel must honor Road Map commitments; President Bush en route to Israel.
"On the eve of US President George W. Bush's visit to Israel and the region, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice placed the issue of settlement activity in the West Bank and east Jerusalem at center stage, telling The Jerusalem Post that "Har Homa is a settlement the United States has opposed from the very beginning." Rice, who was accompanying Bush en route to Israel overnight Tuesday, said that "the United States doesn't make a distinction" between settlement activity in east Jerusalem and the West Bank and that Israel's road map obligations, which include a building freeze, relate to "settlement activity generally." Rice's comments underlined that the settlement issue will be high on the agenda of the talks between Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Right-wing activists set up two new outposts on Tuesday evening. According to Israel Radio, the outposts were established near Efrat and Psagot. The activists planned to expand 10 more existing outposts. Bush is scheduled to arrive Wednesday at around noon to spend 48 hours in Israel and the Palestinian Authority. From here, he will travel to Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Rice, with her comments, went further than US officials have previously gone toward clarifying the US position on east Jerusalem. Her comments not only seemed to set the stage for a confrontation over the issue during the Bush meetings, but also stood in sharp contrast to what Olmert has said he believes is the US position on the matter. Olmert, in an interview with the Post last week, said that when Bush thought of an overall Israel-Palestinian agreement, he had in mind an accord based on the 1967 borders "plus." "He's the only president who has ever said that," Olmert said. "His reference is '67-plus. And that's an amazing achievement for Israel."  

"Rice's reference to Har Homa as a settlement, however, seemed to belie that belief. Nevertheless, senior diplomatic officials said that they did not see much new in Rice's position, and that the US has consistently opposed all construction beyond the Green Line, including inside Jerusalem. The official said that this was the reason Bush's letter to then-prime minister Ariel Sharon in 2004 was so important, because it recognized that there had been changes on the ground that needed to be taken into consideration when drawing up final boundaries. While referring to Har Homa as a "settlement," Rice, when asked, didn't clarify whether other Jerusalem neighborhoods over the Green Line, such as Gilo and Ramot, were also settlements in the eyes of the United States. "The important point here is that one reason that we need to have an agreement is so that we can stop having this discussion about what belongs to Israel and what doesn't," she said. Rice gave an interview to the Post and Ynet on Monday ahead of her departure for Israel. Rice described the letter as "the president's acknowledgement that these changes have taken place and have to be accommodated. This president also said it needs to be mutually agreed [upon]. So the negotiation, the agreement itself, will finally resolve these issues, and we can stop having the discussion about what's a settlement and what isn't."

"Rice's comments point to the longtime ambiguity in the US position toward construction in these neighborhoods, which is opposed by the Palestinians and the European Union. Traditionally the United States has refrained from describing Jerusalem neighborhoods as "settlements," but the Bush administration has been particularly critical of recently-announced building tenders in Har Homa.  Olmert, while saying he is committed to Israel's obligation under the road map, has also indicated that construction would proceed in Har Homa. During his talks with Bush, Olmert is expected to try and reach clearer definitions with the US regarding construction in east Jerusalem and the settlements. The disagreement between Israel and the US over the issue of east Jerusalem and overall settlement construction will be stressed by Palestinian officials when Bush visits Ramallah on Thursday, as they hope to exert pressure on Israel to halt all settlement construction. Ahmed Abdel Rahman, a top aide to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, said the PA would reiterate during Bush's visit its demand for a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders, including east Jerusalem. "There will never be real peace unless Israel accepts the two-state solution," he said. "This means a full withdrawal from all the territories occupied in 1967. But Israel is working toward building a state for the settlers in the West Bank. Israel is also working toward changing the Arab and Islamic character of Jerusalem...."
( the idea that Obama's inclusion of Gilo is different than Bush's inclusion of Har Homa ( see statements below on East Jerusalem) is a fiction created in denial http://prospect.org/article/dangerous-slopes-jerusalem

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/82861
First Published: 5/29/2005, 3:14 PM / Last Update: 5/29/2005, 5:18 PM

or view the content of the original article here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1412738/posts
or view the content of the original article here:

this ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS article is a must read because of the plain take by the flagship of all right wing English pro-Israel  media news online organizations.  It exposes the incorrect claims of Ariel Sharon which demonstrate much about the myths built around the "articles of understanding". 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

John R. Bolton, U.S. Ambassador to the UN -- February, 2006, while Bolton was serving as president of the Security Council and just weeks after Hamas won Palestinian elections.
“Israel must continue to work with Palestinian leaders to help improve the daily lives of Palestinians. At the same time, Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes its road map obligations, or prejudices the final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. This means that Israel must remove unauthorized posts and stop settlement expansion.

"Israel must continue to take steps toward a peaceful future, and work with the Palestinian leadership to improve the daily lives of Palestinians, especially their humanitarian situation. Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudice final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Therefore, Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion".


President George W. Bush speaking with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas – October 20, 2005

“Now, our position on settlement activity has not changed. We have said to the Israelis that they have obligations under the roadmap, they have obligations not to increase settlement activity."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Interview with LA Times – March 24, 2005
“I would say that we continue -- our policy continues to be that Israel should freeze settlement construction.

JANUARY 10, 2008: Pres. GW Bush, best friend the Jews ever had: "The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967... 


"The establishment of the state of Palestine is long overdue. The Palestinian people deserve it. And it will enhance the stability of the region, and it will contribute to the security of the people of Israel. The peace agreement should happen, and can happen, by the end of this year. I know each leader shares that important goal, and I am committed to doing all I can to achieve it.... "

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080110-3.html


Imagine if Obama said what Bush said on April 4, 2002: "...halt incursions into Palestinian-controlled areas and begin the withdrawal from those cities [Israel ] has recently occupied." and  “ The world expects an immediate cease-fire…." then Bush followed it up the following day  "withdraw without delay."  
.

So Bush appeals in alliance with the international community against Israel on an Israeli self defense operation demanding Israel must stop it.  Imagine if Obama ever appealed to the international community, on a self defense issue, and just 5 days after the Passover Massacre? 
Imagine the reaction if Obama was president in 2002 and told Israel to stop the raids on terrorist holdouts, to withdraw immediately one week after the Passover Massacre, to have respect for the Palestinian People and be concerned about the Dignity of the Palestinian People-- as he put through 2 Security Council Resolutions against Israel a week after the Passover Massacre.  Imagine  the reaction that would have taken place if it had been Obama; instead it was Bush and there was no reaction of criticism against Bush from Congressional Republicans and their allies here in America.  See the record below of the Congressional Republicans praising Bush and standing shoulder to shoulder with the Deomcrats in support of Bush "leadership" in the region, as Bush throws Israel under the bus.  (  We see the reaction that DIDN'T take place when a Republican president was in office.   ON THE OTHER HAND the reactions to Obama by those same folks were hysterical propaganda.  Recall that No Natural Growth of Settlements was Bush's primary demand on Israel in the Road Map while the primary demand on the Palestinians was to use all their power to stop terror.  The 40 other objections that Israel submitted to Bush resulted in the Bush refusal to accept the Israeli objections and refusal to change the ROADMAP;  below more on this later).  If Obama ever tried anything like all of the above imagine the chants of "anti Israel", "pro-Arab", "throw Israel under the bus" and " first president to ever elicit such pro-Arab sentiment" and "worst relations with Israel in 60 years..." along with calls to burn down the White House etc...


JANUARY 10, 2008: Pres. GW Bush, best friend the Jews ever had: "The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967... 


"The establishment of the state of Palestine is long overdue. The Palestinian people deserve it. And it will enhance the stability of the region, and it will contribute to the security of the people of Israel. The peace agreement should happen, and can happen, by the end of this year. I know each leader shares that important goal, and I am committed to doing all I can to achieve it.... "

President GW Bush: "Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides. While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous." President Bush 
January 10, 2008: at the King David Hotel Jerusalem
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080110-3.html



In 2008 GW Bush- greatest friend the Jews ever had-   brokers a deal with Olmert to offer Abbas the most far ranging offer including East Jerusalem, saying in his memoirs, " Decision Points": 
"With my approval, Condi oversaw a separate channel of talks directly between Olmert and Abbas. The dialogue culminated in a secret proposal from Olmert to Abbas. His offer would have returned the vast majority of the territory in the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians, accepted the construction of a tunnel connecting the two Palestinian territories, allowed a limited number of Palestinian refugees return to Israel, established Jerusalem as a joint capital of both Israel and Palestine, and entrusted control of the holy cites to a panel of nonpolitical elders."  



PM Ehud Olmert also describes the secret deal to the Israeli Media: " on August 31, 2008, three weeks before he resigned, he offered 100 percent of West Bank land (minus 6.8% in land swaps ), 10,000 Palestinian refugees returning to Israel’s final borders, and the holy basin of Jerusalem’s Old City coming under joint Israeli-Palestinian-American- Jordanian-Saudi control ." [ the land swaps means that Israel would cede to the Palestinians land that is currently part of the borders of the State of Israel from back in 1949; just to be clear this land that is to be swapped is land that even the United Nations recognizes as part of the legal borders of the state of Israel.
http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=218340  
.
.

“Our opposition to the settlements is political. Washington feels that Israel would be better protected and more accepted inside borders where there are no settlements, so a decision on their future must be accepted on the basis of their feasibility. It is a fact that we have opposed the settlements for decades and you continue to build them and we have done nothing untoward to you [in response]. If Israel wants, it can even expand to the borders promised in the Bible. The question is whether it is able to do so from a security and political standpoint.”
Daniel Kurtzer, U.S. Ambassador to Israel – May 29, 2002 – Ha’aretz


“Our position on settlements, I think, has been very consistent, very clear. The secretary expressed it not too long ago. He said settlement activity has severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope, preempts and prejudges the outcome of negotiations, and in doing so, cripples chances for real peace and prosperity. The U.S. has long opposed settlement activity and, consistent with the report of the Mitchell Committee, settlement activity must stop.”
Richard Boucher, U.S. Department of State – Daily Press Briefing – November 25, 2002
Following article was the published text of the RoadMap in the NY Times March 1, 2003:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/01/world/mideast-peace-proposal-proposal-for-final-comprehensive-settlement-middle-east.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm



The following video is a must listen 6:43 minutes and is entitled:
Ambassador Dennis Ross speaking on the relationship between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu:
https://vimeo.com/52995350


The George W. Bush Administration
April 12, 2001

“Some of the major settlements could be consolidated, and these settlers could become more confident of their eventual status as part of Israel.”
Amb. Edward Djerejian speaking on Regional Dynamics in the Middle East and the Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace - Considerations for U.S. Policy, April 12, 2001
State Department’s Website, http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/7483.htm.

April 30, 2001
“During the half-century of its existence, Israel has had the strong support of the United States.  In international forums, the United States has at times cast the only vote on Israel’s behalf.  Yet, even in such a close relationship there are some difficulties.  Prominent among those differences is the U.S. government’s long-standing opposition to the Government of Israel’s policies and practices regarding settlements.”
“The GOI should freeze all settlement activity, including the “natural growth” of existing settlements.  The kind of security cooperation desired by the GOI cannot for long co-exist with settlement activity described very recently by the European Union as causing “great concern” and by the United States as “provocative.”
The Mitchell Report, April 30, 2001
Churches for Middle East Peace Website, http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006


 April 04, 2002
“Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338.”
President Bush’s Rose Garden Address, April 04, 2002
Churches for Middle East Peace Website, http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006

May 01, 2002
"Something has to be done about the problem of the settlements, the settlements continue to grow and continue to expand. . . .It's not going to go away."
Secretary of State Colin Powell -- NBC's Meet the Press, May 01, 2002
Churches for Middle East Peace Website, http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006

May 29, 2002
“Our opposition to the settlements is political.  Washington feels that Israel would be better protected and more accepted inside borders where there are no settlements, so a decision on their future must be accepted on the basis of their feasibility.  It is a fact that we have opposed the settlements for decades and you continue to build them and we have done nothing untoward to you [in response].  If Israel wants, it can even expand to the borders promised in the Bible. The question is whether it is able to do so from a security and political standpoint.”
Daniel Kurtzer, U.S. Ambassador to Israel – Ha’aretz, May 29, 2002
Churches for Middle East Peace Website, http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006


November 25, 2002
“Our position on settlements, I think, has been very consistent, very clear. The secretary expressed it not too long ago.  He said settlement activity has severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope, preempts and prejudges the outcome of negotiations, and in doing so, cripples chances for real peace and prosperity.  The U.S. has long opposed settlement activity and, consistent with the report of the Mitchell Committee, settlement activity must stop.”
Mr. Richard Boucher, U.S. Department of State –Daily Press Briefing, June 25, 2002
Churches for Middle East Peace Website, http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006

June 03, 2003
"Israel has got responsibilities. Israel must deal with the settlements. Israel must make sure there is a contiguous territory that the Palestinians can call home."
President George W. Bush, June 03, 2003
Churches for Middle East Peace Website, http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006


September 21, 2003
"Settlement activity must stop. And it has not stopped to our satisfaction."
Secretary of State Colin Powell, September 21, 2003
Churches for Middle East Peace Website, http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006

December 31, 2003
“I would say that we continue -- our policy continues to be that Israel should freeze settlement construction.”
Daily Press Briefing by Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman, December 31, 2003
State Department Website, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2003/27640.htm, September 07, 2006


April 14, 2004
“Today, the Prime Minister told me of his decision to take such a step. Israel plans to remove certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza, and certain military installations and settlements from the West Bank. These are historic and courageous actions. If all parties choose to embrace this moment they can open the door to progress and put an end to one of the world's longest running conflicts.”
“I commend Prime Minister Sharon for his bold and courageous decision to withdraw from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. I call on the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors to match that boldness and that courage. All of us must show the wisdom and the will to bring lasting peace to that region.”
“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, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.”
President Bush’s comments in joint press conference with former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, April 14, 2004
White House Website, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040414-4.html, September 07, 2006


April 14, 2004
“We welcome the disengagement plan you have prepared, under which Israel would withdraw certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza, and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank. These steps described in the plan will mark real progress toward realizing my June 24, 2002 vision, and make a real contribution towards peace. We also understand that, in this context, Israel believes it is important to bring new opportunities to the Negev and the Galilee. We are hopeful that steps pursuant to this plan, consistent with my vision, will remind all states and parties of their own obligations under the roadmap.”
Excerpt from exchange of letters with Israeli PM Ariel Sharon, April 14, 2004
Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs Website, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Reference+Documents/Exchange+of+letters+Sharon-Bush+14-Apr-2004.htm, September 07, 2006


March 24, 2005
“Now, our position on settlement activity has not changed. We have said to the Israelis that they have obligations under the roadmap, they have obligations not to increase settlement activity. We expect, in particular, that they are going to be careful about anything -- route of the fence, settlement activity, laws -- that would appear to prejudge a final status agreement, and it's concerning that this is where it is and around Jerusalem. But we've noted our concern to the Israelis -- and David Welch (Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs) and Elliott [Abrams] (NSC Advisor) did. We will continue to note that this is at odds with the -- of American policy. So full stop we will continue to do that and we have noted our concerns about it.”
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Interview with LA Times, March 24, 2005
Churches for Middle East Peace Website, http://www.cmep.org/documents/BushAdmin_Jerusalem.htm, September 11, 2006


May 26, 2005
“Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudice final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Therefore, Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion.”
President Bush speaking with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, May 26, 2005
White House Website, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050526.html, September 06, 2006

June 26, 2005
“I traveled to Ramallah and I saw your [settlement] construction with my own eyes. It is not possible to operate in the territories in a manner that will change the situation before discussions on final status. True, the president promised the prime minister to consider the realities on the ground and concentrations of population--this is very important and the United States stands behind this commitment. But the president added that it is clear to all sides that the final borders will be determined only through negotiation. We cannot sanction creating a new reality on the ground by actions that continue today. I mean by this those activities in Jerusalem and its environs meant to change the reality on the ground. I saw these things with my own eyes and I am very concerned.
“We want very much to support Israel in this critical period, and we recognize the sensitivity of the situation, but it is impossible to sanction the continuation of construction and its influence on the final border. This is very important to us. I traveled close to Ma’ale Adumim, and I saw the construction along the way.”
Conversation with Israeli foreign minister Silvan Shalom, as reported in Ma’ariv, June 26, 2005
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, June 26, 2005
Churches for Middle East Peace Website, http://www.cmep.org/documents/BushAdmin_Jerusalem.htm, September 11, 2006

September 20, 2005
“As to Israeli activities that might try and prejudge a final status, we've been very clear. President Bush has been very clear that we do not expect Israel to engage in activities that will prejudge a final status because questions about the final border are indeed final status issues. We've been clear that activity in the settlements, for instance at E-1 (proposed settlement area in the West Bank, east of Jerusalem) or with the separation barrier that have an effect on Palestinian livelihood, that the international community expects Israel to live up to its roadmap obligations here, to its obligations not to engage in that activity.”
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, September 20, 2005
State Department Website, http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/53625.htm, September 6, 2006


October 20, 2005
“Israel must continue to work with Palestinian leaders to help improve the daily lives of Palestinians. At the same time, Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes its road map obligations, or prejudices the final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. This means that Israel must remove unauthorized posts and stop settlement expansion.”
President Bush speaking with PA president Mahmoud Abbas, October 20, 2005
White House Website, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051020.html, September 6, 2006


 November 14, 2005
“On settlement activity, we’ve made it very clear that settlement activity is counter both to U.S. policy and, we believe, counter to the obligations that the Israelis have undertaken. We’ve been very clear that there should be no activities that prejudge a final status agreement and we are in constant discussion with the Israelis about those -- about those matters.  We do with the Israelis what we do with each of the parties, which is to ask them to concentrate very hard on what they need to do to fulfill their obligations.”
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speaking at a joint press conference with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, November 14, 2005
State Department Website, http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/56847.htm, September 6, 2006

May 23, 2006

“Today, Prime Minister Olmert shared with me some of his ideas -- I would call them bold ideas. These ideas could lead to a two-state solution if a pathway to progress on the road map is not open in the period ahead. His ideas include the removal of most Israeli settlements, except for the major Israeli population centers in the West Bank. This idea would follow Prime Minister Sharon's decision to remove all settlements in Gaza and several in the West Bank.
I look forward to learning more about the Prime Minister's ideas. While any final status agreement will be only achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes, and no party should prejudice the outcome of negotiations on a final status agreement, the Prime Minister's ideas could be an important step toward the peace we both support. I'm encouraged by his constructive efforts to find ways to move the peace process forward.” Remarks by President Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel at Joint Press Availability, May 23, 2006
State Department Website, http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/2006/66812.htm, September 07, 2006

May 24, 2006
“Settlements are, of course, one of the most contentious issues between the Israelis and the Palestinians. As such, they are treated in the Roadmap, the President’s guide for finding a way out of the most controversial issues. Violence – either by settlers or Palestinians – is unacceptable. One step for addressing the issue of settlements is to encourage settler withdrawals, such as we saw during the Gaza Disengagement last year. In fact, one potentially positive aspect of Prime Minister Olmert’s ideas on settler withdrawal from the West Bank (which he presented to President Bush yesterday) is that withdrawal could further reduce friction between Israelis and Palestinians, and open the way for the two-state solution that President Bush envisions.”
“Hamas might have claimed victory for Gaza Disengagement, but the fact is that it was a triumph for Israel, because it implemented a highly controversial, yet courageous plan. The Palestinian Authority also deserves credit for its role in facilitating Disengagement under very difficult circumstances.”
Michael Doran, Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs, National Security Council, May 24, 2006
State Department Website, http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/2006/66736.htm, September 07, 2006

September 05, 2006
“[I]n general it’s a principle of the road map — a foundation to reach peace in the region — that Israel not only remove illegal outposts, but also not expand settlements in the West Bank.”
The United States, Mr. Tuttle said, opposes “any actions that would prejudice final status negotiations, which would include the final borders of Israel and Palestine.”
Stewart Tuttle, the spokesman for the American Embassy in Israel.  Tuttle’s statement followed Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s authorization for the construction of another 690 homes in the occupied West Bank, September 05, 2006
Steve Erlanger.  “Over U.S. Objections, Israel Approves West Bank Homes,” New York Times.  September 5, 2006.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast&oref=slogin
September 07, 2006
“[T]hey should not be expanding the settlements. There should not be expansion of the settlements and outposts should be removed.”
Sean McCormack, Spokesman, Daily Press Briefing, September 07, 2006
State Department Website, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2006/71935.htm, September 14, 2006
Former Chief of Massad Efraim Halevy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/opinion/who-threw-israel-under-the-bus.html   
It is a must read in its entirety, but here is an excerpt:  
"Indeed, whenever the United States has put serious, sustained pressure on Israel’s leaders — from the 1950s on — it has come from Republican presidents, not Democratic ones. This was particularly true under Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush. 

"Just one week before the Iraq war began in March 2003, Mr. Bush was still struggling to form a broad international coalition to oust Saddam Hussein. Unlike in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, Russia, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, decided to opt out, meaning that the United Nations could not provide formal legitimacy for a war against Mr. Hussein. Britain was almost alone in aligning itself with America, and Prime Minister Tony Blair’s support was deemed crucial in Washington. 

"Just as the British Parliament was about to approve the joint venture, a group of Mr. Blair’s Labour Party colleagues threatened to revolt, demanding Israeli concessions to the Palestinians in exchange for their support for the Iraq invasion. This demand could have scuttled the war effort, and there was only one way that British support could be maintained: Mr. Bush would have to declare that the “road map” for Middle East peace, a proposal drafted early in his administration, was the formal policy of the United States. 

"Israel’s prime minister at the time, Ariel Sharon, had been vehemently opposed to the road map, which contained several “red lines” that he refused to accept, including a stipulation that the future status of Jerusalem would be determined by “a negotiated resolution” taking into account “the political and religious concerns of both sides.” This wording implied a possible end to Israel’s sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, which has been under Israeli control since 1967.
On March 13, 2003, senior Israeli officials were summarily informed that the United States would publicly adopt the draft road map as its policy. Washington made it clear to us that on the eve of a war, Israel was expected to refrain from criticizing the American policy and also to ensure that its sympathizers got the message. 

"The United States insisted that the road map be approved without any changes, saying Israel’s concerns would be addressed later. At a long and tense cabinet debate I attended in May 2003, Mr. Sharon reluctantly asked his ministers to accept Washington’s demand. Benjamin Netanyahu, then the finance minister, disagreed, and he abstained during the vote on the cabinet resolution, which eventually passed. 

"From that point on, the road map, including the language on Jerusalem, became the policy bible for America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. Not only was Israel strong-armed by a Republican president, but it was also compelled to simply acquiesce and swallow the bitterest of pills. 

"Three years later, the Bush administration again pressured Israel into supporting a policy that ran counter to its interests. In early 2006, the terrorist group Hamas ran candidates in the Palestinian legislative elections. Israel had been adamant that no leader could campaign with a gun in his belt; the Palestinian party Fatah opposed Hamas’s participation, too. But the White House would have none of this; it pushed Fatah to allow Hamas candidates to run, and pressured Israel into allowing voting for Hamas — even in parts of East Jerusalem. 

"After Hamas won a clear majority, Washington sought to train Fatah forces to crush it militarily in the Gaza Strip. But Hamas pre-empted this scheme by taking control of Gaza in 2007, and the Palestinians have been ideologically and territorially divided ever since.
Despite the Republican Party’s shrill campaign rhetoric on Israel, no Democratic president has ever strong-armed Israel on any key national security issue...." ( end excerpt; see entirety at link)
As at the top of this sources article was the same link as below, with an excerpt brought from Mossad Chief Efraim Halevy's October 24, 2012 submission to the NY Times in what is perhaps the most important article in English on the security of Israel vis a vis the U.S. and his article doesn't even provide us with any secrets, simply it contains the public record:  ( Below this is the article from a few weeks prior where Obama was basically endorsed for his relationship with Israel and handling of Iran which Halevy calls courageous.

....................................................................................  

Here is Mossad Chief Efraim Halevy basically endorsing Obama for President on account of relationship with Israel's security and Obama's handling of Iran ( Peres and Haaretz did as well, basically: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2012/al-monitor/israelsecurityiran.html


((    IMAGINE IF THAT WERE OBAMA AND NOT BUSH.  Imagine Obama aligning with the International Community against Israel in the UN's highest and only forum of passing International Law forcing Israel to desist from self defense against an enemy that began the intifada in September 2000-- slamming Israel in the highest forum of international law, applying the highest form of DAYLIGHT between the U.S. and Israel (short of actual sanction like HW Bush and Reagan applied for short periods of time against Israel- see more below on these sanctions).
Where were the Republicans, and their operatives, The Jewish Republican Coalition and their allies, screaming about there being no light between Israel and America?  Yet these same operatives began campaigns of hypocritical hysterical lying propaganda describing Obama's policies on settlement which are just plagiarisms of all of Bush's settlement growth demands against Israel.  But the Intifada and Israel''s defense operations, are obviously not comparable to a policy against building houses in West Bank settlements.  That's why the organized Republican lies against Obama about settlements are just massive deceit as these same Republicans and their operatives stood by and, as we see below, praised Bush for being a LEADER in the mideast with his resolutions against Israel.   Obama has never mirrored Bush on anything similar to what is described in this article regarding actual ongoing self defense from occurring terror.  Never.  And certainly Obama never pushed Security Council Resolutions against Israel demanding the cessation of self defense.  If friends of Israel maintain that GW, as of January 20th, 2008, was the best president the Jews ever had, then as of today Obama MUST be given the new first place position ( ie. we know the security alignment between Israel and the U.S. is unprecedented under Obama which means Obama released the constraints on the relationship dynamics.)


Appendixes: 

As mentioned above, below is continuation of sources on the Passover Massacre, 2002
 [Bush continued his rebuke of Israel and providing massive daylight between the U.S. and Israel 1 week after the Passover Massacre"It is crucial to distinguish between the terrorists and ordinary Palestinians seeking to provide for their own families. The Israeli government should be compassionate at checkpoints and border crossings, sparing innocent Palestinians daily humiliation. Israel should take immediate action to ease closures and allow peaceful people to go back to work.( The IDF is still looking for terrorists on the dayt Bush is demanding Israel EASE the travel security check points.  Can you imagine Obama having said this ?) Israel is facing a terrible and serious challenge. For seven days, it has acted to root out terrorist nests. America recognizes Israel's right to defend itself from terror. Yet, to lay the foundations of future peace, I ask Israel to halt incursions into Palestinian-controlled areas and begin the withdrawal from those cities it has recently occupied."[ Pres. GW Bush ]
(Jews are being burned alive and blown up in Israel for 20 months and Bush is not just preventing Israel from defending herself but adding this material to his speeches ! )   SETTLEMENTS

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/international/04CND-TPRE.html?pagewanted=alland
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/07/world/mideast-turmoil-the-president-as-fighting-rages-bush-demands-israeli-withdrawal.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/07/world/mideast-turmoil-the-president-as-fighting-rages-bush-demands-israeli-withdrawal.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

And prior to the Passover Massacre, 19 months into the Intifada what was Bush engaged in? Answer: Undermining Israel's legitimacy  March 13, 2002   Bush:"Frankly, it's not helpful what the Israelis have recently done in order to create conditions for peace. I understand someone trying to defend themselves and to fight terror, but the recent actions aren't helpful."


A couple of weeks after Bush said this The Passover Massacre takes place and Bush STILL gave it to Israel- even worse.   ( Can we accurately characterize Bush's actions as pouring gas on a lit fire? The Palestinians knew Bush was pushing back against Israel and they continued the Palestinian intifada -unfettered. Yet Bush isn't skewered by Republicans as 'playing with fire'- that expression is reserved for Obama by Republican operatives being hypocrites during the Obama Adminstration regarding Bush's original policy of "no natural growth" which Obama merely copied.  .  http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/14/world/israeli-offensive-is-not-helpful-president-warns.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm  
The NY Times article begins: "President Bush delivered a harsh rebuke to Israel today for its deadly military operations against Palestinians in the West Bank..."  

On April 4, 2002 7 days after the Passover Massacre and 4 days after the beginning of Operation Defensive Shield, President Bush gave a speech that includes this publicly delivered pressure on Israel to stop their military operations and remove themselves from the Arab areas of the West Bank and included these demands: Bush:  "Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop,  ( lots of DAYLIGHT) and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338. Ultimately, this approach should be the basis of agreements between Israel and Syria and Israel and Lebanon.”    “ Israel should also show a respect, a respect for and concern about the dignity of the Palestinian people who are and will be their neighbors. It is crucial to distinguish between the terrorists and ordinary Palestinians seeking to provide for their own families. The Israeli government should be compassionate at checkpoints and border crossings, sparing innocent Palestinians daily humiliation. Israel should take immediate action to ease closures and allow peaceful people to go back to work." ( Bush Publicly rebuked Israel 7 days after the Passover Massacre) ( lots of DAYLIGHT)
“ Israel is facing a terrible and serious challenge. For seven days, it has acted to root out terrorist nests. America recognizes Israel's right to defend itself from terror. Yet to lay the foundations of future peace, I ask Israel to halt incursions into Palestinian-controlled areas and begin the withdrawal from those cities it has recently occupied. I speak as a committed friend of Israel. I speak out of a concern for its long-term security, the security that will come with a genuine peace."
“ The world expects an immediate cease-fire…."
( why is Bush enforcing daylight by demanding and using the appeal of the "world" against Israel's interests?)
[George Bush) “….I've decided to send Secretary of State Powell to the region next week to seek broad international support for the vision I've outlaid today. As a step in this process, he will work to implement United Nations Resolution 1402; an immediate and meaningful cease-fire; an end of terror and violence and incitement; withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah; implementation of the already agreed-upon Tenet and Mitchell plans, which will lead to a political settlement.”
“ I have no illusions -- we have no illusions -- about the difficulty of the issues that lie ahead.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/05/world/mideast-turmoil-the-reaction-united-nations-working-to-force-israeli-withdrawal.html

By Haaretz Service and agencies | Apr.04, 2002 | 12:00 AM
Furthermore Bush said “'I ask Israel to halt incursions into Palestinian-controlled areas, and begin the withdrawal from those cities it has recently occupied,'' he said.
“''Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop,'' the president said at another point, his hand chopping the air from a podium just off the colonnade just outside the Oval Office. ''And the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognizable boundaries.''” (NY Times) 
http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/2002/9158.htm

Washington Post: "Defiant Sharon Losing Support in White House"

http://www.ephrem.org/dehai_news_archive/2002/apr02/0171.html 

( wpost article accessible at the above link) Excerpts here are pulled from the url above.
By Mike Allen and John Lancaster  Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, April 11, 2002; Page A01 ( see link to complete article below)

Israel's continued defiance of President Bush's demand for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian cities and towns is eroding support for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon inside the White House,
administration sources said yesterday. After months of steadfast backing of Sharon by the Bush administration,  senior White House aides are beginning to express doubts about whether
the Israeli leader can be a long-term partner in achieving the  administration's goals in the Middle East.

White House aides also fear that Sharon's intransigence in the face of  Bush's repeated demands over the past week for an end to the Israeli  attacks could make the president appear ineffective and erode his
standing in the world.  As part of the emerging shift of opinion about the Israeli leader, some White House officials are now making a distinction between support for Israel and support for Sharon.

"Sharon is arguably doing what he thinks needs to be done," a senior administration official said. "After he's finished, what's next? The fear is that he knows no other way than being tough."

The administration's tougher line on Israel is already facing resistance in Congress, with some lawmakers accusing the White House of compromising the moral clarity of its anti-terrorism crusade.

Support is building for draft legislation proposed by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that would designate the Palestine Liberation Organization as a terrorist group, close down
its Washington office and deny visas to its top officials. The State Department successfully lobbied against a similar measure last fall. Lobbyists for major American Jewish organizations have also been busy in
Congress, "expressing concern about the kind of pressure that's being brought to bear" on Sharon's government by the administration, according to someone involved in the discussions.

Relations between the administration and Israel have grown increasingly tense this week as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell held talks with Arab and European leaders in the region in preparation for his scheduled arrival in Israel today. In addition to meeting with Sharon, Powell intends to see Palestinian
leader Yasser Arafat for cease-fire talks that the Bush administration hopes will lead quickly to new negotiations over the political issues underlying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The administration, along with Israel, had been insisting for weeks that negotiations could begin only once a truce was in place. Powell's statement on Tuesday that a truce would be "instantly linked" to
political discussions represented a major shift in policy. For months, Bush had expressed unswerving support for Sharon, had put the onus on Arafat to stop Palestinian suicide attacks on Israeli
civilians and had remained steadfast in refusing to involve his administration at the highest levels in seeking a solution to the conflict.
But as Israeli troops and tanks occupied most of the cities of the West Bank over the past two weeks, Bush came under mounting pressure from Europe and the Arab world to act. Last Thursday, Bush for the first time
called on Israel to withdraw its forces and announced that he was sending Powell to the Middle East. He followed that with a telephone call to Sharon on Saturday in which he said Israel must begin its pullout "without delay." Although Israel moved out of two towns on Monday, Sharon has insisted that the offensive will continue, telling Israeli forces yesterday that he had told Bush on Saturday that Israel was "in the middle of a battle" and would leave only when the job was finished. Bush continued to call for patience with Israel during a meeting  yesterday with 16 Republican congressional leaders. "We're Israel's  close friend, and we are trying to get the process started to bring  stability to the region," Bush said, according to sources.

At a briefing yesterday, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said  that Powell is looking forward to meeting with Sharon and that the  United States has presented its demands to Israel "on the basis of
friendship, on the basis of respect." "Israel remains America's friend," Fleischer said. "The violence has
gotten to the point now where both parties are so engaged in the ongoing  struggle for the Middle East that the president wants to find a way to help the parties to help themselves."  Some administration officials said Sharon has been more receptive to Bush's request than is publicly apparent. "We're being precipitous if webase what we say only on what we see," one official said but would not elaborate.

Administration officials said they fear that expectations for Powell's
mission are rising to an unreasonable level, and they repeated Powell's
warning on Sunday before he left for the region that he might not
achieve anything tangible. "We're going to have to give it some time --
probably more time than people want to," a senior official said. "To
expect an instant solution is ridiculous."

On Capitol Hill yesterday, about 20 senators gave a warm reception to former Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who expressed concern that Israel "is being pressed to back down just when it is on the verge of uprooting Palestinian terror." He asked whether the United States is preparing to "selectively abandon" its principles and asserted the pointlessness of further negotiations with Arafat.
Several lawmakers praised Netanyahu's remarks, suggesting that Bush erred last week when he asked the Sharon government to end the military incursion.

The intensity of feeling surrounding Powell's trip reflects the enduring
clout of Israel and its American allies on Capitol Hill. It could also
limit Powell's diplomatic maneuvering room by exposing the
administration to criticism from its conservative base and others that
its approach to fighting terrorism is inconsistent.

"Despite the fact that the president and secretary of state have said
repeatedly that they will not meet with Yasser Arafat till he renounces
terrorism and takes some steps to end the violence, now we're meeting
with him without any preconditions," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.)
complained in a floor speech yesterday. "At the same time we're telling
Israel, which is simply trying to defend herself, to pull back."


Powell's mission has its defenders in Congress. In an interview, Sen.
Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) praised the administration for adopting a more
nuanced approach to Middle East diplomacy after what he described as
Bush's earlier, mistaken attempt to define the war on terrorism in
black-and-white terms. "This is a world with a lot of gray," he said.
"We can choose either to live in an abstract world or choose to engage
in the real world. . . . The reality of that has started to set in with
this administration."

Lawmakers have been out of town during much of the recent surge of
violence in the Middle East, having returned only on Monday after their
two-week Easter recess. But they have since begun to weigh in heavily on
the crisis. In the House, members from both parties spoke late into the
night Tuesday on Israel's behalf.
Rep. Tom Lantos (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House
International Relations Committee, said he may introduce a resolution
expressing support for Israel. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), who
met with Netanyahu yesterday morning, is considering doing the same.
http://www.ephrem.org/dehai_news_archive/2002/apr02/0171.html

“Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudice final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Therefore, Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion.”
President George W. Bush speaking with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas – May 26, 2005
“Now, our position on settlement activity has not changed. We have said to the Israelis that they have obligations under the roadmap, they have obligations not to increase settlement activity."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Interview with LA Times – March 24, 2005
“I would say that we continue -- our policy continues to be that Israel should freeze settlement construction.”
Daily Press Briefing by Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman – December 31, 2003
"Settlement activity must stop. And it has not stopped to our satisfaction."
Secretary Colin Powell – September 21, 2003
"Israel has got responsibilities. Israel must deal with the settlements. Israel must make sure there is a contiguous territory that the Palestinians can call home."
President George W. Bush – June 3, 2003

Safire: "In the midst of yesterday's stormy six-hour meeting of Israel's cabinet, assembled to reluctantly affirm or angrily reject Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's decision to accede to White House pressure to sign on to a lopsided ''road map,'...." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/26/opinion/sharon-trusting-bush.html

further along in the article Safire quotes Ariel Sharon provide rhetoric to the Israeli People:

''Fourteen points we brought to the attention of the White House will be implemented together with the road map,'' Sharon says in defense of his approval. ''The U.S. said these are real concerns that will be addressed 'fully and seriously.' We attached those 14 points to our government's resolution, and that provided us with a certain feeling of security. That, and the friendship and deep strategic cooperation that exists between our two countries.'' [ end quote]  We know that Bush reneged.  see above (1) the Chief of Mossad Halevy article of October 24, 2012 submitted to the NYTIMES and also look below for Ahron Bregman's article reporting on the outcome of this reliance on Bushregarding this 14 points ( ie. Bush buried them, and the notable result was that the Bush Adminstration never changed its policy that the entire final settlement would require acceptance by both parties - including East Jersualem, resulting in the Bush brokered final settlement offer of August 2008 offering up East Jerusalem as part JOINT CAPITAL and part international capital)

“ 'Decades of bitter experience teach a clear lesson,'' Mr. Bush said in the Rose Garden. ''Progress is impossible when nations emphasize their grievances and ignore their opportunities. The storms of violence cannot go on. Enough is enough.'' [Transcript, Page A12.]” ( Bush is drawing on lots of DAYLIGHT and morally equating the Israeli and Palestinian grievances instead of acting like the closest ally the U.S. has in the middle east.  Bush should have stuck up for Israel's grievances which should outweigh the Palestinian grievances for reasons we all know and understand, not to mention multiple offers of a state to the Palestinians, not to mention the withdrawal from major parts of the West Bank in the 1990s and 2000s and the withdrawl from Gaza in 2005, and giving in to the GW Bush demands that Israel allow Hamas to take full part in the elections that brought them to victory despite rocket attacks from Hamas post-withdrawala and prior to the elections...the latter being one of the main points that Chief of Mossad Halevy claims in his October 24th submission to the NYTimes brought irrevocable harm to Israel with no care on the part of Bush ( see above article link on Halevy's submission to the NYTIMES).
And further:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1241&dat=20020404&id=koBTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=S4YDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3876,4690137
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-04-05/news/0204050319_1_arab-and-european-nations-palestinian-state-settlements-in-palestinian-areas


Notice that as opposed to 2002 after the Passover Maasacre all these sources referring to Dems like Feinstein And Shumer pushing on Bush and then there is turnaround in April at which point all of Congress is supporting Bushafter the Passover Massacre in Bush's pressure on Israel to stop her defense.

James Bennet, "Sharon Invokes Munich in Warning U.S. on ‘Appeasement’," New York Times, October 5, 2001;

Jane Perlez and and Katharine Q. Seelye. "U.S. Stongly Rebukes Sharon for Criticism of Bush, Calling it ‘Unacceptable’." New York Times October 6, 2001;

Shlomo Shamir, "U.S. Jews: Sharon is ‘Worried’ by Terrorism Distinction," Ha’aretz, September 18, 2001; Alan Sipress and Lee Hockstader, "Sharon Speech Riles U.S.," Washington Post, October 6, 2001.
For evidence that other Israelis shared Sharon’s fears, see Israel Harel, "Lessons from the Next War," Ha’aretz, October 6, 2001.

Jack Donnelly, "Nation Set to Push Sharon on Agreement," Boston Globe, October 10, 2001;

Hockstader and Sipress, "Sharon Speech Riles U.S.";
Perlez and Seelye. "U.S. Strongly Rebukes Sharon."
Lee Hockstader, "Sharon Apologetic over Row with U.S.,"  
Washington Post, October 7, 2001;

Serge Schmemann, "Raising Munich, Sharon Reveals Israeli Qualms," New York Times, October 6, 2001.

Aluf Benn, "Analysis: Clutching at Straws," Ha’aretz, September 18, 2001; "Excerpts from Talk by Sharon," New York Times, December 4, 2001; William Safire, "‘Israel or Arafat’," New York Times, December 3, 2001.

Elaine Sciolino, "Senators Urge Bush Not to Hamper Israel," New York Times, November 17, 2001.

Dana Milbank, "Bush Spokesman Gentle on Israeli Assault," Washington Post, December 3, 2001; Safire, "Israel or Arafat"; David Sanger, "U.S. Walks a Tightrope on Terrorism in Israel," New York Times, December 4, 2001.

Keith B. Richburg and Molly Moore, "Israel Rejects Demands to Withdraw Troops," Washington Post, April 11, 2002.

All quotes in this paragraph are from Fareed Zakaria, "Colin Powell’s Humiliation: Bush Should Clearly Support His Secretary of State – Otherwise He Should Get a New One," Newsweek, April 29, 2002.
Also see Mike Allen and John Lancaster, "Defiant Sharon Losing Support in White House," Washington Post, April 11, 2002, which describes the Bush Administration’s anger with Sharon.

*It is worth noting that the American people were generally supportive of Bush’s efforts to put pressure on Israel in the spring of 2002. A Time/CNN poll taken on April 10-11 found that 60 percent of Americans felt that U.S. aid to Israel should be cut off or reduced if Sharon refused to withdraw from the Palestinian areas he had recently occupied. "Poll: Americans Support Cutting Aid to Israel," Reuters News Release, April 12, 2002; AFP News Release, April 13, 2002. Also see Israel and the Palestinians (Program on International Policy Attitudes, University of Maryland, last updated on August 15, 2002). Moreover, 75 percent of those surveyed thought that Powell should meet with Arafat when he visited Israel. Regarding Sharon, only 35 percent found him trustworthy, while 35 percent thought he was a warmonger, 20 percent saw him as a terrorist, and 25 percent considered him an enemy of the United States. 

The NY Times noted “ Mr. Bush's message was different today, and after his speech, the Arab resolution, which simply ''demands the implementation and welcomes Secretary Powell's trip, passed 15-0 in the Conciliation of its Resolution 1402 without delay'' .   A senior administration official involved in setting the policy said Mr. Bush decided in meetings on Monday and Tuesday that he would have to intervene more directly because he feared that long-term allies in the region like Egypt and Jordan were facing destabilizing protests."
"A Bush official said of Bush ''He decided at a national security meeting on Tuesday to send General Powell, and that he couldn't go without the president laying out a big vision of the Middle East.''"
The NY Times continued “Secretary Powell will take over the lead in talks from Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, the administration's envoy. Officials said the two would work together, but the secretary of state's presence clearly brings the American role to a new level.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/05/world/mideast-turmoil-the-reaction-united-nations-working-to-force-israeli-withdrawal.html
and

http://tinyurl.com/7vry8wx 
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-04-05/news/0204050319_1_arab-and-european-nations-palestinian-state-settlements-in-palestinian-areas

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/04/israel10

MIDEAST TURMOIL: THE REACTION -- UNITED NATIONS; Working to Force Israeli Withdrawal NY TIMES

By Barbara Crossette
Published: April 05, 2002
"Mr. Bush's unequivocal call for an Israeli withdrawal unlocked a jam in the Security Council, which has been all but paralyzed for two days by Arab efforts to pass a resolution telling both Israelis and Palestinians to act on Resolution 1402, a measure passed last weekend. The earlier resolution called for an Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian towns and blamed both sides for the fighting."
"For a week, the administration has been sending conflicting signals. American diplomats backed Resolution 1402, while the president appeared to hold the Palestinians largely responsible for the violence. But Mr. Bush's message was different today, and after his speech, the Arab resolution, which simply ''demands the implementation of its Resolution 1402 without delay'' and welcomes Secretary Powell's trip, passed 15-0 in the Council."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/05/world/mideast-turmoil-the-reaction-united-nations-working-to-force-israeli-withdrawal.html
William Safire says [of Bush] He [Bush] ingratiated himself with appeasers by pressuring Israel to stop fighting ''now'' -- which would enable the Arab terror coalition to regroup, to get new shipments of arms from Iran and rewards from Saudis and Saddam to infiltrate more human missiles into Jerusalem."Last weekend The A.P. reported Bush aides saying on background that our president was ''frustrated'' after his telephone call to Sharon. I asked another ''senior administration official'' about that, and was firmly told ''no such thing.'' Such staff doubletalk ill serves the president and the press. "What is persuading Bush to become a wavering ally as Israel fights for survival? It is the fear that al-Jazeera's one-sided TV incitement will lead to the overthrow of the regimes we prop up in Egypt and Jordan. But if they are that weak, we are wasting our money. As the wise and courageous Fouad Ajami wrote in The Wall Street Journal yesterday, ''the way out of political ruin is an Arab break, once and for all, with the false consolations of terror.....''
" ......Let Powell lean on Arab rulers to induce Arafat to stop the killing he started and control his terrorists. Then Israel can safely withdraw. Then the two sides can work out a sensible separation and avert another round of war. "( end of Safire quotes)



How did congressional Republicans publicly react? Yes, hypocritically, they suppressed all criticism against Bush, and this suppression of the Congressional Republicans leads to praise for Bush activity like this: 
April 05, 2002 “MIDEAST TURMOIL: THE REACTION -- CONGRESS; Praising the President For Seeking Balance" ( lots of DAYLIGHT, but where was the hysteria and assertions that Bush was pro-Arab and a Muslim?) 
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/05/world/mideast-turmoil-the-reaction-congress-praising-the-president-for-seeking-balance.html

By Alison Mitchell  NY Times  Published: April 05, 2002
President Bush's decision to put his administration at the center of new Middle East negotiations won wide praise today from members of Congress across the political spectrum, who said the escalating violence threatened vital American interests in the region. However, some conservatives, many of them outside of government, had been pushing for acceptance of Israel's use of force against Mr. Arafat.
“Both of the Democratic leaders in Congress -- Senator Tom Daschle, the majority leader from South Dakota, and Representative Richard A. Gephardt, the House minority leader from Missouri -- rallied behind Mr. Bush. ''After months of violence, this initiative is rightly focused on results.''

“An array of Republicans also praised the president. Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said the escalating violence was hurting the United States' standing in the world and that Israel's military incursion had backfired, making Mr. Arafat more relevant.

Representative Henry Hyde, Republican of Illinois and the chairman of the House International Relations Committee, emphasized the balance Mr. Bush had struck. ''President Bush is making it clear that as Israel stops its incursions into Palestinian territories, there must a significant response from the Arab side,'' he said.""

Reporter asks Pres. GW Bush: " [Question]. Israel is moving deeper into Palestinian territories and there are reports today that she has launched attacks on southern Lebanon. Have you failed, Mr. President, to convince Prime Minister Sharon to pull back his troops? And why did you wait so long to demand a withdrawal and only today adding the caveat without delay?
MR. BUSH -- My administration's, my words to Israel are the same today as they were a couple of days ago: withdraw without delay." ( lots of DAYLIGHT) 
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/07/world/mideast-turmoil-the-president-as-fighting-rages-bush-demands-israeli-withdrawal.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://books.google.com/books?id=f_vhrnvPUqwC&pg=PA563&lpg=PA563&dq=My+administration%27s,+my+words+to+Israel+are+the+same+today+as+they+were+a+couple+of+days+ago:+withdraw+without+delay.%22&source=bl&ots=-cO9-IL1lC&sig=8t3SSJ_FwKFcmK_Jrxfnivxd9F0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ABqsUM2mHaf-0gH6jYD4Aw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=My%20administration%27s%2C%20my%20words%20to%20Israel%20are%20the%20same%20today%20as%20they%20were%20a%20couple%20of%20days%20ago%3A%20withdraw%20without%20delay.%22&f=false

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/07/world/mideast-turmoil-the-president-as-fighting-rages-bush-demands-israeli-withdrawal.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm


April 7, 2002 NY Times Headline:  “MIDEAST TURMOIL: THE PRESIDENT; As Fighting Rages, BUSH Demands Israeli Withdrawal  By DAVID E. SANGER Published: April 07, 2002 [ ed; imagine Obama was filling Bush's shoes at the time and saying and doing the exact same things]
President Bush, vigorously responding to Israel's expansion of military actions in the West Bank in defiance of his wishes, said today for the first time that Israel must withdraw its forces ''without delay.'' But he received no assurances from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon this afternoon when the president called to make the appeal directly.
"Mr. Bush made his declaration at a news conference here with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and then returned to his 1,600-acre ranch for what was described by an American official as a ''frank and direct'' telephone conversation with Mr. Sharon. But by both American and Israeli accounts of the blunt exchange, Mr. Sharon said that Israeli forces had a job to complete in wiping out the ''terrorist infrastructure'' in the Palestinian territories, and that while he would move ''expeditiously'' to complete that work, he gave Mr. Bush no indication of when his forces would withdraw."

"The conversation was the first between the two men since February, and until now Mr. Bush had held back from direct communication with Mr. Sharon to avoid a situation in which either leader would appear to be personally bending to the other...

"Mr. Bush's conversation was held two hours after he and Mr. Blair made a late morning appearance at the high school here, interrupting their weekend of talks. Asked at the news conference about the continued Israeli military activity since the Thursday speech, Mr. Bush, with obvious annoyance in his voice, said ''I expect them to heed the call'' to withdraw.....
 
"Mr. Bush's demand was immediately echoed by Mr. Blair, who is visiting the president's ranch outside this town of 700 in the central Texas prairie for the first time. Standing next to Mr. Bush in the school gymnasium, Mr. Blair said that Israel did not have ''two greater friends in the world'' than the United States or Britain, but that the time had come to ''heed the words of President Bush.'' As he spoke, a freight train rumbled by, and a midday storm blew through.....

"Even as Mr. Bush toughened his language toward Israel today, he denied that he was doing so. ''My words to Israel are the same today as they were a couple of days ago: Withdraw without delay,'' he insisted.

"Today, Mr. Bush defended his decision not to intervene so directly, or to call for withdrawal, before his Thursday speech.  ''I gave the speech at the right time,'' he declared. ''And I expect Israel to heed my advice, and I expect for the Palestinians to reject terror in the Arab world. As Israel steps back, we expect the Arab world to step up and lead.''...
 
''The president said he expects to see results,'' a senior administration official said, but when the call ended, Mr. Bush was still left wondering whether Mr. Sharon would begin a pullout in the next day or two, or try to drag out the process until Secretary of State Colin L. Powell arrives there next week. Some Israeli officials suggested that Mr. Sharon would see the Powell visit as the true deadline. [Article, Page 17.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/07/world/mideast-turmoil-the-president-as-fighting-rages-bush-demands-israeli-withdrawal.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

“Mr. Bush made his declaration at a news conference here with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and then returned to his 1,600-acre ranch for what was described by an American official as a ''frank and direct'' telephone conversation with Mr. Sharon. But by both American and Israeli accounts of the blunt exchange, Mr. Sharon said that Israeli forces had a job to complete in wiping out the ''terrorist infrastructure'' in the Palestinian territories, and that while he would move ''expeditiously'' to complete that work, he gave Mr. Bush no indication of when his forces would withdraw."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/07/world/mideast-turmoil-the-president-as-fighting-rages-bush-demands-israeli-withdrawal.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm


GW BUSH tells Israel it must leave 'without delay'BY TIMOTHY J. BURGER DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Sunday, April 07, 2002 WASHINGTON - Ratcheting up his demands for Mideast peace, President Bush called yesterday for Israel to withdraw from captured Palestinian territory "without delay" and told both sides they must quell the raging violence.
"Israel must begin to withdraw without delay from those cities it has begun to occupy," Bush said in Crawford, Tex. "The Palestinian leadership must order an immediate and effective ceasefire and crack down on terrorist networks." Bush refused to acknowledge that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon might not comply. "I don't expect them to ignore. I expect them to heed the call . . . from their friends," Bush said.  ….
“With Secretary of State Powell set to leave for the Middle East today, Bush was more blunt than he had been in his Thursday speech when he had not specifically said the Israeli pullout had to be immediate. On Friday, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that "major events don't necessarily happen overnight."…
But yesterday, Bush specifically uttered the UN phrase "without delay," which the official cited as "a sign that he expects Israel to heed the call."
“An American Jewish leader in close contact with the Israeli government said Bush's change in tone appeared to have registered in Israel.” "It appears that they're going to have to assess . . . and adjust," the source said, adding that a pullback would likely require Powell's assurance that the military mission could resume if terrorist strikes recur. Blair, meanwhile, reminded Israel that ignoring the U.S. and British exhortations would be a finger in the eyes of its staunchest allies. "They don't have two greater friends in the world than the United States of America or Britain," Blair said.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2002/apr/07


Get out now, US tells defiant Sharon
  • Julian Borger, in Crawford TexasThe Guardian, Sunday 7 April 2002 21.23 EDT
  • The US responded with mounting anger yesterday as Ariel Sharon stepped up Israel's military offensive against Palestinian cities on the West Bank, in open defiance of an appeal from President Bush for an immediate withdrawal to begin.
US officials made it clear the president had put his credibility on the line in calling for the withdrawal and he expected Mr Sharon to start it "now, not tomorrow", in some of the sharpest language the Bush administration has used towards Israel so far. But Mr Sharon's office simply promised to "expedite" the 10-day-old offensive, and issued a statement justifying the assault.
More than 30 Palestinians were killed yesterday as Israeli troops pushed further into Jenin and continued their onslaught in Nablus, bringing warnings from Europe that the EU would weigh the possibility of sanctions against Israel if the bloodshed continued.
In a speech on Saturday underlined by a 20-minute phone call to the Israeli prime minister from the presidential ranch in Crawford, Texas, Mr Bush called for withdrawal "without delay".
Clearly taken aback by the Israeli response, senior US officials took to the talkshow circuit yesterday to warn Mr Sharon that he was in danger of exhausting his reserves of goodwill in the White House.
The national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, made it clear that Israeli defiance was taken as a direct affront to the administration's credibility. "The US is putting a lot on the line here," Ms Rice said. "The president said to prime minister Sharon: 'I really ask you to listen to me as a friend. I really ask you to think of the consequences of what you're doing here, and it's important it must end without delay.' The president several times yesterday used the word 'now'."
The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, added to the increasingly firm line from Washington, warning the Israeli government that it could be creating a new generation of suicide bombers. He said that if young Palestinians "don't see a political process they will resort once again to terrorism and violence, and we may well be radicalising a new generation of many more terrorists waiting to act once this incursion is over".
Mr Powell was due to leave Washington last night, but was not expected in Israel until Thursday, after making stops in Morocco, Egypt and Spain.
US officials stressed that the intervening period should not be used by Israel to continue its offensive. Ms Rice said: "We understand a military operation cannot be undone in moments, but the important point is to begin now, without delay, not tomorrow, not when Secretary Powell gets to the region, but now."
Tony Blair urged the UN security council to adopt the Saudi government's Middle East peace plan and proposed an international monitoring force to protect any ceasefire.
"In monitoring any such ceasefire and in ensuring that the Palestinian Authority genuinely takes action against the terrorists, we and others stand ready to help in any way we can," Mr Blair said. "I know the deep-rooted objections to any outside help. But when the situation is as grim as it is now, only some external assistance can establish the minimum trust to get security back on the agenda in a realistic way."
The Belgian foreign minister, Louis Michel, called on the EU to consider trade sanctions on Israel. Spain, which holds the EU presidency, said that sanctions would be debated if Israel maintained its offensive.
There were more signs of violence escalating in Gaza, meanwhile, where a Palestinian military court sentenced six men convicted of being Israeli collaborators to death.


Headline April 10, 2002 NY Times 
Joel Brinkley- MIDEAST TURMOIL: THE ISRAELIS; U.S. Call for Pullback Roils Eager Israeli Reservists By JOEL 
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/10/world/mideast-turmoil-the-israelis-us-call-for-pullback-roils-eager-reservists.html

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-04-06/us/bush.blair.transcript_1_cherie-blair-global-terrorism-bush-blair/4?_s=PM:US
Reporter Question:Have you failed, Mr. President, to convince (Israeli) Prime Minister (Ariel) Sharon to pull back his troops? And why did you wait so long to demand a withdraw and only today adding the caveat "without delay"?
BUSH: My administration's -- my words to Israel are the same today as they were a couple of days ago: Withdraw without delay.
d about the balance being tipped to the point where we weren't able to achieve a long-lasting peace. I gave the speech at the right time.
And I expect Israel to heed my advice, and I expect for the Palestinians to reject terror. And the Arab world, as Israel steps back, we expect the Arab world to step up and lead, to lead against terror, to get into an immediate cease-fire, to begin the implementation of U.N. Resolution 1042.
QUESTION: Can I follow up briefly?
BUSH: No. Nice try.
BLAIR: Andy Meyer (ph), who works for the BBC and really nothing else (inaudible) said...
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: I've got three children.
(LAUGHTER)
Reporter: "Could I just follow up from that and ask the president and prime minister, what happens now if the Israelis continue to ignore what you have been asking them to do?"
BUSH: I don't expect them to ignore. I expect them to heed the call, heed the call from their friends the United States, and heed the call from their friends, the Great -- the people of Great Britain and the leadership of Great Britain.
QUESTION: But if they don't?
BUSH: Well, that's -- as I told you, I think they will heed the call.
BLAIR: I think that most people in Israel will realize that they don't have two greater friends in the world than the United States of America or Britain. And we both understand, as well, the appalling nature of the acts of terrorism that they have been subject to. We understand that.
But we are also trying to help secure a way out of the present impasse so that we can get into a political process where some of these underlying issues can be resolved satisfactorily for the long term.
BLAIR: Because the bloodshed and the carnage and innocent people dying, in the end, is not a solution to this issue.
So I believe that Israel will heed the words of President Bush, and will do so knowing that he speaks as a friend to Israel.


It came down to a Conservative pundit to open his mouth on  April 11, 2002 NY Times: William Safire who said  ...." But what was the Bush reaction to Arafat's refusal of a cease-fire, bolstered by Saudi and Egyptian urging to fight harder? Day by day, Bush's resolve has been crumbling. He ingratiated himself with appeasers by pressuring Israel to stop fighting ''now'' -- which would enable the Arab terror coalition to regroup, to get new shipments of arms from Iran and rewards from Saudis and Saddam to infiltrate more human missiles into Jerusalem.
"Last weekend The A.P. reported Bush aides saying on background that our president was ''frustrated'' after his telephone call to Sharon. I asked another ''senior administration official'' about that, and was firmly told ''no such thing.'' Such staff doubletalk ill serves the president and the press. "What is persuading Bush to become a wavering ally as Israel fights for survival? It is the fear that al-Jazeera's one-sided TV incitement will lead to the overthrow of the regimes we prop up in Egypt and Jordan. But if they are that weak, we are wasting our money. As the wise and courageous Fouad Ajami wrote in The Wall Street Journal yesterday, ''the way out of political ruin is an Arab break, once and for all, with the false consolations of terror.''
"With its back to the Western Wall, Israel is uniting to turn back the well-oiled wave of vilification. Sharon (sometimes accused of being my mouthpiece) has been joined by Barak on the left and Bibi Netanyahu on the right to explain to Americans that Israel and the U.S. are in the same battle to protect our populations against terror. If Shimon Peres stops playing politics, these voices could be joined by new, articulate Israeli ambassadors in the U.S. and the U.N....
" Let Powell lean on Arab rulers to induce Arafat to stop the killing he started and control his terrorists. Then Israel can safely withdraw. Then the two sides can work out a sensible separation and avert another round of war. "( end of Safire quotes)




April 7, 2002  NY Times Headline:  “MIDEAST TURMOIL: THE PRESIDENT; 
As Fighting Rages, Bush Demands Israeli Withdrawal  By DAVID E. SANGER Published: April 07, 2002
“President Bush, vigorously responding to Israel's expansion of military actions in the West Bank in defiance of his wishes, said today for the first time that Israel must withdraw its forces ''without delay.'' But he received no assurances from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon this afternoon when the president called to make the appeal directly."
“Mr. Bush made his declaration at a news conference here with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and then returned to his 1,600-acre ranch for what was described by an American official as a ''frank and direct'' telephone conversation with Mr. Sharon. But by both American and Israeli accounts of the blunt exchange, Mr. Sharon said that Israeli forces had a job to complete in wiping out the ''terrorist infrastructure'' in the Palestinian territories, and that while he would move ''expeditiously'' to complete that work, he gave Mr. Bush no indication of when his forces would withdraw."
  NY Times continued: ''The president said he expects to see results,'' a senior administration official said, but when the call ended, Mr. Bush was still left wondering whether Mr. Sharon would begin a pullout in the next day or two, or try to drag out the process until Secretary of State Colin L. Powell arrives there next week."
 By Sefi Rachlevsky ( Aug.21, 2012, writing for Haaretz notes: " [ General ] Sharon - a well-known nervous Nellie - waited and absorbed hundreds of victims of terror attacks before launching Operation Defensive Shield in 2002. The reason for this delay? To obtain American legitimacy. And brave Moshe Dayan, another famous coward, preferred to absorb hundreds of casualties in the 1973 Yom Kippur War rather than call up the reserves and attack preemptively, for the sake of that same legitimacy. Yet in all these cases, and many others, Israel didn't need even one percent of the American help that it needs to block Iran.) 
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/netanyahu-inciting-against-obama-on-way-to-war-with-iran.premium-1.459557?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.223%2C
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/07/world/mideast-turmoil-the-president-as-fighting-rages-bush-demands-israeli-withdrawal.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm


From Ahron Bregman, "Elusive Peace":   
"Within days of the start of Operation Defensive Shield on March 29, 2002 the National Security Council met in the White House situation Room….It was settled: there would be a high level American Initiative led by Secretary of State Powell.  ‘At the end of the meeting, after a very extensive discussion,’ Powell recalls in an interview, ‘the President and I were walking out and upstairs toward his office, and he was to my left and he glanced over to me with a slight smile on his face and said, “ This is going to be painful.  You’re going to have a tough time over there and you’re probably going to lose a few layers of skin, but you can stand it, you can afford this.”’  Powell replied, “You got it Mr. President”’ [ Bregman interview with Colin Powell].  “They then discussed the plan.  First, the President would make a speech outlining the new policy to get Israeli- Palestinian negotiations restarted.  Arafat would have to denounce terrorism unequivocally, and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would have to halt Defensive Shield and get out of land recently occupied...." 
 
"Acknowledging just how difficult it would be to make the plan work, even just to stop the Israeli military operation, Powell said to the President, ‘Do you understand what you’re saying to the Israelis? You’re going to have to look Sharon in the eye and say “get out”.’ Bush replied that he understood." [ Bob Woodward, Bush at War , page 34]”
From Pages 190- 193, "Elusive Peace", by Ahron Bregman.  Bregman was born in Israel in 1958, served in IDF for 6 years, fought in the Lebanon War in 1982, and reached the rank of Captain.  He worked in the Knesset as a parliamentary assistant. Went to college in Israel and London, and received a PHD in War Studies at King’s College London in 1994.  He teaches at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London. He is the author of “The 50 Years War: Israel and the Arabs” ( 1998), the companion book to a 6 part BBC/PBS television documentary of which Elusive Peace is the sequal.  His book is the product of over 100 interviews with nearly 100 top decisions makers and officals. He is author of “Israel’s Wars: A History Since 1947 ( 2000) and “A History of Israel(2002). ,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/08/usa.israel1
Get out now, US tells defiant Sharon \Julian Borger, in Crawford TexasThe Guardian, (Sunday 7 April 2002 21.23) 
  • " The US responded with mounting anger yesterday as Ariel Sharon stepped up Israel's military offensive against Palestinian cities on the West Bank, in open defiance of an appeal from President Bush for an immediate withdrawal to begin..."US officials made it clear the president had put his credibility on the line in calling for the withdrawal and he expected Mr Sharon to start it "now, not tomorrow", in some of the sharpest language the Bush administration has used towards Israel so far. But Mr Sharon's office simply promised to "expedite" the 10-day-old offensive, and issued a statement justifying the assault.
"More than 30 Palestinians were killed yesterday as Israeli troops pushed further into Jenin and continued their onslaught in Nablus, bringing warnings from Europe that the EU would weigh the possibility of sanctions against Israel if the bloodshed continued.
"In a speech on Saturday underlined by a 20-minute phone call to the Israeli prime minister from the presidential ranch in Crawford, Texas, Mr Bush called for withdrawal "without delay".
Clearly taken aback by the Israeli response, senior US officials took to the talkshow circuit yesterday to warn Mr Sharon that he was in danger of exhausting his reserves of goodwill in the White House.
The national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, made it clear that Israeli defiance was taken as a direct affront to the administration's credibility. "The US is putting a lot on the line here," Ms Rice said. "The president said to prime minister Sharon: 'I really ask you to listen to me as a friend. I really ask you to think of the consequences of what you're doing here, and it's important it must end without delay.' The president several times yesterday used the word 'now'."
The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, added to the increasingly firm line from Washington, warning the Israeli government that it could be creating a new generation of suicide bombers. He said that if young Palestinians "don't see a political process they will resort once again to terrorism and violence, and we may well be radicalising a new generation of many more terrorists waiting to act once this incursion is over".
Mr Powell was due to leave Washington last night, but was not expected in Israel until Thursday, after making stops in Morocco, Egypt and Spain.
US officials stressed that the intervening period should not be used by Israel to continue its offensive. Ms Rice said: "We understand a military operation cannot be undone in moments, but the important point is to begin now, without delay, not tomorrow, not when Secretary Powell gets to the region, but now."
Tony Blair urged the UN security council to adopt the Saudi government's Middle East peace plan and proposed an international monitoring force to protect any ceasefire.
"In monitoring any such ceasefire and in ensuring that the Palestinian Authority genuinely takes action against the terrorists, we and others stand ready to help in any way we can," Mr Blair said. "I know the deep-rooted objections to any outside help. But when the situation is as grim as it is now, only some external assistance can establish the minimum trust to get security back on the agenda in a realistic way."
The Belgian foreign minister, Louis Michel, called on the EU to consider trade sanctions on Israel. Spain, which holds the EU presidency, said that sanctions would be debated if Israel maintained its offensive.
There were more signs of violence escalating in Gaza, meanwhile, where a Palestinian military court sentenced six men convicted of being Israeli collaborators to death.
CBS NEWS: By Chris Oregan:
"With Israel defying him, President Bush called Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on Saturday to express "deep concern" about the escalating Israeli offensive in the West Bank. The president said Israeli forces must withdraw immediately.  Mr. Bush's blunt message to Sharon in a 20-minute phone conversation reinforced what the president said at a news conference just hours earlier.  In Israel, Sharon's office said the prime minister told Mr. Bush that Israel would expedite its offensive in the West Bank and that Israel "is conscious of the American desire to see the operation ended quickly."  Government spokesman Danny Seaman said Mr. Bush and Blair "are among the greatest supporters of the state of Israel. Therefore, we give a lot of weight to their opinions. At this point our mission continues. We will try to conclude it as quickly as possible," Seaman added.  A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Mr. Bush wanted action - not just words - from Sharon.  Mr. Bush warned that delay could undermine Secretary of State Colin Powell's upcoming peace mission to the region, a senior administration official said. "The president urged Ariel Sharon to withdraw so the peace mission can succeed," the official said, adding: "He told the prime minister that he meant what he said, that Israel needs to withdraw without delay. He told the prime minister Israel needs to make progress now." The terse exchange of official statements came shortly after a joint news conference with Mr. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the president's staunchest overseas ally....
"During the news conference, Mr. Bush again called on Israel to withdraw "without delay" from Palestinian cities it has occupied in its military campaign and insisted yet again that the Palestinian leadership order an immediate cease-fire and crack down on terrorist activity. "My words to Israel are the same today as they were a couple of days ago: withdraw without delay," Mr. Bush declared. Despite Mr. Bush's demand Thursday that Israel withdraw from Palestinian areas as a precursor to a truce, fighting spread Saturday and there more deaths in both the West Bank and Gaza.
Bush: "I don't expect them to ignore. I expect them to heed the call, heed the call from their friends the United States, and heed the call from their friends, the people of Great Britain and the leadership of Great Britain,"
 In his opening statement, Mr. Bush said he and Blair have agreed on what each side must do. Palestinians must order "an immediate and effective cease-fire" and control terrorists.   "And we agree that Israel should halt incursions in the Palestinian-controlled areas and begin to withdraw without delay from those cities it has recently occupied," Mr. Bush said, emphasizing the words "without delay."
Furthermore, Mr. Bush called on Arab nations "to step up and lead: to lead against terror, to get an immediate cease-fire."

BUSH PRESTIGE ON THE LINE
"...The conversation was the first between the two men since February, and until now Bush has held back from direct communication with Sharon to avoid a situation in which either leader would appear to be personally bending to the other. But with Arab states declaring Saturday that they would not renounce the Palestinian intifada, Bush apparently calculated that he had to put his personal prestige on the line to force the two sides to follow the path he outlined in a speech Thursday.".....
"....Bush's conversation came two hours after he and Blair made a late-morning appearance Saturday at the high school in Crawford. Asked at the news conference about the continued Israeli military activity since the Thursday speech, Bush, with obvious annoyance in his voice, said, "I expect them to heed the call" to withdraw......
"Bush's demand was immediately echoed by Blair, who is visiting the president's ranch outside this town of 700 in the central Texas prairie for the first time. Standing next to Bush in the school gymnasium, Blair said Israel did not have "two greater friends in the world" than the United States or Britain, but that the time had come to "heed the words of President Bush......"
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2002-04-07/news/0204070319_1_ariel-sharon-bush-israeli

"The Security Council underlines the need for the Palestinian Authority to prevent terrorist attacks and dismantle the infrastructure of terror. ... It reiterates its view that settlement expansion must stop and its concern regarding the route of the barrier."
Daily Press Briefing by Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman – December 31, 2003
"Settlement activity must stop. And it has not stopped to our satisfaction."
Secretary Colin Powell – September 21, 2003
"Israel has got responsibilities. Israel must deal with the settlements. Israel must make sure there is a contiguous territory that the Palestinians can call home."
President George W. Bush – June 3, 2003
“Our position on settlements, I think, has been very consistent, very clear. The secretary expressed it not too long ago. He said settlement activity has severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope, preempts and prejudges the outcome of negotiations, and in doing so, cripples chances for real peace and prosperity. The U.S. has long opposed settlement activity and, consistent with the report of the Mitchell Committee, settlement activity must stop.”
Richard Boucher, U.S. Department of State – Daily Press Briefing – November 25, 2002 
“Our opposition to the settlements is political. Washington feels that Israel would be better protected and more accepted inside borders where there are no settlements, so a decision on their future must be accepted on the basis of their feasibility. It is a fact that we have opposed the settlements for decades and you continue to build them and we have done nothing untoward to you [in response]. If Israel wants, it can even expand to the borders promised in the Bible. The question is whether it is able to do so from a security and political standpoint.”
Daniel Kurtzer, U.S. Ambassador to Israel – May 29, 2002 – Ha’aretz
“Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338.”
President George W. Bush’s Rose Garden Address – April 4, 2002
“During the half-century of its existence, Israel has had the strong support of the United States. In international forums, the United States has at times cast the only vote on Israel’s behalf. Yet, even in such a close relationship there are some difficulties. Prominent among those differences is the U.S. government’s long-standing opposition to the Government of Israel’s policies and practices regarding settlements.” …..“The GOI should freeze all settlement activity, including the “natural growth” of existing settlements. The kind of security cooperation desired by the GOI cannot for long co-exist with settlement activity described very recently by the European Union as causing “great concern” and by the United States as “provocative.”
The Mitchell Report – April 30, 2001 

" In the face of deep skepticism from both sides, Mr. Bush expressed confidence that a final treaty would be signed during his last year in office.
“I’m on a timetable,” he said when he met Mr. Abbas in Ramallah in the West Bank, only minutes after saying he would not impose timetables on the negotiators for both sides. “I’ve got 12 months left in office.”
"...At the same time, he emphasized that a new Palestine would have to be “viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent,” a stance somewhat at odds with Israeli desires to retain some security controls even after a treaty. “Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides,” he said after spending the day traveling to the West Bank.
On Jerusalem, the city each side claim as its capital, he endorsed no view, calling its status “one of the most difficult challenges on the road to peace.”
“But that is the road we have chosen to walk,” he said.
Mr. Bush’s visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories, his first as president, reflected his deepening involvement in the kind of shuttle diplomacy he once scorned.
The White House also announced the appointment of a senior Air Force commander, Lt. Gen. William M. Fraser III, to serve as a mediator of disputes between the Israelis and Palestinians over their compliance with their previous agreements. That role was a crucial part of the agreement reached between Mr. Abbas and Mr. Olmert in Annapolis, thrusting the United States squarely in the role of adjudicating between the sides. General Fraser, who accompanied Mr. Bush to Ramallah, serves as an assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"...He declared that it was time “to end the occupation that began in 1967,” when Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza in a war. While he has used the word “occupation” before, he does so rarely because of Israeli sensitivities. He avoided a reference to the “borders of 1967,” a mantra of Palestinian and Arab leaders, by referring instead to the armistice lines of 1949. Still, the fundamental point, and one strongly held by Israelis, was that the line dividing Israel from a future state of Palestine would have to change from the current division between Israel and the occupied West Bank.
Appearing with Mr. Abbas in Ramallah, Mr. Bush also expressed strong support for a future state without pockets of Israeli settlements. “Swiss cheese isn’t going to work when it comes to the outline of a state,” Mr. Bush said.
He also delivered some of his strongest criticism of Israel yet when he responded to a question about what are widely viewed among Palestinians as efforts to undermine Mr. Abbas’s government and security forces.
The Israelis, Mr. Bush said, “ought to help, not hinder, the modernization of the Palestinian security force.” Mr. Bush also reiterated the requirement by both sides to abide by their agreements in the “road map,” including a halt to any Israeli expansion of settlements.
"Foul weather brought Mr. Bush unexpectedly in contact with Israel security measures that have become a main grievance for Palestinians and their leaders. His helicopter grounded, Mr. Bush drove in a motorcade to Ramallah, passing through an Israeli checkpoint in the hulking concrete barrier the Israelis have erected along and inside parts of the border with the West Bank.
Asked about his own impressions seeing the barrier for the first time, Mr. Bush acknowledged Israel’s security measures and the hardships they cause.
“Checkpoints create frustrations for people,” he said. “They create a sense of security for Israel; they create massive frustrations for the Palestinians. You’ll be happy to hear that my motorcade of a mere 45 cars was able to make it through without being stopped, but I’m not so exactly sure that’s what happens to the average person.”
Isabel Kershner contributed reporting from Ramallah and Jerusalem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/world/middleeast/11prexy.html?pagewanted=all


...........................................................................................................


A Reporter asks President GW Bush “But Israel continues to build settlements and continues to seize Palestinian territories. What is your position, Mr. President?”
PRESIDENT BUSH RESPONDS TO THE REPORTER: “Well, I told you what my position was. And it’s exactly what I said when I was in Crawford by the way, when Prime Minister Sharon was there, as well. I mean, when you say you’re going to accept the Road Map, you accept the Road Map. And part of the obligations of the Road Map is not the expansion of settlements." ( here Bush is choking on the words trying to come up with the diplomatic expression to say  ' Israel has to stop expanding natrual growth of current settlements which is exactly what I had them write in the Road Map with Arabs and the Quartet 3 years ago- after all, I was the author !'

[GW Bush:]  "Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides. While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous." President Bush 
January 10, 2008: at the King David Hotel Jerusalem
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080110-3.html


John R. Bolton, U.S. Ambassador to the UN -- February, 2006, while Bolton was serving as president of the Security Council and just weeks after Hamas won Palestinian elections.
“Israel must continue to work with Palestinian leaders to help improve the daily lives of Palestinians. At the same time, Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes its road map obligations, or prejudices the final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. This means that Israel must remove unauthorized posts and stop settlement expansion.”

President George W. Bush speaking with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas – October 20, 2005
“Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudice final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Therefore, Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion.”

President George W. Bush speaking with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas – May 26, 2005
“Now, our position on settlement activity has not changed. We have said to the Israelis that they have obligations under the roadmap, they have obligations not to increase settlement activity."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Interview with LA Times – March 24, 2005
“I would say that we continue -- our policy continues to be that Israel should freeze settlement construction.”

JANUARY 10, 2008: Pres. GW Bush, best friend the Jews ever had: "The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967." 
I reaffirm to each leader that implementation of any agreement is subject to implementation of the road map. Neither party should undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudices the final status negotiations. On the Israeli side that includes ending settlement expansion and removing unauthorized outposts. On the Palestinian side that includes confronting terrorists and dismantling terrorist infrastructure.
I know Jerusalem is a tough issue. Both sides have deeply felt political and religious concerns. I fully understand that finding a solution to this issue will be one of the most difficult challenges on the road to peace, but that is the road we have chosen to walk."
 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080110-3.html


 November 14, 2005
On settlement activity, we’ve made it very clear that settlement activity is counter both to U.S. policy and, we believe, counter to the obligations that the Israelis have undertaken. We’ve been very clear that there should be no activities that prejudge a final status agreement and we are in constant discussion with the Israelis about those -- about those matters.  We do with the Israelis what we do with each of the parties, which is to ask them to concentrate very hard on what they need to do to fulfill their obligations.”
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speaking at a joint press conference with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, November 14, 2005
State Department Website, http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/56847.htm, September 6, 2006


Where were the Republicans, Malcolm Hoenlein, The Jewish Republican Coalition, and Ed Koch screaming about there being no light between Israel and America ?  Can you imagine Obama saying this in 2011? Oh right, he did, and was condemned as an enemy of Israel by the Republican Congress and their allies. 

Bush: "I share with these two leaders the vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security....The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent.....While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous. I believe we need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue....I reaffirm to each leader that implementation of any agreement is subject to implementation of the road map. Neither party should undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudices the final status negotiations. On the Israeli side that includes ending settlement expansion and removing unauthorized outposts. On the Palestinian side that includes confronting terrorists and dismantling terrorist infrastructure.
I know Jerusalem is a tough issue. Both sides have deeply felt political and religious concerns. I fully understand that finding a solution to this issue will be one of the most difficult challenges on the road to peace, but that is the road we have chosen to walk.....
....The establishment of the state of Palestine is long overdue. The Palestinian people deserve it.....The peace agreement should happen, and can happen, by the end of this year.


he George W. Bush Administration
“[T]hey should not be expanding the settlements. There should not be expansion of the settlements and outposts should be removed.”
Sean McCormack, Spokesman, Daily Press Briefing – September 7, 2006
"The Security Council underlines the need for the Palestinian Authority to prevent terrorist attacks and dismantle the infrastructure of terror. ... It reiterates its view that settlement expansion must stop and its concern regarding the route of the barrier."
John R. Bolton, U.S. Ambassador to the UN -- February, 2006, while Bolton was serving as president of the Security Council and just weeks after Hamas won Palestinian elections.
“Israel must continue to work with Palestinian leaders to help improve the daily lives of Palestinians. At the same time, Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes its road map obligations, or prejudices the final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. This means that Israel must remove unauthorized posts and stop settlement expansion.”
President George W. Bush speaking with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas – October 20, 2005
“Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudice final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Therefore, Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion.”
President George W. Bush speaking with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas – May 26, 2005
“Now, our position on settlement activity has not changed. We have said to the Israelis that they have obligations under the roadmap, they have obligations not to increase settlement activity."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Interview with LA Times – March 24, 2005
“I would say that we continue -- our policy continues to be that Israel should freeze settlement construction.”
Daily Press Briefing by Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman – December 31, 2003
"Settlement activity must stop. And it has not stopped to our satisfaction."
Secretary Colin Powell – September 21, 2003
"Israel has got responsibilities. Israel must deal with the settlements. Israel must make sure there is a contiguous territory that the Palestinians can call home."
President George W. Bush – June 3, 2003

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/66852#.USMlhPKaS00
5/8/2003

New Decree: No Expansion Allowed in Judea and Samaria

The "settlement blocs" Prime Minister Sharon promised to keep safe are in danger. Not only is his expulsion plan for Gaza and northern Shomron picking up steam, it now threatens the rest of Judea and Samaria as well.
The "settlement blocs" Prime Minister Sharon promised to keep safe are clearly in danger. Not only is his disengagement/expulsion plan for Gaza and northern Shomron picking up steam, it now appears headed for the rest of Judea and Samaria as well.

The Defense Ministry has completed a large-scale project to mark the existing built-up borders of all the Jewish communities and towns in Judea and Samaria - and no further construction will be allowed beyond them. Yediot Acharonot reports today that aerial photos will be sent to the United States, which will monitor every building aberration. Though the towns will be allowed to appeal the decision, every building beyond the marked borders could be subject to immediate demolition.

The above program is in accordance with the commitment Prime Minister Sharon gave U.S. President George Bush three months ago.

This past April 12, Sharon appeared at a post-Passover celebration, and presented his vision of the future of Judea and Samaria: five blocs of Jewish presence. These were to be Ariel and environs, Gush Etzion, Kiryat Arba/Hevron, Givat Ze'ev, and Maaleh Adumim. Contrary to public perception, however, Bush never agreed with Sharon's idea of guaranteed settlement blocs in Yesha.

On April 14, Sharon triumphantly presented a letter from President Bush - which said nothing of the sort. Bush merely 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" - far from an endorsement of the settlement-bloc conception.

Yesha Council head Bentzy Lieberman understood the dangers. On April 18, he said that Israel was supposed to be submitting to the Americans up-to-date aerial maps specifying the precise construction boundaries of each and every Jewish community in Judea and Samaria. "What this means is that not only are we giving up Gaza," Lieberman warned, "but the entire future of the remainder of the settlements is in doubt. As usual, the Prime Minister is hiding certain parts of the agreement, and is in fact deceiving us - and the ministers are ignoring this. Contrary to the impression that he has safeguarded the future of the settlement blocs, they are actually in grave danger."

Sharon continued to deceive. Just a few days later, Sharon told the Knesset, "Whoever wants to maintain large settlement blocs under our control forever; whoever wants to guarantee that for as long as the Palestinians don't act against terrorism, diplomatic pressures will not be exerted upon us... Whoever wants Israel to initiate and not be dragged; to lead and not be led - whoever wants all this, must support the disengagement plan."
( editor of this site: Sharon is claiming that the Disengagement from Gaza is necessary in order to avoid Bush forcing Israel into a final settlement agreement of the West Bank - at least while the current Palestinian terror continues)
 
( article continues....)
Apr 28, correspondent Haggai Huberman wrote of the danger, and warned that even within the settlement blocs that Sharon said he hopes to keep, construction will be all but curtailed: "The only place that construction will be possible in Yesha towns under the Sharon government will be on the lawns between the existing houses or on their roofs." This was backed up by two official letters from Sharon's top aide Dov Weisglass, one from June 2003 and one from April 2004. In the first, Weisglass wrote, "These are the understandings reached between Israel and the U.S. regarding the Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza: ... No new towns will be built, and construction will be frozen in the existing towns, except for building within the existing building lines - as opposed to the municipal border..."

In his more recent letter, Weisglass wrote to U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, "On behalf of the Prime Minister of the State of Israel, Mr. Ariel Sharon, 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 and Samaria [the West Bank]. 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."

Yoram Ettinger, former Israeli liaison to the U.S. Congress, recently wrote, "President Bush has limited his support [for the disengagement plan] to very friendly declarations, which are ambiguous, non-binding, and do not repudiate the 'claim of return,' nor do they support Israel's sovereignty beyond the Green Line."

MK Uri Ariel (National Union) told Arutz-7 today, "Though there are some communities that still have land on which to build, such as Kfar Adumim and Beit El, this is clearly a dangerous precedent, and shows that Sharon is working against his own promises and is deceiving the public. This must be brought to the public consciousness, and everything must be done to topple this government." He said that he is making initial plans with his party colleague MK Tzvi Hendel to submit a no-confidence motion in the government during the Knesset recess, which began today.









 Obama has never interfered with Israeli military operations and security ( speculations about private discussions the specifics of which we are unaware regarding Iran are not relevant to this issue, as all Mossad and IDF chiefs who speak publicly on the matter say not to bomb Iran now ( in 2012). Yet all of the IDF and Mossad were proponents of the operation in 2002. The two issues are apples and organges) 
The Republicans remained silent and self-censored with only marginal elements uttering tempered criticism- no Republican accused Bush with any metaphor or rhetoric approaching that of the kind we see today like " worst relations America has ever had with Israel" or " lowest point in Israeli American relations in 40 years" or " Bush threw Israel under the bus".  Did they claim that relations are worse than any time since Jimmy Carter? No, of course not.   Can you imagine Obama telling Netanyahu not to go after terrorists 7 days afte the Passover Massacre?   
 Bush declared  "Enough is enough!" - directing his criticism and demands to Israel and the Palestinians equally- one week after the Passover Massacre.  It made headlines all over the world, Finally, as no response came from almost every Congressional Republican in Congress, George Will stepped up and associated Bush with Yasser Arafat and accused Bush of having lost his "moral clarity." (Washington Post, April 11, 2002.)  The next day, Safire suggested that Bush was "being pushed into a minefield of mistakes"and that he had "become a wavering ally as Israel fights for suvival." ( New York Times, April 12, 2002.)  

16. Washington Post, April 11, 2002.
17. New York Times, April 12, 2002.
18. International Herald Tribune, April 19, 2002.

Frank Rich on GW Bush's double standard on Yassir  Arafat: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/13/opinion/the-bush-doctrine-rip.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
"But even as he fudges his good/evil categorizations when it comes to Mr. Arafat and other players he suddenly may need in the Middle East, it's not clear that Mr. Bush knows that he can no longer look at the world as if it were Major League Baseball, with every team clearly delineated in its particular division. ''Look, my job isn't to try to nuance,'' he told a British interviewer a week after the Passover massacre in Netanya. ''My job is to tell people what I think. . . . I think moral clarity is important.''
Mr. Bush doesn't seem to realize that nuances are what his own administration is belatedly trying to master -- and must -- if Colin Powell is going to hasten a cease-fire in the Middle East. Mr. Bush doesn't seem to know that since the routing of the Taliban his moral clarity has atrophied into simplistic, often hypocritical sloganeering. He has let his infatuation with his own rectitude metastasize into hubris.
The result -- the catastrophe of the administration's handling of the Middle East -- is clear: 15 months of procrastination and conflict avoidance followed by a baffling barrage of mixed messages that have made Mr. Bush's use of the phrase ''without delay'' the most elastically parsed presidential words since his predecessor's definition of sex. It takes some kind of perverse genius to simultaneously earn the defiance of the Israelis, the Palestinians and our Arab ''allies'' alike and turn the United States into an impotent bystander.
The ensuing mess should be a wake-up call for Mr. Bush to examine his own failings and those of his administration rather than try (as he did a week ago) to shift the blame to Bill Clinton's failed Camp David summit talks (and then backpedal after being called on it). While the conventional wisdom has always had it that this president can be bailed out of foreign-policy jams by his seasoned brain trust, the competing axes of power in the left (State) and right (Defense) halves of that surrogate brain have instead sent him bouncing between conflicting policies like a yo-yo, sometimes within the same day.
Speaking to The Los Angeles Times this week about Mr. Bush's floundering, the Reagan administration policy honcho for the Mideast, Geoffrey Kemp, said: ''A two-year-old could have seen this crisis coming. And the idea that it could be brushed under the carpet as the administration focused on either Afghanistan or Iraq reflects either appalling arrogance or ignorance.''
The administration of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell is hardly ignorant. But arrogance is another matter. ''We shouldn't think of American involvement for the sake of American involvement'' is how Condoleezza Rice defined the administration's intention to butt out of the Middle East only a couple of weeks after her boss's inauguration, thereby codifying the early Bush decision not to send a negotiator to a last-ditch peace summit in Egypt. Since then, even as Sept. 11 came and went, we've been at best reluctantly and passingly engaged, culminating with our recall of the envoy Anthony Zinni in December, after which we sat idly by during three months of horror. Not until Dick Cheney returned from his humiliating tour of the Arab world in late March did he state the obvious: ''There isn't anybody but us'' to bring about a hiatus in the worst war the region has seen in 20 years.
Even then, the 180-degree reversal from the administration's previous inertia was not motivated by the bloody imperatives of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians but by their inconvenient disruption of Mr. Bush's plans to finish his father's job in Iraq. A cynic might go so far as to say that ''Saddam Hussein is driving U.S. foreign policy'' -- which, as it happens, is what Benjamin Netanyahu did tell The New York Post on Tuesday.
The goal of stopping Saddam, worthy as it is, cannot be separated from the conflict of the Jews and the Palestinians and never could be. But even now Mr. Bush seems less than engaged in the Middle East. It took him a week after the Passover massacre to decide to send Colin Powell to the region. The president has yet to speak publicly about the spillover of the hostilities into Europe, where each day brings news of some of the ugliest anti-Semitic violence seen there since World War II. He continues to resist the idea that American peacekeepers will be needed to keep the Middle East (not to mention Afghanistan) from tumbling back into the chaos that could once again upend his plans to take on Saddam." [ end excerpt see remainder at link)

10 years ago, 3/27/02, was the Passover Massacre.  On 3/30/02 Pres. GW Bush cast the U.S. vote approving Security Council Resolution 1402 that reiterates the previous Security Council Resolution from Several Weeks ago demanding Israel immediately cease all military action and withdraw all Israeli troops from the West Bank (even though the troops were 2 days into Operation Defensive Shield).
Anyone wishing to increase the odds of repeating GW Bush's interference with Israel’s defense be sure to vote for Mitt Romney in 2012 when a Republican President's demands on Israel will be suppressed by the Congressional Republicans. 
·      On  3/12/02 President GW Bush authorized America’s UN Rep to vote FOR  Security Council Resolution 1397  explicitly sanctioning a Palestinian state "side by side" with Israel and  “ welcome[ing] the Saudi Plan and call[ing] on Israel to implement the Mitchell Report findings.”  [ The Mitchell report findings were also inserted into the subsequent Bush Road Map.  The most fundamental basic requirement of Israel being that Israel not expand any of the settlements ( natural growth).  The Bush- Condi Rice negotiations would take place leading to Bush's Annapolis Conference ( 2007) leading to August 31, 2008, the date Bush brokered the final settlement offer with Olmert that was hand delivered by the Bush Administration to the PA ( Israel giving up 100% of the West Bank with land swaps of 6.8% [of the '49 borders] along with the giving up of East Jerusalem's  Arab areas and internationalizing the Holy Sites in East Jerusalem and giving 10,000 Arabs the Right of Return ( Bush had previously committed the U.S. to a policy of not accepting a Pal right of return in Bush's 'letter of understanding' )
·      The Mitchell Report, adopted by GW Bush, requires Israel “ freeze all settlement activity including the natural growth of existing settlements.”  GW Bush’s Roadmap contained the same requirement- actually one of the primary requirements of Israel in the Roadmap.  
·      The Mitchell Report, adopted by GW Bush,  was written in the spirit of  Ronald Reagan’s pressure on Israel when Ronald Reagan ( the president previously fictionalized as  Israel's best friend) said  “ The immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed….”- Bush and Condi carried this on through and past Annapolis. (NY Times)

[ Ronald Reagan proclaimed American policy was "the PLO ( Arafat) is  the SOLE representative of the Palestinian People" - which led to the Madrid conference under Herbert W Bush which led to Oslo ( all of this was subsequent to Reagan interfering with Israel;'s self defense by forcing Menachem Begin to not destroy Arafat in Beirut.]
·     

September 1982
". . . the question isn't whether they [settlements] are legal or illegal; the question is are they constructive in the effort to arrange a situation that may, in the end, be a peaceful one and be one in which the people of the region can live in a manner that they prefer.  [President Reagan's] answer to that is no, expansion of those settlements is not a constructive move."
Secretary of State George Shultz, news conference following President Reagan’s statement on the PLO departure plan, September 05, 1982
Boudreault, Jody, Naughton, Emma, Salaam, Yasser, eds. U.S. Official Statements: Israeli Settlements, the Fourth Geneva Convention.  Washington D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1993.
Department of State Bulletin v. 82, no. 2066 September 1982 p. 10

September 1982
“The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transition period.  Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlements freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks.  Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be fee and fairly negotiated.”
Reagan Plan, September 01, 1982
Lukacs, Yehuda, ed. Documents on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 1967-1983. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Or, available online at, Churches for Middle East Peace Website, http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006

September 10, 1982
“The status of Israeli settlements must be determined in the course of the final status negotiations.  We will not support their continuation as extraterritorial outposts, but neither will we support efforts to deny Jews the opportunity to live in the West Bank and Gaza under the duly constituted governmental authority there, as Arabs live in Israel...”
Statement by Secretary of State George P. Shultz to the Foreign Affairs Committee (House of Representatives), September 10, 1982
Boudreault, Jody, Naughton, Emma, Salaam, Yasser, eds. U.S. Official Statements: Israeli Settlements, the Fourth Geneva Convention.  Washington D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1993.
Department of State Bulletin v.82, no.2067 October 1982 p. 6

August 02, 1983
“We also share the view expressed in the draft resolution that the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 are applicable to the territories occupied by Israel.  The United States Government has stated this position on numerous occasions, and I affirm it again today.  Israel, as the occupying power in the West Bank, is bound by the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Mr. President, the draft resolution contains elements which are unacceptable to the United States, and we therefore, were obliged to vote against it.  Let me make clear, however, that we did not vote against the draft because we approve of Israel’s settlement policy.  On the contrary, as President Reagan said on September 1, 1982: “further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated."...
Statement by Ambassador Charles M. Lichenstein, Deputy United States Representative to the United Nations Security Council, August 02, 1983
Thorpe, Merle Jr., Prescription for Conflict: Israel’s West Bank Settlement Policy. (Foundation for Middle East Peace: Washington D.C., 1984) (Out of Print).


October 27, 1983
“… We don not, for example, agree on the settlement policy of Israel.  Our objection is not legal but practical….”
Deputy Secretary of State Dam, before the American Jewish Committee, Philadelphia, PA October 27, 1983
Boudreault, Jody, Naughton, Emma, Salaam, Yasser, eds. U.S. Official Statements: Israeli Settlements, the Fourth Geneva Convention.  Washington D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1993.
Department of State Bulletin v. 83, no.2081 December 1983 p. 49


February 22, 1984

“… And I had never referred to them as illegal, as some did.  But I did say that I thought they were not helpful, because obviously the peace process… is going to have to involve territorial changes in return for secure, peaceful borders….”
Boudreault, Jody, Naughton, Emma, Salaam, Yasser, eds. U.S. Official Statements: Israeli Settlements, the Fourth Geneva Convention.  Washington D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1993.
American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1984 Document #203 Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1986 p. 496



"Challenging" Prime Minister Sharon in Front of World Leaders:
** Fact: George Bush said in London, "Israel should freeze settlement construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people, and not prejudice final negotiations with the placements of walls and fences" (http://www.whitehouse.gov, November 19, 2003). Such rhetoric is not unusual for President Bush; speaking at the United Nations in September, 2004, President Bush "issued a direct challenge to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon," according to the Reuters news service. Speaking before the assembled world leaders, President Bush again said: "Israel should impose a settlement freeze, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people, and avoid any actions that prejudice final negotiations"(Reuters, September 21, 2004).
A History of Opposing Israel's Security Fence:
** Fact: George Bush and his administration were opposed to the construction of Israel's security fence, and had threatened to penalize Israel for constructing the fence. Echoing many other Jewish and secular press articles, one press report noted in 2003 that "the Bush administration ... has been pressuring Israel about its fence because the barrier veers over the 'green line,' the old 1949 armistice line, to encompass at least two large West Bank settlements. The administration has said it may deduct what Israel spends on the fence from loan guarantees. ... 'We have made it clear that the fence... is a problem,' Secretary of State Colin Powell told The Washington Post [in October], in language that has been echoed by Bush" (The Forward, October 10, 2003).
Continuing to Oppose the Fence Through January, 2004:
** Fact: George Bush and his administration were clearly opposed to the fence as recently as five months ago, after which President Bush reversed his position. In January, the Forward reported that "Israel is pressuring the Bush administration to omit references to the West Bank security fence from the State Department's annual human rights report. ... The administration is still considering whether it will support Israel's position [on the fence] in front of the [International Court of Justice at the Hague]" (The Forward, January 16, 2004). A week earlier, the Forward explained, "The Bush administration, which takes a dim view of international tribunals but does not approve of the fence, has not yet decided if it would support such a campaign [against the International Court of Justice], several sources said" (The Forward, January 9, 2004).
Both Supporting and Opposing Israel's Targeting of Terrorists:
** Fact: Following Israel's actions targeting Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin in March, White House spokesman Scott McClellan first said on-camera that "Israel has the right to defend herself." But then, according to Reuters, "...in off-camera comments minutes later, McClellan revised the White House position by adding, ‘We are deeply troubled by this morning's actions in Gaza'" (Reuters, March 22, 2004). The same rhetoric was echoed days later by the Bush Administration's Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, John D. Negroponte, who told the UN Security Council that "the United States was 'deeply troubled' by the killing of Sheik Yassin and believed Israel's action had escalated tensions in the region" (New York Times, March 26, 2004).
Recent Sharp Criticism of Israel:
** Fact: In May, the Bush administration had sharp words for Israel, and the administration permitted the UN to pass an Arab-sponsored resolution condemning Israel. One month ago, under the headline "Bush's Support of Israel Falters," the Associated Press reported that the White House "sharply criticized Israel's military operations in Gaza and the United States allowed the U.N. Security Council to condemn the Jewish state. ... [I]n a sudden turnabout, Secretary of State Colin Powell lashed out at Israel, the White House issued a statement criticizing Israel on humanitarian grounds and the United States dropped plans to veto -- or at least weaken -- an Arab resolution at the U.N. condemning Israel for the housing demolitions and the attack on Palestinian demonstrators. By abstaining, as it almost never does when Israel is under assault in the Security Council, the Bush administration permitted the resolution to pass, 14-0" (Associated Press, May 20, 2004).
Retracting Pledges to Prime Minister Sharon:
** Fact: Under the headline "President Bush retracts pledges to Sharon," Israel's Maariv newspaper reported in May that George Bush was stepping back from promises he made to Prime Minister Sharon regarding Israel's borders and the Palestinian right of return: "Despite his warm embrace of Sharon recently, US President George Bush is showing signs of capitulating in the face of pressure from Arab states. In a press conference held following his meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah today (Thursday), Bush called on Israel to withdraw from territories it captured in 1967. Bush also failed to repeat an earlier statement that Palestinian refugees will not be allowed to enter Israeli territory. 'The US will not determine the results of the negotiations,' he noted. ...The Palestinians, however, were very pleased with Bush's speech. Palestinian Minister Saeb Erekat said that 'Bush understood that international agreements and direct talks are the guarantee for continuation of negotiations. The Palestinians are very encouraged by Bush's declaration, since only the Palestinians and the Israelis can discuss their conflict and come up with solutions. The pledges Bush made to Sharon are not legally valid'" (Maariv Online, May 6, 2004).
Continued Silence to American Jews on Sharon Pledges:
** Fact: Weeks after George Bush made key pledges to Prime Minister Sharon and then appeared to reverse course during meetings with Jordan's King Abdullah, he spoke before the largest annual pro-Israel gathering in the country -- the conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) -- and remained silent on his previous promises. The New York Jewish Week reported that George Bush "never mentioned his April 14 promises to Sharon rejecting a Palestinian right of return to Israel and endorsing a permanent Israeli presence on portions of the West Bank, continuing diplomatic backpedaling that started with his recent promises to Jordan's King Abdullah" (New York Jewish Week, May 21, 2004). The Forward added, "Israeli officials and ranking pro-Israel strategists were nearly unanimous in pointing to what the president had not said as his real message. 'He didn't repeat the promises he made to Sharon last month about refugees and the 1949 borders,' grumbled one ranking analyst, a former Aipac staffer, referring to Bush's April announcement at Sharon's side.... Reiterating the two promises would have given Bush 'two guaranteed applause lines, and he chose not to use them,' the analyst said. 'That was the message.' Several senior strategists close to Aipac echoed the complaint" (The Forward, May 21, 2004).
Increasing Pressure on Israel's Leaders:
** Fact: George Bush and his administration are increasing pressure on Israel and its leaders, and many analysts have predicted that such pressure would increase if George Bush is given a second term in office. One Jewish newspaper related last week that on June 10th, the Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot "predicted that if Bush were re-elected, he would step up the pressure on Sharon, a pressure that Israeli papers chided Sharon for being so unable to resist or defuse.... Yediot ventured that a combination of Bush pressure and further terror would lead more Israelis to support Sharon's withdrawal plan..." (New York Jewish Week, June 18, 2004). Under the headline "Bush Pushing Israel on Terms Of Disengagement From Gaza," The Forward added the same day, "As Israel prepares to withdraw from Gaza, the Bush administration is laying down a stiff series of expectations that could set the stage for a rocky few months between Washington and Jerusalem, pro-Israel activists say.... The expectations provide much potential for friction.... 'Progress has been too slow,' an administration official said" (The Forward, June 18, 2004).
Initially Opposing Prime Minister Sharon's Disengagement Plan:
** Fact: The New York Times reported in December that "The Bush administration, responding coolly to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's announcement of a possible 'disengagement plan' in the West Bank, warned Israel on Thursday against taking unilateral steps that effectively abandoned the American-sponsored peace plan, called the road map, which would establish a Palestinian state. 'We would oppose any unilateral steps that block the road toward negotiations under the road map that lead to the two-state vision,' said Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman" (The New York Times, December 19, 2003).
Avoiding Moving our Embassy to Jerusalem:
** Fact: As reported on June 16th, "President Bush suspended moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel for six more months. The White House released a statement Tuesday announcing that the embassy would not move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem for the next half year because of national security concerns" (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, June 16, 2004). Then-Governor Bush told at least three major Jewish organizations in 2000 that he would begin moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem "as soon as I take office" (remarks before AIPAC, May 22, 2000; remarks before the B'nai B'rith International Convention 2000, August 28, 2000; response to the American Jewish Committee's Election 2000 Questionnaire, October, 2000). Then-Governor Bush's pledge was echoed by major media at the time: "George W. Bush, the front runner in the race for the Republican presidential candidacy, has declared that he will move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem the day he is inaugurated as U.S. president. Bush was speaking at a large gathering of the Republican Jewish Coalition in Washington" (Ha'aretz, December 3, 1999).
Refusal to Call Arafat a Terrorist in 2002:
** Fact: The UPI wire service reported in 2002: "President George W. Bush on Monday said he would not label Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat a terrorist since the Arab leader remained engaged in peace negotiations despite a week of devastating suicide bombings within Israeli cities. ‘We've got a plan that will lead to peace. It's a security plan called Tenet, it's a political plan called Mitchell. Both sides have agreed to this plan,' said Bush speaking to reporters in the Oval Office. The president said that Arafat's involvement in negotiating a peace settlement was prevented him from designating him a terrorist" (UPI/United Press International, April 1, 2002).
http://www.njdc.org/media/entry/george_bush_and_israel_the_record_far_from_perfect


http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/diplomacy/articles/dip_0189.htm
ISRAEL INSIDER: Sharon's words indicated an apparent rejection of Bush's demand that Israel "withdraw without delay" from Palestinian territories it has occupied since military operations against terrorist infrastructures were launched on March 29. Speaking with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at his side, Bush said the two leaders "agree that Israel should halt incursions into Palestinian-controlled areas and begin to withdraw without delay from those cities it has recently occupied."....
Asked for his reaction if Israel would not immediately.  withdraw its forces, Bush replied, "I expect Israel to heed my advice."....
Israel needs at least two or three weeks to complete Operation Defensive Shield, Israeli diplomatic sources said, but Israel would have a hard time standing up to international pressure and would work to end the operations as quickly as possible. Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Shaul Mofaz said today that Israel needed an additional eight weeks to effectively complete the operations.
Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said today that after Bush's statements, it was obvious that time was running out for Israel's military operations, Army Radio reported. Even so, Ben-Eliezer said that it was clear to the Americans that Israel would not immediately withdraw from the Palestinian territories...."

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-04-06/world/mideast.diplomacy_1_sharon-and-bush-israeli-forces-palestinian-death-toll?_s=PM:WORLD
CNN: Flanked by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush on Saturday urged Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territories "without delay" -- some of his strongest words directed at the long-time U.S. ally since he took office.
In a 20-minute phone call two hours after the president's comments, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told Bush that Israel will expedite its offensive in the West Bank, according to a statement from Sharon's office.
In the statement, Sharon said Israel was conscious of Washington's desire to see the operation ended quickly. But it did not specify when Israeli troops would begin pulling out of the six Palestinian towns they now occupy.
A senior Bush administration official said the president, who made the call, urged Sharon to withdraw so Secretary of State Colin Powell's upcoming mission to the Middle East could succeed. Asked if Bush was satisfied with the prime minister's response, the official said, "The president expects action. The president will see."
Speaking at a news conference earlier at his Texas ranch, Bush also called on Palestinian leaders to "order an immediate and effective cease-fire and crackdown on terrorists." (Transcript)
Blair, who has been criticized at home for his staunch support of America's Middle East policy, concurred with the president. He described Bush's vision as "the only basis on which there will be and can be a viable and lasting peace there."
Israeli forces aim to eliminate terror groups' ability to target Israeli civilians by arresting suspects, capturing their weapons and destroying their bomb-making capabilities, Israeli Air Force Maj. Gen. Dan Halutz said Saturday.
The IDF claims it is holding 1,200 Palestinians in connection with terrorism and will reopen the Ketziot internment camp in southern Israel for the detainees.
The exchange between Sharon and Bush came as the Palestinian death toll rose in fresh violence in the West Bank and a day before Powell departs for the region.
Earlier in the week, Powell said there were no plans for him to meet with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, now holed up in his Ramallah compound surrounded by Israeli forces, but he did not rule out the possibility.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat welcomed Powell's visit, but said, "If Mr. Powell comes here and he doesn't want to meet President Arafat, I don't think he will meet any Palestinian officials."
Bush repeated his sharp criticism of Arafat on Saturday, saying "He never earned my trust because he hasn't performed."
"He said he would fight off terror. He hasn't," Bush said. "He needs to speak clearly, in Arabic, to the people of that region and condemn terrorist activities. At the very minimum, he ought to say something."
Bush and Blair also addressed Iraq, calling on the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. (Full story)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/06/bush-blair.htm
USA TODAY: Bush: Israel should withdraw 'without delay'
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) — President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted Saturday that Israel halt its escalating offensive in the West Bank and immediately withdraw its troops, but Israel's leader vowed to fight on for now.
"Israel should halt incursions in the Palestinian-controlled areas and begin to withdraw without delay from those cities it has recently occupied," Bush said during a news conference with Blair, who said he agreed entirely with Bush's views toward Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon."
Afterward, with the three allies mired in an uncomfortable stalemate, Bush placed a 20-minute telephone call to Sharon that aides described as tense. Seeking to turn up the pressure on the Israeli, Bush expressed "deep concerns" for the attacks into Palestinian cities that intensified Saturday. He asked Sharon defuse the Middle East crisis and pull back his troops, U.S. officials said.
Sharon expressed sympathy with Bush's position, according to accounts issued by both countries, but did not promise to bow to U.S. demands. Indeed, a statement issued by Sharon's office seemed to justify continued attacks by saying Israel is operating in difficult conditions in the West Bank towns and villages where "there are a great deal of weapons, explosives and armed terrorists."
The statement did not say when the offensive would end, though Sharon pledged to expedite the operation.
Bush is not interested in promises of future action; he wants Israeli troops urgently pulled out, U.S. officials said.
A senior Bush administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the conversation as "pretty brutal" but said there was some hope in the fact that Sharon had not ruled out a quick withdrawal. The president hopes that by turning up pressure on Sharon, he will force the Israeli's hand — or give him political cover to back down.
Holding forth in a small-town high school gym, the president refused to say whether there would be consequences for Israel if Sharon refused to withdraw.
"I expect Israel to heed my advice, and I expect for the Palestinians to reject terror," Bush said.
Aides said the president has become increasingly frustrated with Sharon who, in Bush's view, stubbornly has clung to his position that the attacks are the only way to defend Israel against terrorist strikes.
That shift came quickly as the death toll mounted: Just a week ago, Bush had told reporters at his ranch that he understood why Israel was invading Palestinian territory.
Pressing the Palestinians as well, Bush has instructed Powell to urge moderate Arab leaders such as Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah II of Jordan to join with the United States in an unprecedented alliance seeking peace.
Specifically, Bush wants the Arab leaders to compel Arafat to crack down on Palestinian militants. Powell will warn them they will bear responsibility if terrorism continues, said a senior Bush administration official.
The appeal to Arab moderates also reflects Bush's frustrations with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, whom Bush seems to be giving a final chance to get involved in the peace process."
"

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/apr/09/news/mn-36896

Defiant Sharon Presses Ahead in West Bank

Mideast: Troops begin withdrawal from two cities, but Israeli leader suggests that occupation of Palestinian territory is open-ended. Fighting rages in Jenin camp.

April 09, 2002|TRACY WILKINSON | TIMES STAFF WRITER

JERUSALEM — Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in his strongest defiance yet of Washington, vowed Monday to press ahead with a massive military offensive in the West Bank. As if to underscore the point, Israeli combat helicopters pummeled a refugee camp and ground forces took hundreds of Palestinians prisoner.
"Sharon ignored demands from President Bush and other world leaders to end Israel's invasion of Palestinian cities and instead expanded the deployment of tanks throughout the West Bank countryside. In a speech to parliament, Sharon suggested that far from withdrawal, Israel's occupation is open-ended.  But as pressure mounted, the Israeli army early today began pulling troops out of two small cities, Tulkarm and Kalkilya, which had remained relatively quiet.......
"It remains to be seen how long Sharon can so openly defy Bush. Predicting that the prime minister would eventually have to cave in, Israeli television Monday night featured Bush's latest comments emphasizing his desire for Israel to pull out of the West Bank now. One commentator said Bush was in his "angry Texas cowboy" mode.....
""I meant what I said to the prime minister of Israel. I expect there to be withdrawal without delay," Bush heatedly told reporters on a visit to Tennessee.....
"After Sharon's Knesset speech, U.S. special Mideast envoy Anthony C. Zinni was dispatched to meet with the Israeli leader and convey the Bush administration's displeasure. A few hours later, the army announced its pullback from Kalkilya and Tulkarm.....
"Powell told reporters after meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah in Morocco that the withdrawal from the two towns was an encouraging sign. "And I hope it is the beginning of a full withdrawal," Powell added.
Sharon launched Israel's biggest West Bank offensive in 35 years March 29, after a wave of suicide bombings that culminated in a Passover Seder attack that killed 27 people, the single largest death toll in a suicide bombing in years.....

Sharon’s Denunciation of Bush as a Neville Chamberlain - September 2001.
In september 2001, in the aftermath of the p*ny bombings, sharon denounced president bush as a nazi appeaser. The prelude to this gross insult is worth recalling as it provides a clear insight into sharon’s insanity.

After the p*ny bombings sharon claimed that arafat was the zionists’ bin laden, "Israel’s right wing prime minister ariel sharon was accused of fuelling the tension by calling palestinian leader yasser arafat, "Israel’s osama bin laden."" Sharon has always regarded arafat as a terrorist especially after 1988 when arafat renounced the use of violence and recognized the zionist state’s right to exist.

A few days later, ariel sharon likened bin laden to adolf hitler so that, in effect, he was creating a moral equivalence between yasser arafat and adolf hitler (insane or what?). With his head spinning around with historical analogies to long dead politicians, sharon then launched a wild attack on bush accusing him of being neville chamberlain ­ the logic being that if arafat was hitler then, by definition, bush must be chamberlain, "Don't repeat the terrible mistake of 1938 when the enlightened democracies of Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient temporary solution. Do not try to placate the Arabs at our expense ... Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight terror." A paralytic basil brush would be proud of such a rant, boom, boom.

Bush was none too chuffed at being exposed as the moral equivalent of neville chamberlain, "American relations with Israel plunged to their lowest point in a decade yesterday when the White House denounced as "unacceptable" statements by the Israeli prime minister comparing the US coalition-building in the Arab world to British appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s. The Bush administration was reported to be furious with Mr Sharon's actions, and the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, told journalists that the president felt personally affronted by the comparison to Neville Chamberlain and the discredited policies of appeasement in the run up to the second world war. In a blunt response, Mr Fleischer (a great admirer of ariel sharon) said: "The president believes that these remarks are unacceptable. Israel could have no better or stronger friend that the United States and no better friend that President Bush.""

Sharon refused to apologize for his insult to the so-called president of the united states. It shows what little power bush has over sharon that he didn’t dare to try and extract a public apology from him, "A chastened Ariel Sharon has moved swiftly to mend a rupture with Washington after his invocation of a Nazi comparison triggered the most heated diplomatic exchange between America and Israel in a decade. In a hurriedly arranged telephone conversation with the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, Sharon stopped short of a direct apology to President George W. Bush for remarks that accused Washington of selling out Israel to win favour in the Arab world for its war coalition." It’s a wonder sharon didn’t make bush apologise to him for pushing him into yet another outbreak of his explosive personality disorder. The president’s public relations’ team called on their zionist chums in the zionist owned american media to keep the incident off the front pages to minimize the president’s embarrassment. But, a rubicund had been crossed. Ariel sharon now knew he could get away with publicly denouncing, and defying, the president of the united states. Bush was left trying to cover up his humiliation by pretending that two good friends had made up their differences - as if sharon regards bush with anything other than contempt. 



April 15, 2002   The March on Washington D.C. by Gad Nahshon  
100,000 pro-Israel protesters marched on Washington, April 15, 2002, a day to remember! Suddenly, American Jews joined, in rare unity, forming a 'new rainbow coalition.' But all of the colors were reduced to blue and white, white and blue. What a picture. Jews took to their hand the right of crying out against silence. They did not come to attack the Bush administration, a pro-Israel one. They came to protest against the silence of the American Jewry, to express solidarity with Israel...."

(Really? Did the Republican operator who wrote this article drink the Kool Aid or did the writer decide to do his part in implementing the spin to keep the criticism away from his Republican President ? ( similar to how Malcolm Hoenlein's Daily Alert painstakingly does all it can to spin each posted story with focus away from the Republican President- on this issue, on the origins of the Road Map, and all other issues we don't like the Administration's position on, as opposed to the years Obama has been in office)

see more info on all of the hypocracy on the Republican cover up of Bush and the spin against obama at http://gwbushandobama.blogspot.com/2011/08/gw-bush-and-obama.html

March 24, 2005
Now, our position on settlement activity has not changed. We have said to the Israelis that they have obligations under the roadmap, they have obligations not to increase settlement activity. We expect, in particular, that they are going to be careful about anything -- route of the fence, settlement activity, laws -- that would appear to prejudge a final status agreement, and it's concerning that this is where it is and around Jerusalem.... But we've noted our concern to the Israelis -- and David Welch (Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs) and Elliott [Abrams] (NSC Advisor) did....
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Interview with LA Times, March 24, 2005
http://www.cmep.org/documents/BushAdmin_Jerusalem.htm, September 11, 2006

GW Bush on MAY 26, 2005 with Abbas at the White House: "Israel must continue to take steps toward a peaceful future, and work with the Palestinian leadership to improve the daily lives of Palestinians, especially their humanitarian situation. Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudice final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Therefore, Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion".


[ Reporter asks GW Bush] “But Israel continues to build settlements and continues to seize Palestinian territories. What is your position, Mr. President?”
PRESIDENT BUSH RESPONDS TO THE REPORTER: “Well, I told you what my position was. And it’s exactly what I said when I was in Crawford by the way, when Prime Minister Sharon was there, as well. I mean, when you say you’re going to accept the Road Map, you accept the Road Map. And part of the obligations of the Road Map is not the expansion of settlements." ( here Bush is choking on the words that he would have used were he to have chosen the English he was brought up with and said ' Israel has to stop expanding natrual growth of current settlements which is exactly what we wrote in the Road Map with Arabs and the Quartet 3 years ago- after all, I was the author !'

JANUARY 10, 2008: [ Pres. GW Bush, best friend the Jews ever had: ] "The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967." http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080110-3.html

Where were the Republicans, Malcolm Hoenlein, The Jewish Republican Coalition, and Ed Koch screaming about there being no light between Israel and America ?  Can you imagine Obam saying this in 2011? Oh right, he did, and was condemend as an enemy of Israel by the Republican Congress and their allies. 
...on Bush, Obama, Israel and the '67 Borders and settlements in the Territories.}
[GW Bush:]  "Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides. While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous." President Bush January 10, 2008: at the King David Hotel Jerusalem
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080110-3.html
Imagine Obama having inserted these paragraphs into any speech in 2008 and not receiving total condemnation by the Congressional Republicans and their allies?  Bush received no Republican condemnation after he included all of this in his speech:
Bush: "I share with these two leaders the vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security....The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent.....While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous. I believe we need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue....I reaffirm to each leader that implementation of any agreement is subject to implementation of the road map. Neither party should undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudices the final status negotiations. On the Israeli side that includes ending settlement expansion and removing unauthorized outposts. On the Palestinian side that includes confronting terrorists and dismantling terrorist infrastructure.
I know Jerusalem is a tough issue. Both sides have deeply felt political and religious concerns. I fully understand that finding a solution to this issue will be one of the most difficult challenges on the road to peace, but that is the road we have chosen to walk.....
....The establishment of the state of Palestine is long overdue. The Palestinian people deserve it.....The peace agreement should happen, and can happen, by the end of this year.

Bush's memoirs according to JPOST.com
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=194538

And when it comes to his push to include Hamas, considered a terrorist organization by the US, in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections of 2005 – which the Islamist movement won – Bush remains resolute.
“America could not be in the position of endorsing elections only when we liked the projected outcome,” he explains, adding that the vote “forced a decision in Hamas” about whether it would govern or revert to violence.



Where were the Republicans, Malcolm Hoenlein, The Jewish Republican Coalition, and Ed Koch screaming about there being no light between Israel and America ?  Can you imagine Obama saying this in 2011? Oh right, he did, and was condemend as an enemy of Israel by the Republican Congress and their allies. 

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, best friend Israel ever had, standing on ISRAELI SOIL, LAUNCHES A TIRADE AT ISRAEL AS CONDI RICE TELLS THE JEWS THAT EAST JERUSALEM CITIES ARE OCCUPIED SETTLEMENTS AND ALL NATURAL GROWTH MUST STOP..........Here we have the Bush Adminstration imposing -even 6 years after the Road Map was initiated - the road Map.  And none of the concerns that Israel formally delineated were addressed by Bush....

January 8, 2008 / US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told The Jerusalem Post that "Har Homa is a settlement the United States has opposed from the very beginning." Rice, who was accompanying Bush en route to Israel said that "the United States doesn't make a distinction" between settlement activity in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and that Israel's George Bush Road Map obligations, which include a building freeze, relate to "settlement activity generally." Here we have the Bush
Adminstration imposing -even 6 years after the Road Map was initiated - the road Map.  And none of the concerns that Israel formally delineated were addressed by Bush. 

Where were the Republicans, Malcolm Hoenlein, The Jewish Republican Coalition, and Ed Koch screaming about there being no light between Israel and America ?  Can you imagine Obam saying this in 2011? Oh right, he did, and was condemend as an enemy of Israel by the Republican Congress and their allies. 
** "Settlement activity should stop -- expansion should stop," Rice said at a news conference after meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. [ from Israel Planning to Build Hundreds of New Homes By Griff Witte Washington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, April 1, 2008 Jerusalem, March 31 2008

"...The announcement of the new construction, the latest in a series of similar projects advanced by Israel in recent months, was likely to anger Palestinians. The issue also elicited criticism from Rice, who called on Israel to stop building in contested territory even before Monday's announcement."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/31/AR2008033102375_pf.html

Bush Says 'Enough Is Enough,' Tells Powell to Head to Mideast

THE MIDDLE EAST

Diplomacy: President, in a sharp change of course, demands that the violence end and pushes for renewed peace talks.

April 05, 2002|ROBIN WRIGHT | TIMES STAFF WRITER
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/apr/05/news/mn-36343
WASHINGTON — Declaring that "enough is enough," President Bush announced Thursday that he is dispatching Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to the Middle East next week in a bold but risky bid to end the raging violence and get Israel and the Palestinians back to the peace table.
"The storms of violence cannot go on," Bush said in a Rose Garden speech that included a series of stern messages for Palestinian and Israeli leaders as well as for regional players in the escalating crisis. As basic steps, he called for Israel to withdraw its troops and the Palestinians to end a wave of terror.
The president's announcement marked a major policy reversal after a week of words but no new action. Bush administration officials said the president decided to act because of the mounting bloodshed and destruction on both sides, but also because of the looming dangers of a wider regional war.
"The world finds itself at a critical moment. This is a conflict that can widen or an opportunity we can seize," Bush said as Powell stood at his side.
Shortly after Bush spoke, Israeli armor backed by helicopter gunships moved into Palestinian-ruled parts of the divided city of Hebron in an incursion that brought every West Bank city except Jericho under Israeli occupation. The incursion came as Israel tightened its hold on Nablus, the West Bank's largest city.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon says the week-old operation is designed to stop a wave of suicide bombers.
In tough language, the president said Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat finds himself in a situation "largely of his own making" because he has "missed his opportunities and thereby betrayed the hopes of the people he's supposed to lead."
Saeb Erekat, the chief negotiator for the Palestinians, said late Thursday in Jerusalem that Arafat accepted Bush's statement "without conditions" and welcomed Powell's visit. But the administration hinted that it is fed up with Arafat's unwillingness to act on his promises by suggesting that Powell also intends to hold talks with other Palestinian leaders--a slap on the wrist as well as a step preparing for a possible post-Arafat era.
In Israel, the Foreign Ministry welcomed Powell's visit and promised "to do everything so that his mission will be successful." But a statement from Sharon's office said Operation Protective Wall would continue until Israel achieves its goal. A Defense Ministry spokesman predicted that the operation could last seven more weeks.
Bush also called on Israel to halt the expansion of Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories and ease border closures. "It is crucial to distinguish between the terrorists and ordinary Palestinians seeking to provide for their own families," he said. "The Israeli government should be compassionate at checkpoints and border crossings, sparing innocent Palestinians daily humiliation."
He also said: "Israel faces hard choices of its own. Its government has supported the creation of a Palestinian state that is not a haven for terrorism. Yet Israel must recognize that such a state needs to be politically and economically viable."
Acknowledging that he has no illusions about the difficulties ahead, Bush said Powell's trip to the region would include three mandates: implementation of the recently approved U.N. Resolution 1402 to achieve an immediate and meaningful cease-fire; a full Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian cities; and fulfillment of the security plan devised last year by CIA Director George J. Tenet, followed by implementation of a proposal by former Sen. George J. Mitchell (D-Maine) for resuming talks on a final settlement of the half-century-old conflict.
Late Thursday, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed a resolution endorsing Powell's mission and demanding an Israeli withdrawal "without delay."
In a key shift, the administration will push for simultaneous movement on the security and political fronts, after weeks of accepting Israel's position that a stable cease-fire must be secured before the political process can begin again.
"The new element that I am going to be pressing hard in the days and weeks ahead is that the political component of this process has to be brought forward much more quickly than we might have thought otherwise," Powell said Wednesday on the CBS program "60 Minutes II."
"The Palestinian people have to see that there is a political process, a political process that we will get involved in early on through negotiations, which will lead quickly to a Palestinian state," he said.
Powell is expected to arrive in the region midweek. He will hold talks with leaders in Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, a senior administration official said. But the schedule is still in flux, and no decision has been made on which Palestinians he will see.
Speaking to the wider Arab world, Bush called on its leaders to follow through on the initiative of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, approved at an Arab League summit last week, which offers to engage in "normal relations" with Israel and foster a broader regional peace in exchange for the Jewish state's withdrawal from land occupied in the 1967 Middle East War and other concessions....
"The president specifically called on the entire region to tackle terrorism by blocking attacks, disrupting extremists' financial networks and ending the glorification of suicide bombers as martyrs in state-controlled media. "They're not martyrs," he said. "They're murderers."The president also issued a strong warning to outsiders who are fanning the flames of extremism. "To those who would try to use the current crisis as an opportunity to widen the conflict--stay out," he said.
Iran and Syria received specific warnings. Iran's arms shipments and general support for terrorism fuel the conflict and must stop, Bush said. Syria must both end its support for the extremist groups Hamas and Hezbollah and decide where it stands in the broader war on terrorism, he cautioned.
U.S. officials also cited growing alarm about military exchanges along the Lebanon-Israel border and the risk that Syria could be drawn into the cross-border exchanges between Israeli forces and the Syrian-backed Hezbollah. Growing pressures on Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, countries critical to prospects for a regional peace, are sparking concern about a wider destabilization.
Regional flash points have begun moving the conflict in an explosive new direction, a senior administration official said.
Despite the obstacles ahead, Bush expressed optimism. "America is committed to ending this conflict and beginning an era of peace. We know this is possible, because in our lifetimes, we have seen an end to conflicts that no one thought could end," he said.
One hopeful note Thursday after Bush's speech was a tactical reversal by Sharon to permit Zinni to meet Arafat, who has been confined to his headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah. Earlier this week, Sharon--who said he was determined to keep Arafat isolated--had turned down Powell's request that the two be allowed to meet. On Thursday, a European Union peace mission ended in failure when Israel would not allow two senior envoys to meet Arafat.
But Israeli officials were divided over the call for a halt to Israel's military offensive. Sharon told Zinni that there can be no negotiations until Palestinian suicide bombings and other armed attacks come to a halt, his spokesman said.
"Israel can defeat terrorism unilaterally, or in cooperation with the Palestinian Authority," the spokesman said. "And as long as the Palestinians do not cooperate, Israel is within its right to continue military operations."
Lt. Gen. Shaul Mofaz, the Israeli army's chief of staff, said Thursday that the offensive needs three more weeks to achieve its objective, followed by four weeks of "mopping up." Uzi Landau, minister for public security, warned that stopping the fight now would allow Palestinian militants to regroup and rearm.
Times staff writer Richard Boudreaux in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

Where were the Republicans, Malcolm Hoenlein, The Jewish Republican Coalition, and Ed Koch screaming about there being no light between Israel and America ?  Can you imagine Obam saying this in 2011? Oh right, he did, and was condemend as an enemy of Israel by the Republican Congress and their allies. 
______________

"Settlement activity should stop -- expansion should stop,"
Rice said at a news conference after meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.......President Bush has said he wants to have a "signed peace treaty" by the time he leaves office next January.
Special correspondent Samuel Sockol contributed to this report. In any event, Condi Rice shared the podium with Afif Safieh last night, and here's what she had to say  Palestinians deserve to live better than they do and be "free of the humiliation of occupation" in a state of their own," said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday night.
"I promise you my personal commitment to that goal," Rice said
at a dinner marking the third anniversary of the American Task Force on Palestine. "There could be no greater legacy for America," Rice told the group, which describes itself as nonpartisan and supportive of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/773549.html
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193422127&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
as per http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2006/10/condi-rice-does-james-baker-imitation.html

Where were the Republicans, Malcolm Hoenlein, The Jewish Republican Coalition, and Ed Koch screaming about there being no light between Israel and America ?  Can you imagine Obam saying this in 2011? Oh right, he did, and was condemend as an enemy of Israel by the Republican Congress and their allies. 


Why did Bush - the best friend the Jews ever had- excoriate Israel to stop building bathrooms and bedrooms onto Jewish Cities in East Jerusalem in 2007 and 2008 ?  Could it be that GW Bush had an idea?  Was Bush thinking about giving East Jersualem to the Arabs in a final settlement?  Was GW thinking of reneging on his famous speech stating that the Palestinian return would be to their State in the WB and Gaza? Uhhh.... Yehhhh!
In 2008 Bush- greatest friend the Jews ever had-   brokers a deal with Olmert to offer Abbas the most far ranging offer including East Jerusalem.  
Olmert describes the deal to the Israeli Media,
" on August 31, 2008, three weeks before he resigned, he offered 100 percent of West Bank land (minus 6.8% in land swaps), 10,000 Palestinian refugees returning to Israel’s final borders, and the holy basin of Jerusalem’s Old City coming under joint Israeli-Palestinian-American- Jordanian-Saudi control." http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=218340

Note what Dore Gold said here:  http://jcpa.org/brief/brief3-21.htm - Gold fictionalized a BUSH position based on something Bush never discussed!
Then jump 4 years ahead when Bush brokered a 100% square mileage deal- a deal that shows that the very matter about which Dore Gold fictionalized resulted in the exact opposite of what Gold asserted.  Obviously Olmert had no support from the U.S. to hold back on anything other than equal swaps. 



GW Bush- the best friend of Israel-  says in his memoirs about the deal...
"With my approval, Condi oversaw a separate channel of talks directly between Olmert and Abbas. The dialogue culminated in a secret proposal from Olmert to Abbas. His offer would have returned the vast majority of the territory in the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians, accepted the construction of a tunnel connecting the two Palestinian territories, allowed a limited number of Palestinian refugees return to Israel, established Jerusalem as a joint capital of both Israel and Palestine, and entrusted control of the holy cites to a panel of nonpolitical elders."
Further Bush tells us " We devised a process to turn the private offer into a public agreement. Olmert would travel to Washington and deposit his proposal with me. Abbas would announce that the plan was in line with Palestinian interests. I would call the leaders together to finalize the deal."

** October 2001 " Bush administration officials continually opposed Israeli actions in Operation Defensive Shield to reoccupy Gaza and the West Bank. Colin Powell urged the administration to intervene in the fighting and pressure Arafat to denounce terrorism and Sharon to withdraw from newly occupied territory. Before Bush - the greatest friend the Jews ever had- departed, Powell told him: “Do you understand what you’re saying to the Israelis? You’re going to have to look Sharon in the eye and say, ‘Get Out.’”  

When Powell arrived in Israel, he and Sharon had a vehement argument, Powell demanding to visit Arafat and Sharon refusing. Sharon said to Powell: “Their world is an empire of lies —Arafat’s like Osama bin Laden. Why do you apply different standards to Arafat than to Bin Laden?” Powell replied: “No, it’s a different situation.” Finally. Sharon relented.
[Interview with Colin Powell, as quoted in Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 238, 163-4, 191-2, p. 196.]

Sept. 2002    A furious Condoleezza Rice summoned Israeli Ambassador Danny Ayalon and Sharon’s chief of staff, Dov Weisglass, and rebuked them: …I am telling you, if you do not end this siege [of Yasser Arafat’s om-pound] in Ramallah, if you don’t withdraw your forces from the compound, you are going to have a public rift with this president. This needs to end now. If you and I are having this same conversation a week from now, you are going to have a serious problem in this building, and you’re going to have a serious problem with me." [end quote Condi]*
see bottom of this entire article for more
[ * See also Douglas Feith, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the [Dawn of the War on Terrorism (HarperCollins, 2008), pp. 207-8, 511.
[ * George W. Bush, as quoted in Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 239.]
[Interview with Flynt Leverett, in Bregman, Elusive Peace , p. 241.]



May 01, 2002
"Something has to be done about the problem of the settlements, the settlements continue to grow and continue to expand. . . .It's not going to go away."
Secretary of State Colin Powell -- NBC's Meet the Press, May 01, 2002

 GW BUSH - the greatest friend the Jews ever had-  Bush demanded that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon withdraw his troops from Jenin in 2002 saying "Enough is enough!" It made headlines all over the world, as did his backing down when Sharon refused. What happened? Harsh criticism boomed from within his own party in Congress and from his father's old friends in the media. George Will associated Bush with Yasser Arafat and accused Bush of having lost his "moral clarity." (Washington Post, April 11, 2002.)
The next day, Safire suggested that Bush was "being pushed into a minefield of mistakes"and that he had "become a wavering ally as Israel fights for suvival." ( New York Times, April 12, 2002.)
Then this explosion was never to be heard of again, since the Republicans in Congress suppressed all further comment and obviously didnt use this to malign GW bush in perpetuity as they do with Obama-- Obama's comments that have been jumped on and maligned are never military action related.

ARUTZ SHEVA

Jerusalem's Har Homa Waiting for Expansion

PA and US protest new neighborhood, but Housing Minister denies ordering a halt to construction. New budget includes funding for 500 units.
By Hillel FendelFirst Publish: 12/25/2007, 1:13 PM
Housing Minister Ze'ev Boim halted construction on 120 new housing units in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Homa. According to the Makor Rishon daily newspaper, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gave the order in reaction to international protests against approval of 307 new housing units in the same neighborhood.

Boim's office staffers, however, told the newspaper that there "are no delays in anything relating to Har Homa construction."   U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas, and even UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon sharply castigated Israel, at the recent fund-raising extravaganza for the PA in Paris, for deigning to build Jewish housing in territory liberated in the 1967 Six Day War. 

Olmert was HystericalMakor Rishon's Haggai Huberman and Nava Stoler reported on Sunday that when Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni heard of the Har Homa controversy, they reacted with "hysteria."  Former Jerusalem Mayor Olmert and Livni actually considered calling off the entire construction project, but then calmed down and ordered only a temporary and partial halt.

Interestingly, an allocation of tens of millions of shekels for Har Homa construction is included in the national budget proposal currently being considered in the Knesset.  The 2008 budget includes 50 million shekels for 500 new apartments in Har Homa - including, according to Housing Ministry spokesman Kobi Bleich, the 307 units disputed by the PA and the US. 

Residents Invite Olmert, Barak, and NetanyahuThe residents of Har Homa - the official name is Homat Shmuel, named by-then Mayor Ehud Olmert for former Deputy Mayor Shmuel Meir, who took the lead in developing the area - have invited Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Opposition Leader Binyamin Netanyahu for a visit.  The invitations to the heads of Israel's three largest political parties were proffered so that they could "see from up close how our neighborhood has developed since it was first populated in 2002."  The invitations state, "Your visits are important and will help give over a clear and unambiguous message to the entire world, that you have no intention of responding to the calls to stop construction here."

The invitation also notes that ever since the Rabin Government, "all the governments of Israel have backed the construction of Har Homa, which is within the municipal borders of the City of Jerusalem. We ask you to unite and cooperate against the intentions to slow down the strengthening of Jerusalem - the Jewish Nation's eternal capital."   

Last week, Cabinet Minister Avigdor Lieberman and members of his Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel Our Home) party visited Homat Shmuel.  "We will not allow the government to stop building here," Lieberman said. "As far as we are concerned, that would be a reason to quit and bring down the government. Har Homa is totally in the national consensus." 
Growing and ThrivingSome 2,500 families currently live in Har Homa, and there are plans for another 4,000.  Har Homa is Jerusalem's south-eastern corner - south of Ramat Rachel and north of Bethlehem, and east of Gilo.  It is encircled by some Arab villages, such as Tzur Baher, Biet Sahour and Um Tuba.  It is considered the newest bastion of religious-Zionism, with three religious youth groups, two synagogues, many informal daily prayer services, two religious schools, Talmudei Torah, nurseries, and an abundance of Torah classes.  Two yeshivot, Har HaMor and Mekor Chaim, plan to relocate to Har Homa.  

GW Bush, best friend the Jews ever had-: “Neither party should undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudices the final status negotiations. On the Israeli side that includes ending settlement expansion and removing unauthorized outposts. On the Palestinian side that includes confronting terrorists and dismantling terrorist infrastructure…."


"In the face of deep skepticism from both sides, Mr. Bush ( ed; the best friend theJews ever had) expressed confidence that a final treaty would be signed during his last year in office."“I’m on a timetable,” he said when he met Mr. Abbas in Ramallah in the West Bank, only minutes after saying he would not impose timetables on the negotiators for both sides. “I’ve got 12 months left in office....on Bush, Obama, Israel and the '67 Borders and settlements in the Territories.}

Bush said further: "And I'm convinced they will. And I believe it's possible - not only possible, I 

believe it's going to happen - that there be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office [in January 2009]. That's what I believe."...on Bush, Obama, Israel and the '67
June 03, 2003
"Israel has got responsibilities. Israel must deal with the settlements. Israel must make sure there is a contiguous territory that the Palestinians can call home."
President George W. Bush, June 03, 2003
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006
September 21, 2003

"Settlement activity must stop. And it has not stopped to our satisfaction." Secretary of State Colin Powell, September 21, 2003 as directed by GW Bush, the best friend the Jews ever had.
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006

September 07, 2006
“[T]hey should not be expanding the settlements. There should not be expansion of the settlements and outposts should be removed.”

Sean McCormack, President Bush's Spokesman, Daily Press Briefing, September 07, 2006
State Department Website, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2006/71935.htm, September 14, 2006
December 31, 2003
“ our policy continues to be that Israel should freeze settlement construction.”
Daily Press Briefing by Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman, December 31, 2003
State Department Website, 
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2003/27640.htm, September 07, 2006
 May 26, 2005 “Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudice final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Therefore, Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion.”
President Bush - the best friend the Jews ever had- speaking with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, May 26, 2005
  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050526.html, September 06, 2006
June 26, 2005
“I traveled to Ramallah and I saw your [settlement] construction with my own eyes. It is not possible to operate in the territories in a manner that will change the situation before discussions on final status. True, the president promised the prime minister to consider the realities on the ground and concentrations of population--this is very important and the United States stands behind this commitment. But the president added that it is clear to all sides that the final borders will be determined only through negotiation. We cannot sanction creating a new reality on the ground by actions that continue today. I mean by this those activities in Jerusalem and its environs meant to change the reality on the ground. I saw these things with my own eyes and I am very concerned.......it is impossible to sanction the continuation of construction and its influence on the final border. This is very important to us. I traveled close to Ma’ale Adumim, and I saw the construction along the way.”
Conversation with Israeli foreign minister Silvan Shalom, as reported in Ma’ariv, June 26, 2005
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, June 26, 2005
http://www.cmep.org/documents/BushAdmin_Jerusalem.htm, September 11, 2006
March 24, 2005
“Now, our position on settlement activity has not changed. We have said to the Israelis that they have obligations under the roadmap, they have obligations not to increase settlement activity. We expect, in particular, that they are going to be careful about anything -- route of the fence, settlement activity, laws -- that would appear to prejudge a final status agreement, and it's concerning that this is where it is and around Jerusalem. But we've noted our concern to the Israelis -- and David Welch (Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs) and Elliott [Abrams] (NSC Advisor) did. We will continue to note that this is at odds with the -- of American policy. So full stop we will continue to do that and we have noted our concerns about it.”
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Interview with LA Times, March 24, 2005
http://www.cmep.org/documents/BushAdmin_Jerusalem.htm, September 11, 2006

May 26, 2005
“Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudice final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Therefore, Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion.” [ GW Bush, the best friend the Jews ever had ]
President Bush speaking with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, May 26, 2005
White House Website, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050526.html, September 06, 2006

September 20, 2005
“As to Israeli activities that might try and prejudge a final status, we've been very clear. President Bush has been very clear that we do not expect Israel to engage in activities that will prejudge a final status because questions about the final border are indeed final status issues. We've been clear that activity in the settlements, for instance at E-1 (proposed settlement area in the West Bank, east of Jerusalem) or with the separation barrier that have an effect on Palestinian livelihood, that the international community expects Israel to live up to its roadmap obligations here, to its obligations not to engage in that activity.” ( ed;this is happening of course a long time after the Israelis received those special letters of understanding from GW, the best friend the Jews ever had.)
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, September 20, 2005
State Department Website, http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/53625.htm, September 6, 2006

November 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell had said, “For the sake of Palestinians and Israelis alike, the occupation must end. And it can only end with negotiations.”
October 20, 2005
“Israel must continue to work with Palestinian leaders to help improve the daily lives of Palestinians. At the same time, Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes its road map obligations, or prejudices the final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. This means that Israel must remove unauthorized posts and stop settlement expansion.”
President Bush speaking with PA president Mahmoud Abbas, October 20, 2005
White House Website, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051020.html, September 6, 2006


 November 14, 2005
On settlement activity, we’ve made it very clear that settlement activity is counter both to U.S. policy and, we believe, counter to the obligations that the Israelis have undertaken. We’ve been very clear that there should be no activities that prejudge a final status agreement and we are in constant discussion with the Israelis about those -- about those matters.  We do with the Israelis what we do with each of the parties, which is to ask them to concentrate very hard on what they need to do to fulfill their obligations.”
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speaking at a joint press conference with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, November 14, 2005
State Department Website, http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/56847.htm, September 6, 2006

Steve Erlanger.  “Over U.S. Objections, Israel Approves West Bank Homes,” New York Times.  September 5, 2006.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast&oref=slogin

ArutzSheva and Ehud Barack expose Ariel Sharon's cover up of GW Bush's publicly decalred U.S. Policy: 
Arutz Sheva: In light of the May 26th Bush-Abbas summit and the subsequent statements, Arutz Sheva presents the following analysis of what is left of Sharon's unprecedented gains:
First Publish: 5/29/2005, 3:14 PM / Last Update: 5/29/2005, 5:18 PM
U.S. President George W. Bush’s statement welcoming PA leader Mahmoud Abbas into the White House Rose Garden on May 26, provided a highly transparent view of the administration’s policy toward Israel and an unsettling perspective on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s claims that Bush has agreed to allow Israel to retain large settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria.

The most unsettling, if not shocking remark by the president was a direct reference to the 1949 “Armistice lines” agreed to by Israel and Jordan at the end of the War of Independence. Those lines, the famous “Auschwitz borders” as they were called by the late Israeli Labor-party statesman Abba Eban, leaves Israel’s heavily populated coastal plain, just 9-11 miles from the border of what would be Palestine.

Not only are none of the major settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria, such as Ma’ale Adumim included in those borders, but neither are the Western Wall, the Old City of Jerusalem, the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Ramot, Gilo, Neve Yaakov, East Talpiot, Pisgat Ze’ev (to name a few), nor the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway (Route 1) as it crosses into the Latrun area.

Yet President Bush, standing next to the man whom he would like to become the first president of Palestine, told Abbas and the rest of the world, that the reference point for negotiating the future boundary between the two states was the 1949 lines, and that any change to that border “must be mutually agreed to” between Israel and the Arabs.

In other words, as far as Bush is concerned, Abbas must approve Israel's annexing the Western Wall or even part of the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem highway to the Jewish State. Conversely, without his agreement, those areas are slated to be part of an independent State of Palestine.

Where then, is the great quid-pro-quo for the Gaza withdrawal, the highly-touted and heavily-marketed Bush promises to Sharon that the U.S. recognizes the facts on the ground in Judea and Samaria, the settlement blocs that preclude a withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice lines?

According to Yoram Ettinger, a consultant on U.S. Israel relations and former liaison for Congressional affairs in the Israel Washington embassy, Bush’s April, 2004 letter supposedly guaranteeing U.S. support for retaining major settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria “was grossly misrepresented by the Prime Minister and his spokesman. Bush has not committed the United States to recognizing anything beyond the 1949 cease-fire lines. Bush doesn’t recognize any single settlement or blocs of settlements.”

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak concurs with this analysis of Bush’s view of the future border between Israel and a Palestinian state. In a recent interview for Haaretz, Barak said:

“A campaign is under way here whose gist is to mislead the nation about substantive issues in order to prevent it from asking what the quid pro quo for the disengagement is. Sharon’s claim that he made painful decisions in Gaza and in return obtained an unprecedented achievement in Judea and Samaria is not correct…

“After all, it is obvious that the U.S. administration is against the Ariel-Kedumim bloc and against Ma’ale Adumim and is even against Efrat [locataed in the Gush Etzion bloc]…Sharon is not telling the people the truth. He is treating us all as though we are infantile and incapable of debating our own fate.”

It is not surprising therefore, that Bush, instead of emphasizing the importance of Abbas fighting terror and keeping his obligations under the road map, focused mostly on Israel’s roadmap obligations, primarily to halt all settlement construction in Judea and Samaria and remove what he called, “unauthorized outposts.”

George W. Bush is a president who means what he says. After mentioning the 1949 lines, Bush said the following: “A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.”
Territorial contiguity in Judea and Samaria for a viable Palestinian State is not a prescription for accepting settlement blocs anywhere.  

It’s about time the Israeli public recognizes that the “Bush vision” as expressed repeatedly by the President and his Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, does not include any territory east of the 1949 lines. Rather, it holds the disengagement plan as the first phase of an ongoing process of Israeli withdrawals back to what the Labor party leader termed "the Auschwitz borders."



May 23, 2006

“Today, Prime Minister Olmert shared with me some of his ideas -- I would call them bold ideas. These ideas could lead to a two-state solution if a pathway to progress on the road map is not open in the period ahead. His ideas include the removal of most Israeli settlements, except for the major Israeli population centers in the West Bank. This idea would follow Prime Minister Sharon's decision to remove all settlements in Gaza and several in the West Bank.
I look forward to learning more about the Prime Minister's ideas. While any final status agreement will be only achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes, and no party should prejudice the outcome of negotiations on a final status agreement, the Prime Minister's ideas could be an important step toward the peace we both support. I'm encouraged by his constructive efforts to find ways to move the peace process forward.” Remarks by President Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel at Joint Press Availability, May 23, 2006
State Department Website, http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/2006/66812.htm, September 07, 2006

May 24, 2006
“Settlements are, of course, one of the most contentious issues between the Israelis and the Palestinians. As such, they are treated in the Road Map, the President’s guide for finding a way out of the most controversial issues. Violence – either by settlers or Palestinians – is unacceptable. One step for addressing the issue of settlements is to encourage settler withdrawals, such as we saw during the Gaza Disengagement last year. In fact, one potentially positive aspect of Prime Minister Olmert’s ideas on settler withdrawal from the West Bank (which he presented to President Bush yesterday) is that withdrawal could further reduce friction between Israelis and Palestinians, and open the way for the two-state solution that President Bush envisions.”
Hamas might have claimed victory for Gaza Disengagement, but the fact is that it was a triumph for Israel, because it implemented a highly controversial, yet courageous plan. The Palestinian Authority also deserves credit for its role in facilitating Disengagement under very difficult circumstances.”
Michael Doran, Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs, National Security Council, May 24, 2006
State Department Website, http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/2006/66736.htm, September 07, 2006

September 05, 2006
“[I]n general it’s a principle of the road map — a foundation to reach peace in the region — that Israel not only remove illegal outposts, but also not expand settlements in the West Bank.”
The United States, Mr. Tuttle said, opposes “any actions that would prejudice final status negotiations, which would include the final borders of Israel and Palestine.”
Stewart Tuttle, the spokesman for the American Embassy in Israel.  Tuttle’s statement followed Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s authorization for the construction of another 690 homes in the occupied West Bank, September 05, 2006

Steve Erlanger.  “Over U.S. Objections, Israel Approves West Bank Homes,” New York Times.  September 5, 2006.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast&oref=slogin

Above statements about a Palestinian state from the chief executive would have been unthinkable just ten years prior.  In May 1998, the Clinton administration felt compelled to disown its First Lady’s mild observation that “it will be in the long-term interest of the Middle East for Palestine to be a state.” Although President Bill Clinton came around to endorsing the establishment of a Palestinian state toward the end of his second term, a search of his public papers reveals not one remark upon Israel’s occupation, much less a clear injunction that it end.
REPEAT- Clinton never publicly uttered remarks about "occupation".  It was GW BUSH who first uttered remarks about occupation and it GW who first expressed that U.S. policy is now officially a two state solution.


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...." ( Mr. Sharon had 80 objections to the Roadmap ( ie. see Bregman) but buckled to GW Bush, the best friend the Jews ever had. 

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.

"....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."

*****************************************************************************
JANUARY 10, 2008-
PRESIDENT GW Bush:
* "The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967."
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080110-3.html
...on Bush, Obama, Israel and the '67 Borders and settlements in the Territories.}
* "Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides. While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous."* "Swiss cheese isn’t going to work when it comes to the outline of a [ Palestinian] state.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/world/middleeast/11prexy.html?pagewanted=all ...on Bush, Obama, Israel and the '67 Borders and settlements in the Territories.}

***
January 8, 2008 US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: told The Jerusalem Post that "Har Homa is a settlement the United States has opposed from the very beginning." Rice, who was accompanying Bush en route to Israel said that "the United States doesn't make a distinction" between settlement activity in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and that Israel's George Bush Road Map obligations, which include a building freeze, relate to "settlement activity generally."

** "Settlement activity should stop -- expansion should stop," Rice said at a news conference after meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. [ from Israel Planning to Build Hundreds of New Homes By Griff Witte Washington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, April 1, 2008 Jerusalem, March 31 2008

"...The announcement of the new construction, the latest in a series of similar projects advanced by Israel in recent months, was likely to anger Palestinians. The issue also elicited criticism from Rice, who called on Israel to stop building in contested territory even before Monday's announcement."

______________

"Settlement activity should stop -- expansion should stop,"
Rice said at a news conference after meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.......President Bush has said he wants to have a "signed peace treaty" by the time he leaves office next January.
Special correspondent Samuel Sockol contributed to this report. In any event, Condi Rice shared the podium with Afif Safieh last night, and here's what she had to say:Palestinians deserve to live better than they do and be "free of the humiliation of occupation" in a state of their own," said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday night.
"I promise you my personal commitment to that goal," Rice said
at a dinner marking the third anniversary of the American Task Force on Palestine. "There could be no greater legacy for America," Rice told the group, which describes itself as nonpartisan and supportive of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/773549.html

www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193422127&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
as per http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2006/10/condi-rice-does-james-baker-imitation.html

** October 2001 " Bush administration officials continually opposed Israeli actions in Operation Defensive Shield to reoccupy Gaza and the West Bank. Colin Powell urged the administration to intervene in the fighting and pressure Arafat to denounce terrorism and Sharon to withdraw from newly occupied territory. Before Powell departed, Bush told him: “Do you understand what you’re saying to the Israelis? You’re going to have to look Sharon in the eye and say, ‘Get Out.’” When Powell arrived in Israel, he and Sharon had a vehement argument, Powell demanding to visit Arafat and Sharon refusing. Sharon said to Powell: “Their world is an empire of lies —Arafat’s like Osama bin Laden. Why do you apply different standards to Arafat than to Bin Laden?” Powell replied: “No, it’s a different situation.” Finally. Sharon relented.
[Interview with Colin Powell, as quoted in Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 238, 163-4, 191-2, p. 196.]

A furious Condoleezza Rice summoned Israeli Ambassador Danny Ayalon and Sharon’s chief of staff, Dov Weisglass, and rebuked them: …I am telling you, if you do not end this siege [of Yasser Arafat’s om-pound] in Ramallah, if you don’t withdraw your forces from the compound, you are going to have a public rift with this president. This needs to end now. If you and I are having this same conversation a week from now, you are going to have a serious problem in this building, and you’re going to have a serious problem with me." [end quote Condi]*
[ * See also Douglas Feith, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the [Dawn of the War on Terrorism (HarperCollins, 2008), pp. 207-8, 511.
[ * George W. Bush, as quoted in Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 239.]
[Interview with Flynt Leverett, in Bregman, Elusive Peace , p. 241.]



Then in the summer of 2008  Bush brokers the deal that Olmert and Bush


FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
: Rice ripped for avoiding terrorist label on Hamas. Secretary of state used 'resistance movement,' U.S. group wants apology, amends to victims February 05, 2007 1:00 am Eastern By Aaron Klein Read more: Rice ripped for avoiding terrorist label on Hamas http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=40014#ixzz1ddzqDnstml JERUSALEM – A U.S. Jewish group today demanded Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice immediately retract remarks she made during a press conference in Europe two weeks ago in which she called Hamas a "resistance movement."
In speaking to reporters in Berlin Jan. 18, Rice, discussing the situation of Palestinians prior to 2000, said, "You had Hamas, of course, sitting out as a resistance movement, not at all, by the way, involved in the politics at all."Rice's comments went largely unreported by the American media.
Rice ripped for avoiding terrorist label on Hamas http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=40014#ixzz1de081mrZ Rice's comments went largely unreported by the American media.A US Jewish group on Monday demanded US Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice immediately retract remarks she made during a press conference in Europe two weeks ago in which she called Hamas a "resistance movement."In speaking to reporters in Berlin on January 18, Rice, discussing the situation for Palestinians prior to 2000, said, "You had Hamas, of course, sitting out as a resistance movement, not at all, by the way, involved in the politics at all."
One top Jewish leader told WND he was "horrified" Rice called Hamas a resistance group, but said his organization would not comment.

But the Zionist Organization of America, a US pro-Israel activist organization, wants more. It has asked Rice to clarify her remarks and apologize to Hamas' terror victims.
'Would she call al-Qaeda a resistance group?'
"Calling Hamas a resistance group and not a radical Islamic terror group which murders Jews and calls for the destruction of Israel seems to reveal Rice may have some sympathy for Hamas' cause," ZOA President Mort Klein told WND.
"Rice makes a mockery of the American and Israeli war on Islamic terrorism. Would she ever call al-Qaeda a resistance group?" Klein said. Said Klein, "Unfortunately, this sort of inappropriate positive spin on troubling aspects of Palestinian Arab society does not seem to be an aberration, but in fact is pattern for Secretary Rice." The ZOA leader pointed to a speech Rice delivered in October to the American Taskforce on Palestine in which she compared the Palestinians struggle to establish a state to the woes of America's Founding Fathers. Rice also said there can be no greater legacy for the US than to create a Palestinian state and stated Palestinians live under "the daily humiliation of occupation."
Klein said recent policies initiated by Rice have "harmed Israel's security."
He pointed to Rice's asking Israel to ease anti-terror roadblocks and the Secretary of State's brokering last November of an agreement that placed the Egypt-Gaza border, once controlled by the Jewish state, into the hands of Egyptian and Palestinian security officials and European monitors. Since Rice's Gaza border deal was brokered, hundreds of tons of weapons have reportedly flowed from the Egyptian Sinai desert into Gaza, the border has been breached multiple times and Israeli security officials have noted hundreds of instances in which known terrorists have openly crossed into and out of Gaza. The European monitors have fled their duty several times the past few months.

Where were the Congressional Republicans to say the Bush Administration threw Israel under the bus ? Why didn't the Jewish People's March on Washington include attacks on Bush and Condi ? Why did booing proceed from the crowd when Democrat Clinton Mideast Negotiator Dennis Ross came on to speak at the Jewish March on Washington but nbot a peep ever about Bush?
.........


GW Bush on MAY 26, 2005 with Abbas at the White House: "Israel must continue to take steps toward a peaceful future, and work with the Palestinian leadership to improve the daily lives of Palestinians, especially their humanitarian situation. Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudice final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Therefore, Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion".

[ Reporter] “But Israel continues to build settlements and continues to seize Palestinian territories. What is your position, Mr. President?”
PRESIDENT BUSH RESPONDS TO THE REPORTER: “Well, I told you what my position was. And it’s exactly what I said when I was in Crawford by the way, when Prime Minister Sharon was there, as well. I mean, when you say you’re going to accept the Road Map, you accept the Road Map. And part of the obligations of the Road Map is not the expansion of settlements."

On May 12, 2003 it was reported that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had rejected Israel's main road map requirement, a settlement freeze, as "impossible" due to the need for settlers to build new houses and start families. Ariel Sharon asked then US Secretary of State Colin Powell "What do you want, for a pregnant woman to have an abortion just because she is a settler?" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3020335.stm

From President GW Bush in his memoirs, " Decision Points"....
"The negotiations resolved some important issues, but it was clear that striking an agreement would require more involvement from the leaders. With my approval, Condi oversaw a separate channel of talks directly between Olmert and Abbas. The dialogue culminated in a secret proposal from Olmert to Abbas. His offer would have returned the vast majority of the territory in the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians, accepted the construction of a tunnel connecting the two Palestinian territories, allowed a limited number of Palestinian refugees return to Israel, established Jerusalem as a joint capital of both Israel and Palestine, and entrusted control of the holy cites to a panel of nonpolitical elders."
June 24, 2004: President GW Bush brags on Irish Radio:
" I'm the first American President to have called for the establishment of a Palestinian state, the first one to do so. Because I believe it is in the Palestinian people's interest; I believe it's in Israel's interest."
[later in the same interview...]
"I'm the first President to ever have called for a Palestinian state. That's, to me, sounds like a reasonable, balanced approach."
( even the lying anti semites at Al Jazeera say obama is the most pro-Israel president ever for which reason Obama and Abbas haven't spoken since February ( fact reported in NY Times here
Al Jazeerah pointed out correctly that while the Obama Admininstration is already telling world leaders he will apply sanctions on the PA if the UN declares Palestine a Member State, ironically 69% of Israeli's polled say thatIsrael should accept UN decisionif the UN votes on it since the UN is the one who voted for Israel in 1947.
" Joint J'lem-Ramallah survey questions Israelis ..."In the face of UN recognition of a Palestinian state, 69% of Israelis thought that Israel should accept the decision" Poll conducted by Hebrew University poll conducted jointly by the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem...."
The Israeli sample was made up of 605 adults interviewed by phone between September 11 and 14. The margin of error was 4 percentage points.
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=238855
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/09/201192410225144731.html
.............................................................................................................................

"[ Prime Minister Ehud Olmert] says that on August 31, 2008, three weeks before he resigned, he offered 100 percent of West Bank land (minus 6.8% in land swaps), 10,000 Palestinian refugees returning to Israel’s final borders, and the holy basin of Jerusalem’s Old City coming under joint Israeli-Palestinian-American- Jordanian-Saudi control..." Jerusalem POST http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=218340 * Special correspondent Samuel Sockol contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/31/AR2008033102375_pf.html"In Maale Adumim, a settlement due east of Jerusalem, there are long-standing plans to build homes for 3,500 families on an adjacent tract of land. But those plans are being blocked, in part because of pressure from Washington."U.S.Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday the plan to build 307 new housing units in Jerusalem's Har Homa neighborhood beyond the Green Line does not help the peace process. "I've made clear that we're in a time when the goal is to build maximum confidence between the parties, and this doesn't help to build confidence."
A furious Condoleezza Rice summoned Israeli Ambassador Danny Ayalon and Sharon’s chief of staff, Dov Weisglass, and rebuked them: I am telling you, if you do not end this siege [of Yasser Arafat’s om-pound] in Ramallah, if you don’t withdraw your forces from the compound, you are going to have a public rift with this president. This needs to end now. If you and I are having this same conversation a week from now, you are going to have a serious problem in this building, and you’re going to have a serious problem with me." [end quote Condi]*
[ * See also Douglas Feith, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the [Dawn of the War on Terrorism (HarperCollins, 2008), pp. 207-8, 511.
[ * George W. Bush, as quoted in Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 239.]
[Interview with Flynt Leverett, in Bregman, Elusive Peace , p. 241.]

* PRESIDENT GW Bush: "...The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967."

* U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas, and even UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon sharply castigated Israel, at the recent fund-raising extravaganza for the PA in Paris, for deigning to build Jewish housing in territory liberated in the 1967 Six Day War. "I've made clear that we're in a time when the goal is to build maximum confidence between the parties, and this doesn't help to build confidence."


Flashback: GW Bush demanded that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon withdraw his troops from Jenin in 2002 saying "Enough is enough!" It made headlines all over the world, as did his backing down when Sharon refused. What happened? Harsh criticism boomed from within his own party in Congress and from his father's old friends in the media. George Will associated Bush with Yasser Arafat and accused Bush of having lost his "moral clarity." (Washington Post, April 11, 2002.)
The next day, Safire suggested that Bush was "being pushed into a minefield of mistakes"and that he had "become a wavering ally as Israel fights for suvival." ( New York Times, April 12, 2002.)
Then this explosion was never to be heard of again, since the Republicans in Congress suppressed all further comment and obviously didnt use this to malign GW bush in perpetuity as they do with Obama-- Obama's comments that have been jumped on and maligned are never military action related.


GW Bush: “Neither party should undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudices the final status negotiations. On the Israeli side that includes ending settlement expansion and removing unauthorized outposts. On the Palestinian side that includes confronting terrorists and dismantling terrorist infrastructure…."


"In the face of deep skepticism from both sides, Mr. Bush expressed confidence that a final treaty would be signed during his last year in office."“I’m on a timetable,” he said when he met Mr. Abbas in Ramallah in the West Bank, only minutes after saying he would not impose timetables on the negotiators for both sides. “I’ve got 12 months left in office....on Bush, Obama, Israel and the '67 Borders and settlements in the Territories.}

Bush said further: "And I'm convinced they will. And I believe it's possible - not only possible, I 

believe it's going to happen - that there be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office [in January 2009]. That's what I believe."...on Bush, Obama, Israel and the '67 Borders and settlements in the Territories.}

Bush: January 10, 2008
"There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967," Mr Bush told reporters.
"Now is the time to make difficult choices. "

"The agreement must establish a Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people."

He added: "I am confident that with proper help the state of Palestine will emerge."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html


DEEP BACKGROUND

Let's go back to 2001: 

"August 27, 2001 an Israeli helicopter gunship fired two missiles through the window of the second floor office of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) in Ramallah, decapitating the faction's Secretary General, who was sitting at his desk."  "The IDF  claimed the strike was in response to the Sbarro pizzeria suicide bombing and shooting attacks for which the PFLP had claimed resposibility. " "The Israelis insisted Abu Ali Mustafa was personally resposible for directing the organization's terror operations."  Until Seotember, 11, 2001 US policy was opposed to political assassinations, and in Israel on August 27th Dan Kurtzer said to Ariel Sharon: " you know that Washington is going to criticize Israel for the targeted killing [of Mustafa]." [ Ahron Bregman interview with source ( name withheld).]  Subsequent to the warning the Bush Adminstration condemned the assassination, saying, " Israel needs to understand that targeted killings of Palestinians don't end violence, but are only inflaming an already volatile sitaution and making it much hardert orestroe calm" ( State Department spokesman Richard Boucher )
The Bush Adminstration even threatened to halt the supply of spare parts for the Apache helicopters Israel often used for the assassination. 
[ from article of Jane Perlez, "U.S. says killings by Israel inflame Middle East Conflict", New York Times, August 28, 2001] ( Imagine if Obama tried this policy of appeasement in August 2001 !)  Above is from Ahron Bregman "Elusive Peace" the material of which is a companion book to a 6 part BBC- PBS TV documentary.  He has written 3 other books on History of Israel and teaches at the Department of War Studies in King's College, London. He fought in the 1982 Lebanon War, became a parliamentary assistant at the Knesset, and completed his PHD in War Studies at King's College, London, 1994.  He was granted in depth interviews with all the major players for the BBC-PBS documentary.  

Latrun speech and Bush becoming first president to call for Palestinian state: page 162 Bregman

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/obama-has-kept-iran-threat-at-bay-and-u-s-republicans-know-it-1.395398

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mel-levine/obama-israel-policy_b_970638.html

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-06-05/news/fl-wexler-israel-outlook-0605-20110605_1_president-obama-palestinians-israeli-demand
JANUARY 5, 2008 NY TIMES PM Ehud Olmert said: "Israelis need to understand", Mr. Olmert went on, that the part of the world that is “friendly to Israel,” including the United States, “speaks of Israel in terms of the ’67 borders. It speaks of the division of Jerusalem.” from article " Nudged by Bush, Israel Talks of Removing Illegal Outposts" By STEVEN ERLANGER JERUSALEM —http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html ...on Bush, Obama, Israel and the '67 Borders and settlements in the Territories.}



October 2001 " Bush administration officials continually opposed Israeli actions in Operation Defensive Shield to reoccupy Gaza and the West Bank. Colin Powell urged the administration to intervene in the fighting and pressure Arafat to denounce terrorism and Sharon to withdraw from newly occupied territory. Before Powell departed, Bush told him: “Do you understand what you’re saying to the Israelis? You’re going to have to look Sharon in the eye and say, ‘Get Out.’” When Powell arrived in Israel, he and Sharon had a vehement argument, Powell demanding to visit Arafat and Sharon refusing. Sharon said to Powell: “Their world is an empire of lies —Arafat’s like Osama bin Laden. Why do you apply different standards to Arafat than to Bin Laden?” Powell replied: “No, it’s a different situation.” Finally. Sharon relented.
* Interview with Colin Powell, as quoted in Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 238, 163-4, 191-2, p. 196.

...on Bush, Obama, Israel and the '67 Borders and settlements in the Territories.}

2003: The "Road Map", authored by President GW Bush with the Quartet - without the Israeli's approval and including 14 Israeli Objections is nonetheless codified by GW Bush :
Road Map outline requirements regarding The Settlements. It is practically the only requirement the Road Map places on Israel. "Government Of Israel freezes all settlement activity including natural growth of settlements."
http://gwbushandobama.blogspot.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mel-levine/obama-israel-policy_b_970638.html
June 24, 2002: Bush outlines The Road Map publicly for the first time.
March 2003: Iraq War is begun
The United States refused to release the Road Map until a Palestinian prime minister was in place. Abbas was appointed on March 19, 2003, clearing the way for the release of the road map's details on April 30, 2003.
2003 Road Map main requirement -- even the only requirement of Israel- is regarding The Settlements: "Government Of Israel freezes all settlement activity including natural growth of settlements."
On May 12, 2003 it was reported that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had rejected Israel's main road map requirement, a settlement freeze, as "impossible" due to the need for settlers to build new houses and start families. Ariel Sharon asked then US Secretary of State Colin Powell "What do you want, for a pregnant woman to have an abortion just because she is a settler?" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3020335.stm
June 24, 2004: President GW Bush brags on Irish Radio:
" I'm the first American President to have called for the establishment of a Palestinian state, the first one to do so. Because I believe it is in the Palestinian people's interest; I believe it's in Israel's interest."
[later in the same interview...]
"I'm the first President to ever have called for a Palestinian state. That's, to me, sounds like a reasonable, balanced approach."
“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.” ---George Bush Speech in Greece, NY, May 2005
2004: President George W. Bush May 8, 2004 in an interview with Egyptian Newspaper Al Ahram: "Well, 2005 may be hard ( for the formal declaration of a Palestinian State) to create, since 2005 is right around the corner. I readily concede the date has slipped some, primarily because violence sprung up. When I laid out the date of 2005, I believe it was around the time I went to Aqaba, Jordan. It was a very meaningful moment, where former Prime Minister Abu Mazen, myself, Prime Minister Sharon and His Majesty, the King of Jordan, stood up and pledged to work together. But we hit a bump in the road -- violence, as well as Abu Mazen being replaced, which changed the dynamic. I don't want to make any excuses, but nevertheless, I think the timetable of 2005 isn't as realistic as it was two years ago. Nevertheless, I do think we ought to push hard as fast as possible to get a state in place."
[Ibid: Bregman interviews]

August 31, 2008

"... [ Prime Minister Ehud Olmert] says that on August 31, 2008, three weeks before he resigned, he offered 100 percent of West Bank land (minus 6.8% in land swaps), 10,000 Palestinian refugees returning to Israel’s final borders, and the holy basin of Jerusalem’s Old City coming under joint Israeli-Palestinian-American- Jordanian-Saudi control." http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=218340

January 10, 2008:

PRESIDENT GW Bush: "...The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people.... And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent.... "
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080110-3.html
Bush, Obama and the '67 borders and territories of Israel along with the settlements are the object of stagnant policy confirmed by Bush in the Road Map.
President GW Bush writes he brokered this final settlement offer to President Abbas: (from Bush's book Decision Points, published 2010 ) { ...Obama merely continues Bush policies on Israel and the '67 Borders and "Settlements" in the Territories.}GW Bush: “ Shortly after Annapolis [ Conference in November 2007 ] the two sides opened negotiations on a peace agreement with Ahmed Querei representing the Palestinians and Tzipi Livni representing the Israelis. Prime Minister Salam Fayyed an economist with a PHD from the University of Texas began carrying out long needed reforms in the Palestinian economy and security forces. We sent financial assistance and deployed a high ranking general to help train the Palestinian security forces. The day he left Downing Street Tony Blair accepted a post as special envoy to help the Palestinians to build the institutions of a democratic state. It wasn’t glamorous work but it was necessary. “ If I win the Nobel Peace Prize”, Tony joked, “you will know that I have failed” [ed;{{ ...Obama once again has just continued the Bush policies on Israel and the '67 Borders and "Settlements" in the Territories without the pressure of the Bush Era..}
GW Bush: "The negotiations resolved some important issues, but it was clear that striking an agreement would require more involvement from the leaders. With my approval, Condi oversaw a separate channel of talks directly between Olmert and Abbas. The dialogue culminated in a secret proposal from Olmert to Abbas. His offer would have returned the vast majority of the territory in the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians, accepted the construction of a tunnel connecting the two Palestinian territories, allowed a limited number of Palestinian refugees return to Israel, established Jerusalem as a joint capital of both Israel and Palestine, and entrusted control of the holy cites to a panel of nonpolitical elders."
GW Bush: " We devised a process to turn the private offer into a public agreement. Olmert would travel to Washington and deposit his proposal with me. Abbas would announce that the plan was in line with Palestinian interests. I would call the leaders together to finalize the deal.
"The development presented a realistic hope for peace, but once again, an outside event intervened. Olmert had been under investigation for his financial dealings when he was mayor of Jerusalem. By late summer his political opponents had enough ammunition to bring him down. He was forced to announce his resignation in September. Abbas didn’t want to make a deal with a pm on his way out of office. The talks broke off in the final weeks of my administration, after Israeli forces launched an offensive in Gaza in response to Hamas rocket attacks.
GW Bush "While I was disappointed that the Israelis and Palestinians couldn’t finalize an agreement, I was pleased with the progress we had made. 8 years earlier I had taken office during a raging intifada, with Yassir Arafat running the PA, Israeli leaders committed to a Greater Israel policy, and Arab nations complaining from the sidelines. By the time I left, the Palestinians had a president and prime minster that rejected terrorism. The Israelis had withdrawn from some settlements and supported a two state solution. And Arab nations were playing an active role in the peace process. The struggle in the Holy Land is no longer Palestinian versus Israeli, or Muslim versus Jew. It is between those who seek peace and extremists who promote terror. And there is consensus that democracy is the foundation on which to build just and lasting peace. Realizing this vision will require courageous leadership from both sides and the United States."[ed;, President GW Bush, Obama, Israel, the territories, and the settlements are all one policy.}
Malcolm Hoenlein, during Chanukah 2008 at the Jewish Center in Manhattan, NY:
" They're not giving away East Jerusalem" public statement of M. Hoenlein.
JANUARY 10, 2008, PRESIDENT GW Bush:

"Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides. While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous."

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.” ---George Bush Speech in Greece, NY, May 2005
JANUARY 5, 2008 Nudged by Bush, Israel Talks of Removing Illegal Outposts
By STEVEN ERLANGER JERUSALEM, NY Times Israel Correspondent:
"Pressed by President Bush to keep promises to destroy illegal settler outposts, Israeli leaders said Friday that they hoped to take action after his visit to the region next week.

"The awkward exchange through the news media exemplified the importance of Israel’s relationship to the United States and the way in which Washington can sometimes push it to take controversial steps that benefit the Palestinians, who have little diplomatic weight of their own.
"In a generally supportive interview with Israel’s largest newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, Mr. Bush praised the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, for honesty, but said he expected Israel to keep its promises to dismantle unauthorized outposts built after March 2001.
“The Israeli government has said that they’re going to get rid of unauthorized settlements, and that’s what we expect, that’s what we’ve been told,” Mr. Bush said. “We expect them to honor their commitments.”
"When Ariel Sharon was prime minister, he promised Mr. Bush that all Israeli outposts built after March 2001 would be dismantled before the next elections — a commitment that is also part of Israel’s obligations under the first stage of the 2003 “road map” for peace.
"Since the peace conference in November in Annapolis, Md., Mr. Olmert has said that Israel will not halt growth inside the built-up areas of existing settlements that Israel intends to keep in a final peace treaty.
That position has angered the Palestinians, and Mr. Olmert acknowledged in an interview published Friday in The Jerusalem Post that Israel was not fully meeting its commitments.
“I have announced that the state of Israel will not build new settlements AND WILL NOT CONFISCATE LAND FOR THIS PURPOSE, and I intend to keep the obligation,” Mr. Olmert said. But he conceded that settlement construction continued. “There is a certain contradiction in this between what we’re actually seeing and what we ourselves promised,” Mr. Olmert said.
"But Israelis need to understand", Mr. Olmert went on, 'that the part of the world that is “friendly to Israel,”' including the United States, “speaks of Israel in terms of the ’67 borders. It speaks of the division of Jerusalem.”


Special correspondent Samuel Sockol contributed to this report.
In trying to strike a balance, however, Olmert has won few friends. Palestinian leaders and international observers criticize Israel for allowing the construction to continue, despite an Israeli pledge in the 2003 "road map" to peace to halt all settlement activity.

Not every plan for settlement construction is gaining approval.

In Maale Adumim, a settlement due east of Jerusalem, there are long-standing plans to build homes for 3,500 families on an adjacent tract of land. But those plans are being blocked, in part because of pressure from Washington.


U.S.Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday the plan to build 307
new housing units in Jerusalem's Har Homa neighborhood beyond the Green Line
does not help the peace process.
"I've made clear that we're in a time when the goal is to build maximum
confidence between the parties, and this doesn't help to build confidence."

She spoke after meeting with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on the issue.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124701#.TkLEhGERrAE
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas, and even UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon sharply castigated Israel, at the recent fund-raising extravaganza for the PA in Paris, for deigning to build Jewish housing in territory liberated in the 1967 Six Day War.

President GW Bush January 2010 Swiss cheese isn’t going to work when it comes to the outline of a [ Palestinian] state,
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080110-3.html
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=4117884&page=1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-507328/Bush-I-peace-Palestine-year--Swiss-cheese-isnt-going-work.html
Israel drew rare criticism from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice soon after the Annapolis peace summit in November when Olmert's government authorized the extension of a controversial Jewish settlement known as Har Homa, built on confiscated Palestinian land near Bethlehem. Coming so soon after Annapolis, this also enraged the Palestinians. Meeting with Olmert on Dec. 27, Abbas warned that unless Israel froze building on the settlements, the Palestinians would break off peace talks.
More of President GW Bush’s January 10, 2008 speech:

PRESIDENT GW Bush: "...The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent.... "
"Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides. While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous. I believe we need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue…..
I reaffirm to each leader that implementation of any agreement is subject to implementation of the road map. Neither party should undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudices the final status negotiations. On the Israeli side that includes ending settlement expansion
and removing unauthorized outposts. On the Palestinian side that includes confronting terrorists and dismantling terrorist infrastructure….
I know Jerusalem is a tough issue. Both sides have deeply felt political and religious concerns. I fully understand that finding a solution to this issue will be one of the most difficult challenges on the road to peace, but that is the road we have chosen to walk….

The establishment of the state of Palestine is long overdue. The Palestinian people deserve it. And it will enhance the stability of the region, and it will contribute to the security of the people of Israel. The peace agreement should happen, and can happen, by the end of this year.
I know each leader shares that important goal, and I am committed to doing all I can to achieve it.”

from the NYTIMES.....
"At the same time, he emphasized that a new Palestine would have to be “viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent,” a stance somewhat at odds with Israeli desires to retain some security controls even after a treaty.
“Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides,” he said after spending the day traveling to the West Bank.
" Mr. Bush’s visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories, his first as president, reflected his deepening involvement in the kind of shuttle diplomacy he once scorned. And in his appearances here he displayed a new urgency for the process he set in motion at an international meeting in Annapolis, Md., in November.
"In the face of deep skepticism from both sides, Mr. Bush expressed confidence that a final treaty would be signed during his last year in office.
"“I’m on a timetable,” he said when he met Mr. Abbas in Ramallah in the West Bank, only minutes after saying he would not impose timetables on the negotiators for both sides. “I’ve got 12 months left in office.
"Mr. Bush’s choice of language was clearly intended to comfort both sides. He declared that it was time “to end the occupation that began in 1967,” when Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza in a war. While he has used the word “occupation” before, he does so rarely because of Israeli sensitivities.
He avoided a reference to the “borders of 1967,” a mantra of Palestinian and Arab leaders, by referring instead to the armistice lines of 1949. Still, the fundamental point, and one strongly held by Israelis, was that the line dividing Israel from a future state of Palestine would have to change from the current division between Israel and the occupied West Bank.
Appearing with Mr. Abbas in Ramallah, Mr. Bush also expressed strong support for a future state without pockets of Israeli settlements. “Swiss cheese isn’t going to work when it comes to the outline of a state,” Mr. Bush said.
He also delivered some of his strongest criticism of Israel yet when he responded to a question about what are widely viewed among Palestinians as efforts to undermine Mr. Abbas’s government and security forces.
The Israelis, Mr. Bush said, “ought to help, not hinder, the modernization of the Palestinian security force.” Mr. Bush also reiterated the requirement by both sides to abide by their agreements in the “road map,” including a halt to any Israeli expansion of settlements.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/world/middleeast/11prexy.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html
Bush said further: "And I'm convinced they will. And I believe it's possible - not only possible, I believe it's going to happen - that there be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office [in January 2009]. That's what I believe."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/bush-implores-government-ministers-to-keep-olmert-in-power-1.236915.
Now here is the offer President GW Bush brokered with Olmert and offered to Abbas:
"He [ Prime Minister Ehud Olmert] says that on August 31, 2008, three weeks before he resigned, he offered 100 percent of West Bank land (minus 6.8% in land swaps), 10,000 Palestinian refugees returning to Israel’s final borders, and the holy basin of Jerusalem’s Old City coming under joint Israeli-Palestinian-American- Jordanian-Saudi control"...
"He last met with Abbas on September 16 of that year – five days before he resigned, and more than six months before he left office – and Abbas did not respond or make a counteroffer." Negotiations: Vindicating Israel By GIL HOFFMAN 29 /04/ 2011 Jerusalem POST: "Palileaks," corroborate Israel’s narrative according to a US organization. Will this argument help Israel make its case en route to UN in Sept?") http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=218340
Article: Negotiations, Vindicating Israel By GIL HOFFMAN 29 /04/ 2011 Jerusalem POST: "Palileaks," corroborate Israel’s narrative according to a US organization. Will this argument help Israel make its case en route to UN in Sept?") http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=218340
President GW Bush secretly offers the Palestinians part of East Jerusalem:
Here is highlighted final offer President GW Bush brokered with Olmert and hand delivered to Abbas in January 2009.
GW Bush hand delivered a deal that would have internationalized part of East Jerusalem: Both GW Bush and Olmert attest to this:
"He [ Prime Minister Ehud Olmert] says that on August 31, 2008, three weeks before he resigned, he offered 100 percent of West Bank land (minus 6.8% in land swaps), 10,000 Palestinian refugees returning to Israel’s final borders, and the holy basin of Jerusalem’s Old City coming under joint Israeli-Palestinian-American- Jordanian-Saudi control. He last met with Abbas on September 16 of that year – five days before he resigned, and more than six months before he left office – and Abbas did not respond or make a counteroffer." Negotiations: Vindicating Israel By GIL HOFFMAN 29 /04/ 2011 Jerusalem POST: "Palileaks," corroborate Israel’s narrative according to a US organization. Will this argument help Israel make its case en route to UN in Sept?") http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=218340
Why weren't the Republicans and their allies screaming that GW threw Israel under the bus ?
Remember it was President GW Bush who initiated the Roadmap which plies Israel with this demand ( from the Road map): "Government Of Israel freezes all settlement activity including natural growth of settlements."
Bush at Annapolis in 2007 said:
“Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity on the West Bank” Bush said at the time. “This is the position of the United States today; it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.”
It was GW Bush who took pride in brokering the big peace offer:
Further quotes from the Bush Adminstration on the territories during negotiations:
( ed; note Bush's response includes reference to April 11, 2005 in Crawford TX. Bush did not have to mention Crawford-- but note that BUSH insists that there is not only NO change from the speech he just gave and what he told Sharon in Crawford. Bush is telling the world and Israel in unmistakable terms that nothing else prior to today that he has ever said may be interpreted as different than what was said today.
Condi Rice: Jerusalem Post January 8, 2008: "US entirely opposed to Har Homa" by Hilary Leila Krieger, Hern Keinon, and Khaled Abu Toameh, 08:39.
"Condi Rice, who was accompanying Bush en route to Israel overnight Tuesday, said that “the United States doesn’t make a distinction between settlement activity in east Jerusalem and the West Bank" and that "Israel’s Road Map obligations" which include a building freeze "relate to settlement activity generally.” Rice's comments underlined that the settlement issue will be high on the agenda of the talks between Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
  • Published 00:00 09.12.07
  • Latest update 01:30 09.12.07

Rice: Har Homa homes harm talks

U.S.Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday the plan to build 307 new housing units in Jerusalem's Har Homa neighborhood beyond the Green Line does not help the peace process.
"I've made clear that we're in a time when the goal is to build maximum confidence between the parties, and this doesn't help to build confidence." She spoke after meeting with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on the issue.
Haaretz reported Thursday that senior American diplomats had told senior Israeli officials that the administration sought clarifications on the plan to build the units at Har Homa. The project was made public at the beginning of the week.
Rice said she had brought up the matter with Livni in a phone call and at Brussels. "It is even more important now that we are really on the eve of the beginning" of negotiations, she said.
Government officials said there is no tension between Israel and the U.S. over Har Homa.
Livni said in a speech at NATO headquarters that Israel is ready to do its part in the road map, but expects the Palestinians to fight terror. She said only the two parties in the conflict can make decisions about their future.
Housing Minister Ze'ev Boim was critical of Rice's statements on Har Homa.
"Secretary Rice is to be praised for her part in getting the peace process restarted, but it is inconceivable that at every opportunity this will be tied to construction in Jerusalem," he said.
"The neighborhood of Har Homa is within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem to which Israeli law applies. Accordingly, there is no obstacle to building there as there is no obstacle to building anywhere else in Israel."
Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski, who is in a reelection campaign, said construction at Har Homa was not political, but would alleviate a housing shortage."
http://hftm.org/blog/?p=288

HAR HOMA- HERE WE GO AGAIN!

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/israel/har_homa_new_front_line
LIEBERMAN: RICE WRONG WITH HAR HOMA CRITICISM!
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was mistaken when she called upon Israel to reconsider its plan to build more than 300 housing units in Har Homa, Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski said on a tour of the outlying Jerusalem neighborhood on Wednesday.
Lieberman purposely visited Har Homa at the same time that the Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams launched the final-status peace talks. The visit was intended to send a message to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert not to give in on Har Homa, despite pressure from the United States and from the Palestinian negotiating team that protested the building plan during the talks.
“I have to correct the State Department,” Lieberman said. “They spoke about 300 housing units in Har Homa, but there are 3,000 on the way.”
Rice: Har Homa homes harm talks
By Barak Ravid and Jonathan Lis Last update - 01:30 09/12/2007
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/932400.html
U.S.Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday the plan to build 307
new housing units in Jerusalem's Har Homa neighborhood beyond the Green Line
does not help the peace process.
"I've made clear that we're in a time when the goal is to build maximum
confidence between the parties, and this doesn't help to build confidence."
She spoke after meeting with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on the issue.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124701#.TkLEhGERrAE
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas, and even UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon sharply castigated Israel, at the recent fund-raising extravaganza for the PA in Paris, for deigning to build Jewish housing in territory liberated in the 1967 Six Day War.
Jewish Week: title: Har Homa, the New Front Line- The New Front Line? Wednesday December 26, 2007 by Michele Chabin
"....Just after Israel’s Housing Ministry announced earlier this month that 300 more housing units were to be built in Matitya’s hilly neighborhood over the Green Line, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered a sharp condemnation. Israel’s announcement, which came just after the Annapolis summit, prompted Rice to say, "I made it clear we are in a time when the goal is to build maximum confidence with the parties. This [construction at Har Homa ] is not going to build that confidence." "Rice’s comments jolted many Har Homa residents. And it threw a spotlight on a quiet neighborhood — only a couple of miles from the trendy Jerusalem neighborhoods of Baka and Old Talpiot — most Israelis consider part of the country’s capital.
Rice’s remarks should be a warning sign to all other Israelis who live in other parts of Jerusalem, like Gilo, Ramat Eshkol, East Talpiot, that are over the Green Line," Matitya said, standing on his terrace. He was referring to just three of the many Jewish neighborhoods built in East Jerusalem since it was captured by Israel in 1967. French Hill, adjoining Mount Scopus, and Malcha, next to the popular Macha mall, are two others.
Matitya says he can envision a time when the American government might demand the dismantling of some Jewish East Jerusalem neighborhoods as part of a deal with the Palestinians.
"Officially, the U.S. government doesn’t recognize any east Jerusalem neighborhood as part of Jerusalem or Israel," he said. "If Condoleeza Rice decides to hand over Har Homa to the Palestinian Authority, it would be a hotbed for terrorists, just like Gaza since the Israeli withdrawal."
Were this to happen, Matitya said, "there could be shooting into places like Talpiot," a middle-class neighborhood in southern Jerusalem that served as the front line during the 1967 war. "What’s happening in Sderot, the constant bombardment, was unthinkable before the pullout from Gaza. Nothing is unthinkable in this part of the world."
Israeli officials responded to Rice by saying that Har Homa is "an integral part of Jerusalem," built within the city limits. (This week a Housing Ministry budget proposal for 2008 included 500 more apartments in Har Homa and 240 in Maale Adumim, the largest settlement in the West Bank.)
Still, Rice’s speech has many Israelis wondering whether the Bush administration intends to interfere with the expansion of Jewish neighborhoods beyond the Green Line to further the peace process.
Har Homa, which has a population of about 16,000 (2,400 families), is situated in southeast Jerusalem, sandwiched between the Arab municipalities of Beit Sahur and Umm Tuba, both in the West Bank and under Palestinian rule. Bethlehem is just down the road, behind a daunting roadblock.
Har Homa lies within the Jerusalem boundaries set by Israel in 1967, after it captured the West Bank from Jordan. In 1992, the Israeli government expropriated 1,850 dunams of uninhabited land that contained a forest. Seventy percent of this land belonged to Jews (including 25 percent purchased by the Jewish Agency in 1937) and 30 percent belonged to Arabs. The Israeli government says all landowners were compensated.
Rice Just ‘Making Noises’
Efraim Inbar, director of the Besa Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University, doesn’t think Rice’s Har Homa comments have any teeth.
"I think Rice was just making noises, probably after talking to the Palestinians, but I don’t’ think anything will change."
This is not the first time an American government has opposed construction at Har Homa, Inbar stresses.
"They also didn’t like it when Bibi [Netanyahu] built Har Homa, but realistically speaking, I think it will always be in Jewish hands. Israelis will not agree to relinquish Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem."
Rena Draiman, who with her husband, Arnie and children, plans to move into their still-under-construction four-bedroom apartment in Har Homa in a month or two, says she was dismayed by Rice’s comments.
"I thought, ‘Wait, I hope all this media attention won’t lead the Arabs living nearby to attack Har Homa the way they attacked Gilo during the intifada,’" Draiman, an architect, said. "But I’m very excited to be going to a place outside the ‘Baka Bubble,’ a sort of Upper West Side lifestyle. We love our neighborhood and wish we could afford to stay, but people who can afford to stay are in a different place from what we are economically."

The storms of violence cannot go on. Enough is enough.''

Bush: `Enough is enough'Powell ordered to Mideast in hopes of getting cease-fire

April 05, 2002|By Bob Kemper, Washington Bureau. Tribune news services contributed to this report.

FROM ARTICLE:
"WASHINGTON — President Bush on Thursday demanded that Israel begin withdrawing troops and tanks from Palestinian territories and said he would send Secretary of State Colin Powell to the violence-ravaged Middle East next week to negotiate a cease-fire.
Shifting course on the Middle East by stepping up U.S. involvement there, Bush called on Israel to halt the construction of settlements in Palestinian areas and to retreat to the boundaries established by the 1967 Mideast war....
"The storms of violence cannot go on. Enough is enough," Bush said in the Rose Garden, where, with Powell at his side, he denounced more than a week of almost daily suicide bombing against Israelis and aggressive military incursions against Palestinians...."Sharon avoided any direct public response to Bush's demands. But Sharon and other Israeli officials said they have no immediate intention of withdrawing troops and tanks, underscoring what may be the next point of tension between the U.S. and Israel.
"We have no illusions about the difficulty of the issues that lie ahead," Bush said. "[But] we know this is possible because in our lifetimes we have seen an end to conflicts that no one thought could end.
"America itself counts former adversaries as trusted friends--Germany and Japan and now Russia," Bush said. "Conflict is not inevitable. Distrust need not be permanent. Peace is possible when we break free of old patterns and habits of hatred."...
"With his strongly worded speech, Bush reasserted American leadership in the derailed negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority at a time when Arab and European nations charge that the American reluctance to get involved has allowed the violence to escalate."Bush also took measurable steps away from Israel's corner, demanding that Sharon pull back his forces a day after a chorus of critics, from the European Union to the Vatican, criticized Israel's military offensive. The Vatican called for an end to "unjust and humiliating conditions" for the Palestinians.
Bush's speech Thursday was the one U.S. allies and members of Congress have been pressing him to make for days. Not only did it demonstrate Bush's willingness to step up his involvement in the region, but it also appeared to place the U.S. closer to the position of neutral broker in the negotiations.
Mideast's global importance
"The world finds itself at a critical moment," Bush said. "This is a conflict that can widen or an opportunity we can seize."
"Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres welcomed Powell to the region, saying, "We heard positively the words of Bush about the need to stop the terror."...
"At the United Nations, Secretary General Kofi Annan joined in the praise of Bush's statements."The announcement today from the White House was encouraging," Annan said. "I have spoken to the secretary of state, and I am happy that the U.S. is becoming much more engaged."
"People were getting desperate," said Mohammed Benaissa, the foreign minister of Morocco. "We look forward to the United States' getting involved, because it is the country that carries weight.
"If America doesn't do it, nobody else can do it," he added. "Sending the secretary of state is a very strong signal."
A spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is to arrive at Bush's Texas ranch Friday, said, "We welcome this announcement and the lead that President Bush has taken.
"At Crawford, President Bush's Texas ranch, we will try to work out a way to get that political process restarted," the spokesman said.
In Washington, the Council on American-Islamic Relations hailed Bush's speech as "a clear departure from the administration's one-sided support for [Israel's] brutal and illegal policies."
Praise from Capitol Hill
Congressional leaders also trumpeted the president's new assertiveness and his decision to send Powell to the region.
"Strong U.S. leadership has always been essential to preventing and resolving conflict in this region and at this time our involvement in seeking a solution is critical," House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt said.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said, "President Bush is doing the right thing in getting more personally involved and outlining his vision for making political progress in the Middle East."
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) agreed that "the deteriorating situation demands American leadership."
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, one of Israel's leading lobbyists in Washington, was among the few voices urging caution, saying Israel could not be expected to withdraw its troops as long as it felt threatened.
"It is no more appropriate to place a time limit on Israel's acts of self-defense than on America's acts in its own defense," committee spokesman Josh Block said.
There is no timetable for Powell's trip to the region next week, which could follow previously scheduled trips to Spain and Germany. Powell is expected to visit Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.
Powell to meet others
Bush stopped short of saying Arafat should be pushed out of the negotiations, as Sharon wants, but a senior administration official said Powell will make a point of meeting with Palestinian officials other than Arafat during his visit.
Powell will be offering nothing that U.S. envoy Anthony Zinni has not already offered, administration officials said.
One official observed that Powell "can take it to a higher level of involvement as the secretary of the state and as the president's designee to do this."
Bush said his shift in policy was prompted by the escalating violence in the Middle East, the suicide bombings against Israel and the military response against Palestinians. The U.S. was close to striking a cease-fire deal a week ago, only to have it all fall apart when a suicide bomber attacked a Passover celebration, he said.
`Future is dying'
Bush mentioned an 18-year-old Palestinian woman who blew herself up in Israel, killing a 17-year-old Israeli girl.
"The future itself is dying," he said.
january 2008 
Inside the White House
This has been quite a week here in Israel. President Bush arrived in Israel around noon on Wednesday, Jan. 9, 2008 to a red-carpet welcome at Ben-Gurion International Airport by Israeli President Shimon Peres, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and many members of the Knesset.
He had separate meetings with both the President and Prime Minister later in the day at their official residences.
The next day, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas gave President Bush a red-carpet welcome to Ramallah. Interestingly, it was mostly sunny and in the high 50's for President Bush’s arrival in Jerusalem, but the next day's weather was much different for his welcome to Ramallah.
To start with, President Bush had requested that the lights in the Old City of Jerusalem be turned off before dawn so he could get a better view of the sun rising over its ancient walls.
As reported by Agence France-Presse, a municipal spokesman said on Tuesday that Bush had made a request to watch the sun rise over the Old City from his suite at the King David Hotel.
To make the scene more dramatic, the authorities decided to turn off the lights illuminating the limestone walls before dawn on Thursday and Friday, the spokesman told reporters.
But the President's desire was thwarted by very thick fog that kept the sun from shining over Jerusalem. (NOTE: President Bush did have a beautiful sunrise this morning — Friday — the day he is touring Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial and Capernaum).
Bush arrived in Ramallah to meet with Abbas and then held a joint press conference in a very cold meeting room. When the business was completed, we walked outside to a beautiful sunny day. Statement by the President on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process (At the King David Hotel, Jerusalem)
NOTE: This was an excerpt from President Bush's last official political statement prior to leaving Israel. The most important points are emphasized. I will further decipher this in my special report coming later.
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. I'd like to, first, thank Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas for their hospitality during my trip here to the Holy Land. We had very good meetings, and now is the time to make difficult choices.
I underscored to both Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas that progress needs to be made on four parallel tracks.

























































  • First, both sides need to fulfill their commitments under the road map.                                                                         


























































  • Second, the Palestinians need to build their economy and their political and security institutions. And to do that, they need the help of Israel, the region, and the international community.                           


























































  • Third, I reiterate my appreciation for the Arab League peace initiative, and I call upon the Arab countries to reach out to Israel, a step that is long overdue.                                                                                  


























































  • In addition to these three tracks, both sides are getting down to the business of negotiating. I called upon both leaders to make sure their teams negotiate seriously, starting right now. I strongly supported the decision of the two leaders to continue their regular summit meetings, because they are the ones who can, and must, and — I am convinced — will lead. I share with these two leaders the vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. Both of these leaders believe that the outcome is in the interest of their peoples and are determined to arrive at a negotiated solution to achieve it.
    The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear:




























































  • There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967.                             
  • The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent. It is vital that each side understands that satisfying the other's fundamental objectives is key to a successful agreement. Security for Israel and viability for the Palestinian state are in the mutual interests of both parties.
    Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides. While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 [this was corrected to 1967 shortly thereafter by Steve Hadley, Bush's National Security Advisor] to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous.                                              
  • I believe we need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue.                                  
  • I reaffirm to each leader that implementation of any agreement is subject to implementation of the road map.                                                                   
  • Neither party should undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudices the final status negotiations.                                                         


























































  • On the Israeli side, that includes ending settlement expansion and removing unauthorized outposts. On the Palestinian side, that includes confronting terrorists and dismantling terrorist infrastructure.  
  • I know Jerusalem is a tough issue. Both sides have deeply-felt political and religious concerns. I fully understand that finding a solution to this issue will be one of the most difficult challenges on the road to peace, but that is the road we have chosen to walk.
  • Security is fundamental. No agreement and no Palestinian state will be born of terror. I reaffirm America's steadfast commitment to Israel's security.


























































  • The establishment of the state of Palestinian is long overdue. The Palestinian people deserve it. And it will enhance the stability of the region, and it will contribute to the security of the people of Israel.  


























































  • The peace agreement should happen, and can happen, by the end of this year. I know each leader shares that important goal, and I am committed to doing all I can to achieve it."
  • Why is it that when a Republican President does this it is " Just making noise" but when a Democrat one is it is an attempt to sacrifice the State of Israel?
    Why weren't the Republicans and their allies screaming that GW threw Israel under the bus ?

    Article Title: "News Analysis: Bush Policy Pushes Israel Back to 1949 Armistice " Arutzsheva.com
    Link to this article: http://www.israelnati
    onalnews.com/News/news.aspx/82861

    Following is Arutz Sheva's exposure of Ariel Sharon's fraudulent statement regarding the meaning of the 2004 Bush letter as propaganda for his own Gaza pullout plan:

    "In light of the May 26th Bush-Abbas summit and the subsequent statements, Arutz Sheva presents the following analysis.....
    U.S. President George W. Bush’s statement welcoming PA leader Mahmoud Abbas into the White House Rose Garden on May 26, provided a highly transparent view of the administration’s policy toward Israel and an unsettling perspective on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s claims that Bush has agreed to allow Israel to retain large settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria.

    "The most unsettling, if not shocking remark by the president was a direct reference to the 1949 “Armistice lines” agreed to by Israel and Jordan at the end of the War of Independence. Those lines, the famous “Auschwitz borders” as they were called by the late Israeli Labor-party statesman Abba Eban, leaves Israel’s heavily populated coastal plain, just 9-11 miles from the border of what would be Palestine.

    "Not only are none of the major settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria, such as Ma’ale Adumim included in those borders, but neither are the Western Wall, the Old City of Jerusalem, the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Ramot, Gilo, Neve Yaakov, East Talpiot, Pisgat Ze’ev (to name a few), nor the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway (Route 1) as it crosses into the Latrun area.

    "Yet President Bush, standing next to the man whom he would like to become the first president of Palestine, told Abbas and the rest of the world, that the reference point for negotiating the future boundary between the two states was the 1949 lines, and that any change to that border “must be mutually agreed to” between Israel and the Arabs.

    [Arutz Sheva continues...:]
    "In other words, as far as Bush is concerned, Abbas must approve Israel's annexing the Western Wall or even part of the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem highway to the Jewish State. Conversely, without his agreement, those areas are slated to be part of an independent State of Palestine.

    "Where then, is the great quid-pro-quo for the Gaza withdrawal, the highly-touted and heavily-marketed Bush promises to Sharon that the U.S. recognizes the facts on the ground in Judea and Samaria, the settlement blocs that preclude a withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice lines?

    "According to Yoram Ettinger, a consultant on U.S. Israel relations and former liaison for Congressional affairs in the Israel Washington embassy, Bush’s April, 2004 letter supposedly guaranteeing U.S. support for retaining major settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria “was grossly misrepresented by the Prime Minister and his spokesman. Bush has not committed the United States to recognizing anything beyond the 1949 cease-fire lines. Bush doesn’t recognize any single settlement or blocs of settlements.”

    Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak concurs with this analysis of Bush’s view of the future border between Israel and a Palestinian state. In a recent interview for Haaretz, Barak said: "A campaign is under way here whose gist is to mislead the nation about substantive issues in order to prevent it from asking what the quid pro quo for the disengagement is. Sharon’s claim that he made painful decisions in Gaza and in return obtained an unprecedented achievement in Judea and Samaria is not correct…
    [ Barack continues:] "After all, it is obvious that the U.S. administration is against the Ariel-Kedumim bloc and against Ma’ale Adumim and is even against Efrat [locataed in the Gush Etzion bloc]…Sharon is not telling the people the truth. He is treating us all as though we are infantile and incapable of debating our own fate." [ end of Ehud Barack quote from haaretz article]

    [ arutz sheva continues its analysis: ]
    It is not surprising therefore, that Bush, instead of emphasizing the importance of Abbas fighting terror and keeping his obligations under the road map, focused mostly on Israel’s roadmap obligations, primarily to halt all settlement construction in Judea and Samaria and remove what he called, “unauthorized outposts.”

    George W. Bush is a president who means what he says. After mentioning the 1949 lines, Bush said the following: “A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.”

    Territorial contiguity in Judea and Samaria for a viable Palestinian State is not a prescription for accepting settlement blocs anywhere.

    It’s about time the Israeli public recognizes that the “Bush vision” as expressed repeatedly by the President and his Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, does not include any territory east of the 1949 lines. Rather, it holds the disengagement plan as the first phase of an ongoing process of Israeli withdrawals back to what the Labor party leader termed "the Auschwitz borders."
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/82861
    _________
    Regarding the 2004 Bush letter (sent in 2004 prior to the Gaza Withdrawal) Condi Rice- in 2009- described the letter as “the president’s acknowledgement that these changes have taken place and have to be accommodated. This president also said it needs to be mutually agreed [upon]. So the negotiation, the agreement itself, will finally resolve these issues, and we can stop having the discussion about what’s a settlement and what isn’t.”
    http://www.jpost.com



    President George W. Bush May 8, 2004 in an interview with Egyptian Newspaper Al Ahram: "Well, 2005 may be hard ( for the formal declaration of a Palestinian State) to create, since 2005 is right around the corner. I readily concede the date has slipped some, primarily because violence sprung up. When I laid out the date of 2005, I believe it was around the time I went to Aqaba, Jordan. It was a very meaningful moment, where former Prime Minister Abu Mazen, myself, Prime Minister Sharon and His Majesty, the King of Jordan, stood up and pledged to work together. But we hit a bump in the road -- violence, as well as Abu Mazen being replaced, which changed the dynamic. I don't want to make any excuses, but nevertheless, I think the timetable of 2005 isn't as realistic as it was two years ago. Nevertheless, I do think we ought to push hard as fast as possible to get a state in place.

    October 2001 " Bush administration officials continually opposed Israeli actions in Operation Defensive Shield to reoccupy Gaza and the West Bank. Colin Powell urged the administration to intervene in the fighting and pressure Arafat to denounce terrorism and Sharon to withdraw from newly occupied territory. Before Powell departed, Bush told him: “Do you understand what you’re saying to the Israelis? You’re going to have to look Sharon in the eye and say, ‘Get Out.’” When Powell arrived in Israel, he and Sharon had a vehement argument, Powell demanding to visit Arafat and Sharon refusing. Sharon said to Powell: “Their world is an empire of lies —Arafat’s like Osama bin Laden. Why do you apply different standards to Arafat than to Bin Laden?” Powell replied: “No, it’s a different situation.” Finally. Sharon relented.

    There followed an emotionally fraught meeting with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at Bush’s Crawford ranch on April 25, 2002.
    Abdullah threatened to walk out on the spot if Bush did not pledge to rein in Sharon by making him end the siege of Arafat’s compound and of the Palestinian militants who seized the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Bush acceded to his demand. Sharon thereafter acquiesced to Powell and Rice’s pressure to lift the siege on Arafat’s compound. A further crisis emerged when Israeli commandos razed and stormed the muqata
    in September 2002 after a serious of suicide bombings. Bush and Powell were again furious. As Powell later explained, “Every time we put Arafat in his place and started to move him to the sidelines, [Sharon would do something and] suddenly Arafat is right back in the centre of everything,…and rather than isolating him, [Sharon would] just bring him right into the game.” Furthermore, this came just days after George W. Bush had addressed the UN General Assembly, making the case for both war against Saddam Hussein and in favor of a Palestinian state: “America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices.” A Palestinian state was central,he enunciated, to his plans for Iraq.[ he linked them].

    Above from....
    * Interview with Colin Powell, as quoted in Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 238.
    * President Bush’s address to the United Nations, September 12, 2002, http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/bush.transcript/.
    * Bregman, Elusive Peace, pp. 163-4, Interview with Colin Powell, as quoted in Bregman, pp. 191-2, Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 196.]

    Israel’s behavior, thus, was obstructing Bush’s war planning. Flynt Leverett, senior director of the National Security Council at the time, relates that in a Situation Room meeting, Bush said the raid “really calls into question Sharon’s commitment to a peaceful resolution of this
    conflict.” A furious Condoleezza Rice summoned Israeli Ambassador Danny Ayalon and Sharon’s chief of staff, Dov Weisglass, and rebuked them: …I am telling you, if you do not end this siege [of Yasser Arafat’s om-pound] in Ramallah, if you don’t withdraw your forces from the compound, you are going to have a public rift with this president. This
    needs to end now. If you and I are having this same conversation a week from now, you are going to have a serious problem in this building, and you’re going to have a serious problem with me." [end quote Condi]*

    As time passed, indeed, Arafat failed to stop the attacks. This, not the backing of Sharon, motivated Bush’s decision to cut off ties with the Palestinian Authority.*
    [ * See also Douglas Feith, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the [Dawn of the War on Terrorism (HarperCollins, 2008), pp. 207-8, 511.
    [ * George W. Bush, as quoted in Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 239.]
    [Interview with Flynt Leverett, in Bregman, Elusive Peace , p. 241.]

    "Yet, with Arafat sidelined, the Bush-Sharon relationship persisted with the same friction as before. At the Sharm el-Sheikh summit of 2004, when Bush met with Israeli leaders and Palestinian leadership minus Arafat, Bush argued angrily with Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz. When
    Mohammad Dahlan called for Israeli help for the Palestinian security forces, Mofaz balked, at which point Bush shot him down:
    “Their own security service? But you have destroyed their security service.” Bush looked at Sharon and asked: “Who are these?” Sharon replied, “My ministers.” Bush retorted: “No, I mean what do they
    represent?” Sharon answered, “These are my doves,” to which Bush shot back: “Your doves! My God, if these are your doves, God preserve us from your hawks!” After that meeting, Bush turned to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and said, “We have a problem with Sharon, I can see, but I like that young man [Dahlan], and I think their prime minister [Mahmoud Abbas] is incapable of lying. I hope that they will be successful. We can work with them.” *
    [Interview with Yasser Abed Rabbo, as quoted in Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 258. ]
    [Akiva Eldar, “People and Politics: Bush Likes Dahlan, Believes Abbas, and Has ‘a Problem with Sharon,’”]

    ____________________________Following are the Road Map Written Demands of President GW Bush and VP Dick Cheney- authored by the two - in the 2003 Road Map- forced on Israel DURING the Intifada.... This is the first administration in history to request, not to mention make official U.S. policy....and do so in conjunction with Arab governments, a demand not to add a house or a yard next to another in the West Bank villages of EVEN East Jerusalem, Maale Adumim, Givat Zeev, Har Adar, and Betar Ilit.
    ( direct wordage from Road Map follows....)

    "Settlements.
    • " Government Of Israel immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001.
    "Government Of Israel freezes all settlement activity including natural growth of settlements." (end quote )

    For the first time since 1967 an American President created, as official American Policy, the demand for Israel to not engage in settlement expansion ....EVEN NATURAL GROWTH. Less importantly, with no Soviet Union around, the Bush /Cheney administration for their entire 8 years, continued the American government's refusal to recognize even The Jewish Quarter of East Jerusalem of equal status to the rest of Israel. Bush /Cheney refused to even move the American embassy to WEST Jerusalem.

    May 27, 2003, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon says to the press: "I think the idea that it is possible to continue keeping 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation–yes it is occupation, you might not like the word, but what is happening is occupation–is bad for Israel, and bad for the Palestinians, and bad for the Israeli economy. Controlling 3.5 million Palestinians cannot go on forever. You want to remain in Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah and Bethlehem?"

    When Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was assassinated by Israel The Bush Administration said it was "deeply troubled" by the attack on Sheikh Yassin saying "it's essential that all the parties exercise maximum restraint." Yassin was responsible for sending Arab Palestinian suicide bombers to murder hundreds of Jews and was directly responsible for the deaths of 38 of the 51 Americans murdered by Palestinians since the 1993. The attacks Yassin gave license to began in the Fall of 2001. Hamas carried out 425 terrorist attacks, resulting in the deaths of 377 innocent people and the injuring of more than 2000 others by the time of Yassins death. Fifty-two of these were suicide-homicide bombings, murdering 288 people. The American Administration should be thanking the IDF for avenging those deaths of Americans rather than telling them to use restraint.


    June 6, 2004 Ariel Sharon Adopts policy of Withdrawal from Gaza aware of direction the Bush Administration has been rushing toward EVEN DURING the intifada and resulting in an indefinite natural delay of a final agreement that would include a Palestinian State in the West Bank in a final agreement which is discussed and referred to as Bush's intended FAST TRACK 2005 target date.


    In the aftermath of the Gaza Withdrawl, President GW Bush at Annapolis November 2008, as 10,000 rockets are falling onto Southern Israel, Bush and Cheney make their pronouncements of American foreign policy 15 months prior to leaving office : ( from the transcript...)
    "They [ Israel ] must show the world that they are ready to begin —
    [ Israel must ] bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement. This settlement will establish Palestine as a Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. Israel must demonstrate its support for the creation of a prosperous and successful Palestinian state by removing unauthorized outposts, ending settlement expansion and finding other ways for the Palestinian Authority to exercise its responsibilities without compromising Israel’s security." publicly delivered words of President GW Bush at Annappolis.
    ( end quote)

    ( not covered by the media....... )
    Throughout their tenure, Pres. GW and Cheney, the most rhetorically pro- Israel presidency in American history, rejected sending bunker busters to Israel or allowing Israel to attack Iran. Malcolm Hoenlein publicly reveals more.....that at the White House Hanukah party in 2008, Pres. GW completely rebuffed MH during MH's request to discuss allowing Israel to rid the world of Iranian nukes, and helping Israel get what it requests for a future attack on Iran. He also revealed that he asked again about commuting Pollard's sentence and the president wouldnt even discuss it- the president bush completely brushed him off. He didnt even offer to shorten the sentence ( this was all publicly communicated 24 hours after the White House Hanukah party-- by M.H. himself at a lecture at the Jewish Center in Manhattan in front of over 100 people in the audience.)


    November 2006 Glen Beck quotes Condoleeza Rice while commenting to her about Amidinajad.
    Beck says, " I talked to Condoleeza Rice and I asked her, 'this is nuts stuff- this Doomsday- this apocalyptic view - he is clearly saying it". And she said to me that 'we need to take him at his word but watch his actions, not necessarily all of his words'.
    Netanyahu responds later in interview with Beck: " The most important thing to do is to make sure Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons, so this is what President Bush has pledged to do and I think we should support him and see that this pledge is seen through."
    http://www.youtube.c
    om/watch?v=FybNMFCCBx4&feature=related

    From 2001 to 2009 Pres GW Bush and Cheney allows Iran to procure and produce nuclear technology and imposes no sanctions. Congressmen Cantor, Mccain, Boehner,Graham, Lieberman, and Administration officials Cheney and Rice don't break with the President over Bush's anti-Israeli positons, despite the U.S. friendship with Israel.
    Above from....
    * Interview with Colin Powell, as quoted in Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 238.
    * President Bush’s address to the United Nations, September 12, 2002, http://archives.cnn.
    com/2002/US/09/12/bush.transcript/.
    * Bregman, Elusive Peace, pp. 163-4, Interview with Colin Powell, as quoted in Bregman, pp. 191-2, Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 196.]

    As time passed, indeed, Arafat failed to stop the attacks. This, not the backing of Sharon, motivated Bush’s decision to cut off ties with the Palestinian Authority.*
    [ * See also Douglas Feith, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the [Dawn of the War on Terrorism (HarperCollins, 2008), pp. 207-8, 511.
    [ * George W. Bush, as quoted in Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 239.]
    [Interview with Flynt Leverett, in Bregman, Elusive Peace , p. 241.]

    "Yet, with Arafat sidelined, the Bush-Sharon relationship persisted with the same friction as before. At the Sharm el-Sheikh summit of 2004, when Bush met with Israeli leaders and Palestinian leadership minus Arafat, Bush argued angrily with Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz. When
    Mohammad Dahlan called for Israeli help for the Palestinian security forces, Mofaz balked, at which point Bush shot him down:
    “Their own security service? But you have destroyed their security service.” Bush looked at Sharon and asked: “Who are these?” Sharon replied, “My ministers.” Bush retorted: “No, I mean what do they
    represent?” Sharon answered, “These are my doves,” to which Bush shot back: “Your doves! My God, if these are your doves, God preserve us from your hawks!” After that meeting, Bush turned to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and said, “We have a problem with Sharon, I can see, but I like that young man [Dahlan], and I think their prime minister [Mahmoud Abbas] is incapable of lying. I hope that they will be successful. We can work with them.” *
    [Interview with Yasser Abed Rabbo, as quoted in Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 258. ]
    [Akiva Eldar, “People and Politics: Bush Likes Dahlan, Believes Abbas, and Has ‘a Problem with Sharon,’”]

    President GW Bush waits for appointment of a Palestinian Prime Minister on March 19, 2003 after which on April 30, 2003 he proceeds to release the details of the Road Map he authored. Road Map calls for a Palestinian State by 2005 and no growth of settlements- not even natural growth in a settlement that would surely be retained by Israel in any final status agreement. There were dozens of contested parts of the Road Map not the least of which was the ban on natural growth. All the while, Arafat is still alive.
    * i.e. This withdrawal by Sharon served as a total interruption of Bush's stated drive to pressure for resumed negotiations to result in a one year final status agreement of 2 states--
    Chronolgy from 2005 and onward:
    Terror spikes in Gaza. Further interrupts Bush's calls for final agreement.

    January 4, 2006 Ehud Olmert becomes prime minister as Sharon takes ill. Further interrupts Bush's pressure for final agreement.

    January 25, 2006- Hamas wins elections. Further interrupts Bush's pressure for final agreement.

    Summer 2006- Lebanon War. Further interrupts Bush's pressure for final agreement.
    NY TIMES November 19, 2007 NEWS ANALYSIS; With Issues Unsettled, U.S. Pushes for Full Turnout at Conference on Middle East
    By STEVEN ERLANGER, NY Times Israel Correspondent

    "By pushing Israel to accept immediate negotiations with the Palestinians on the thorny ''final status'' issues, with the aim to conclude a peace settlement within a year, the Bush administration is trying to attract a significant Arab presence at the peace conference in Annapolis, Md.

    "The meeting in Annapolis, now penciled in to start Nov. 26 and last less than 24 hours, is meant to begin -- and bless -- negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders on a final peace agreement between them, ostensibly to be completed by the end of the Bush presidency.

    "The all-out push essentially speeds to the end of the now dormant 2003 ''road map'' for peace by insisting that the big issues once relegated to later discussion, like the status of Jerusalem and the return of Palestinian refugees, be addressed immediately, EVEN BEFORE THE PALESTINIANS BEGIN TO DISMANTLE TERRORIST GROUPS AND NETWORKS.

    "Simultaneously, the Americans will push both sides to carry out their obligations as laid out in the first stage of the road map, involving complex security and settlement issues, American and Israeli officials say. To press for action, which would involve painful decisions on both sides, the Americans will choose a senior official with a background in security to monitor progress. In the words of a senior American diplomat, ''We'll be assiduously fair, and very tough, and if necessary we will be public,'' so that failure will have consequences.

    "The new American mantra is that only with parallel efforts to negotiate a peace will the Palestinians make serious efforts to build state institutions and crack down on terrorism, and the Israelis stop settlement growth and dismantle illegal settlement outposts.

    "As a senior official put it, ''We had to break this tyranny of the first stage of the road map before talking of final status'' so that the year of negotiations will give the two parties the incentive and the time to prove to each other that they can end up as peaceful neighbors. Israel wants to be sure that if it withdraws from the West Bank there will be a reliable Palestinian security force to stop aggression and terrorism, and that a Hamas-run Gaza will not be replicated on the West Bank.

    "The first stage of the road map is detailed and difficult, and there are already fierce arguments about what those written commitments actually entail.

    "For example, what does it really mean for the Palestinians to ''undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere,'' especially when Hamas runs Gaza?

    "Similarly, what does it really mean that Israel ''freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).'' Does that mean an absolutely flat population rate, and how can that be done without banning marriages and births?

    "The Israelis are also worried that even if they can negotiate a final settlement -- which will be put on a shelf while it is carried out over a number of years -- a change in Palestinian leadership or a victory of Hamas could mean that efforts to carry it out stop and that even such a ''final'' agreement becomes just another starting point for Palestinian demands.

    Still, the question for now is the level of Arab participation. The whole idea of Annapolis is to give the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, Arab encouragement and support for his effort to negotiate a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem. That is likely to mean a significant and volatile concession on the right of return of Palestinian refugees and their families to their pre-1948 homes -- also a crucial issue for neighboring Arab states with large Palestinian populations.

    ____________________________________________
    ANUARY 5, 2008
    Nudged by Bush, Israel Talks of Removing Illegal Outposts
    By STEVEN ERLANGER

    JERUSALEM — Pressed by President Bush to keep promises to destroy illegal settler outposts, Israeli leaders said Friday that they hoped to take action after his visit to the region next week.

    The awkward exchange through the news media exemplified the importance of Israel’s relationship to the United States and the way in which Washington can sometimes push it to take controversial steps that benefit the Palestinians, who have little diplomatic weight of their own.

    "In a generally supportive interview with Israel’s largest newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, Mr. Bush praised the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, for honesty, but said he expected Israel to keep its promises to dismantle unauthorized outposts built after March 2001.

    “The Israeli government has said that they’re going to get rid of unauthorized settlements, and that’s what we expect, that’s what we’ve been told,” Mr. Bush said. “We expect them to honor their commitments.”

    "When Ariel Sharon was prime minister, he promised Mr. Bush that all Israeli outposts built after March 2001 would be dismantled before the next elections — a commitment that is also part of Israel’s obligations under the first stage of the 2003 “road map” for peace.

    "Since the peace conference in November in Annapolis, Md., Mr. Olmert has said that Israel will not halt growth inside the built-up areas of existing settlements that Israel intends to keep in a final peace treaty.

    That position has angered the Palestinians, and Mr. Olmert acknowledged in an interview published Friday in The Jerusalem Post that Israel was not fully meeting its commitments.

    “I have announced that the state of Israel will not build new settlements AND WILL NOT CONFISCATE LAND FOR THIS PURPOSE, and I intend to keep the obligation,” Mr. Olmert said. But he conceded that settlement construction continued. “There is a certain contradiction in this between what we’re actually seeing and what we ourselves promised,” Mr. Olmert said.

    But Israelis need to understand, Mr. Olmert went on, that the part of the world that is “friendly to Israel,” including the United States, “speaks of Israel in terms of the ’67 borders. It speaks of the division of Jerusalem.”
    ___________________________________________________________________

    Mutual Dismay Over Jewish Settlements
    Israeli Premier Seeks To Balance Growth
    by Griff Witte Washington Post Foreign Service
    Tuesday, April 1, 2008 Washington Post JERUSALEM,
    March 31 2008 -- Israel said Monday that it would build hundreds of new homes on occupied land it considers part of Jerusalem, just hours after U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrapped up a three-day visit to the region by saying the peace process is "moving in the right direction."

    The announcement of the new construction, the latest in a series of similar projects advanced by Israel in recent months, was likely to anger Palestinians. The issue also elicited criticism from Rice, who called on Israel to stop building in contested territory even before Monday's announcement.

    "Settlement activity should stop -- expansion should stop," Rice said at a news conference after meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

    Rice was on her second trip to the region this month. In recent days, she met with top leaders, trying to build momentum in negotiations that thus far have yielded little public progress. President Bush has said he wants to have a "signed peace treaty" by the time he leaves office next January.

    After prodding by Rice, Israel said on Sunday it would remove 50 roadblocks out of nearly 600 in the West Bank that inhibit the movement of people and goods in the name of safeguarding Israelis from Palestinian attack.

    Settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has been a persistent flash point in Israel's negotiations with the Palestinians, who claim the territory for their future state and want East Jerusalem as their capital.

    Special correspondent Samuel Sockol contributed to this report.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con
    tent/article/2008/0331/AR2008033102375_





    pf.html

    In trying to strike a balance, however, Olmert has won few friends. Palestinian leaders and international observers criticize Israel for allowing the construction to continue, despite an Israeli pledge in the 2003 "road map" to peace to halt all settlement activity.

    Not every plan for settlement construction is gaining approval.

    In Maale Adumim, a settlement due east of Jerusalem, there are long-standing plans to build homes for 3,500 families on an adjacent tract of land. But those plans are being blocked, in part because of pressure from Washington.

    The concern, according to Hagit Ofran, settlement expert for the Israeli advocacy group Peace Now, is that the development would "isolate East Jerusalem and cut the northern West Bank from the southern West Bank."

    The settlement's mayor, Benny Kashriel, rejects that view and blames the United States for forcing Olmert to halt construction on land that has already been apportioned to Israel under several proposed peace deals. "Condoleezza Rice is now the prime minister. She is determining what's good for Israel," Kashriel said.
    Lee Smith, a senior editor at The Weekly Standard, a premiere conservative magazine, wrote an article entitled Blowback posted at Tablet Magazine here Blowback http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/72090/blowback/Lee Smith article is similar in content to the articles of numerous writers peddling lies found elsewhere in the public discourse, the same pack of lies communicated by every Republican running for the primary in 2012 as well as the Republicans in Congress, and pundits like Charles Krauthhammer, Tevi Troy, Jennifer Rubin, Elliot Abrams, and non Republicans like Ed Koch. There are numerous articles in the media with this slant and they are all non-fact based rhetoric and lies regarding Obama's Israel policy differing from Bush's policies...yet t the time, the latter were silent in criticism.
    Mitt Romney said, " President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus", Majority leader Eric Cantor said, " This approach undermines our special relationship with Israel and weakens our ally's ability to defend itself. The President's habit of drawing moral equivalence between the actions of the Palestinians and the Israelis while assessing blame blame for the conflict, is in itself harmful to the prospect for peace....
    By keeping the burden and thus the spotlight on Israel, the President is only giving the Palestinian Authority more incentive to carry on its unhelpful game of sidestepping negotiations and failing to put an end to terrorism. Creating another Palestinian terror state on Israel’s borders is something that none of us want. The White House referred to today’s speech as a ‘Moment of Opportunity,’ and I’m disappointed that the President’s remarks missed both the moment and the opportunity.” Mike Huckabee said, " President Obama has betrayed Israel", Newt Gingrich " has called President Obama’s speech Thursday and stand on Israeli border solution “disastrous.” “No president prior to this has suggested the 1967 borders ought to be the negotiating position,” Gingrich said. “Because in essence what he has done is he has given the Palestinians a huge break without them having to give up anything.” "A president who can't control his own borders shouldn't be dictating to Israel on their borders," Gingrich told about 100 people at a luncheon hosted by the Great Plains Chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition. "For him to give away the Israeli negotiating position without getting anything back, I believe is extraordinarily dangerous." "It's, in effect, asking them to commit suicide," the Gingrich told reporters at Eldon's restaurant. http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/a1/article_72792d6f-8302-5d0b-9b49-a8b943c8a5ad.html. http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/05/20/gingrich-on-obamas-israeli-speech-disastrous/The above sample of comments are fantasies. The result is the media's failure to do its most minimal job: reporting statements of fact that are correct. Even previous Obama supporters like Mort Zuckerman are lying in print ( Zuckerman wrote the article at the following link and the lies in that article starting in the first paragraph- http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2011/06/03/obama-undermines-prospects-for-middle-east-peace). Due to the sloppiness and/or laziness of fact checkers in much of the media, or what poses as it, this Lee Smith article, as so many others of its kind, are a fraud. When words mean nothing alarm bells should scream out to us. Smith and the others above have spoken some of the worst sorts of lies possible: statements of fact that are false. If a writer can’t be trusted, on account of deceit or ignorance, to report correct statements of fact, then the writer must not be published. The red line that should be part of any organization is that it not publish statements of fact that are false.
    One exception; it is true that Republican Congressmen rebuked Obama with red herrings and paper tigers. The list of liars are numerous, as are the institutions that synthesize and report these stories. This results in hysterical reactions- in contrast to the lack of hysteria after GW Bush's same statements of policy as well as Powell's and Rice's same statements of policy and diplomatic confrontations which indeed were either not reported, suppressed, or spun completely differently and without the accompanying hysteria that resulted when Obama reiterated and often nearly plagiarized GW's policy statements. The Republicans and their allies nodded off when Bush advocated the same things while in office. When Bush engaged in this behavior it was deemed innocent and not to be fight picking with Israel- on the contrary, the behavior was deemed to be the result of the Bush Administration's beliefs in what serves the American interest- and/or Bush's statements, policies, and diplomatic pressure was written off as political posturing or at least something not to be given much thought to.

    How did these consistently reported lies stick?
    Who is responsible for the hysterical fantasies about the differences between Bush and Obama policy and the suppression of Bush's policies?
    The answer isn't a conspiratorial based one, because the participants are doing it right in front of us. Aren't the responsible parties the ones who engage in the communications and actions that brings on the hysteria? Well it isn't a secret who they are: The Republicans, the Jewish Republican Coalition, and their allies like Malcolm Hoenlein charging Obama with being 1-anti Israel, 2-throwing Israel under the bus, and 3- attempting to create a final settlement that will be different than the one that Bush and Olmert offered, or insinuating that there is a concrete difference between GW and Obama. You don't hear Malcolm Hoenlein saying it, as he sends out tailored stories in his daily emails, while having suppressed anti-BUSH story coverage from 2001 to 2008. Hoenlein's daily emails are archived on the site ( president's conference site ) which holds the content of the daily emails. The Republicans and their supporters, along with eccentric personaities noted above, spin propaganda that is handled dutifully by the liberal establishment media as well as the conservative media ( and the Jewish community media ), as they report (a) the Republicans' false statements of fact and (b) the sensationalizing of irrelevant statements of fact ( relying on partial context of the stories, of course.) Of course the vast majority of the liberal media report the sensationalized Republican politicians' statements on the matter without criticism of the falsity of the statements. Other liberal media dutifully present the story as one with two sides- both valid. Of course the liberal media does not take on the activist positions of the Republican Party even as conservative activist media outlets like Fox News do report the lies as though the lies are true without expressing another side at all ( in many circumstances).An example: they fail to tell their audiences that all of Obama's policies came from GW Bush or even prior to GW Bush. (When Obama ran for president, ludicrous lies were propagandized by the Republicans and the Jewish Republican Coalition. The JRC web site was filled with the crude type of propaganda about Obama the likes of which you see on Palestinian and Arab web sites about Israel. Although distinguished gentlemen like, for example, Malcolm Hoenlein, did not take part in the anti Obama pre-election propaganda ( as far as we are aware), he did not publicly excoriate the lying ( as did, for instance, Michael Bloomberg)... and now, after Obama is President, Malcolm Hoenline's Daily Report on Israel reports nearly every story about the Territories and the peace process in a way that blames OR CRITICIZES Obama one way or the other WHILE FOR 8 YEARS HIS DAILY REPORT UNDER-REPORTED and SANITIZED THE SAME GW BUSH'S POLICIES THAT OBAMA IS NOW ALSO ATTEMPTING TO IMPLEMENT.

    This of course doesn't take away from Hoenlein being one of truly great activists
    for the Jewish People; however we still do not hear from him a protest to these lies despite the great friendship Obama has concretely shown to Israel ( regardless of how we feel about U.S. Israel policy Obama must be regarded on the same level as GW, and higher than Reagan, HW, and Nixon (and Kissinger) with regard to Israel policy ( see comments on Reagan and HW below).
    If we are to remain consistent in light of the Republican attitude about GW and his Israel policies then Obama is right there standing beside GW Bush.
    GW Bush received an absolute pass from the Republicans, the JRC, and Malcolm Hoenlein throughout his two adminstrations. The main result of Hoenlein's silence and the JRC's propaganda is that Obama loses votes in 2012, while the aforementioned do not accomplish any POSITIVE result FOR ISRAEL because there is no other outcome that can result from lying that Obama is different than GW which could positively impact Israel. So the propaganda BENEFITS Republicans only, regardless of whichever non republicans peddle the same lies. The propaganda is in front of our eyes- it isn't hidden. We need to call people out on the carpet when they are communicating statements of facts to the Jewish People that are indeed false, and we must point out what the real results of the propaganda are.

    Despite the Road Map created by GW, Despite the invitations to the Quartet to help create the Road Map, Despite the Rose Garden Speech, Despite the pressure leading to the Gaza Withdrawal, Despite Annapolis, Despite all the public insistence by Bush and Powell and Condi Rice for full stoppage of all natural growth, Despite the Bush brokered peace offer ( details below), all conducted in an 8 year period during which unprecedented murdering of Jews by terrorists ( the highest figure since 1948 excluding war casualties), Despite Bush interfering in the security of Israel by publicly rebuking Sharon for surrounding Arafat's enclave- and signaling to the world that he would not let Sharon kill or deport or jail Arafat, Despite Bush publicly rebuking Israel for bombing terrorist apartment buildings when the bombs caused higher collateral damage than "normally" acceptable, Despite Bush not commuting Pollard's sentence for a criminal conviction that typically gets 4 years in prison, despite not making Pollard's conditions a minimum security prison with more comfort due to the painful illnesses he is now suffering from, Despite refusing Israel bunker busters EVEN after the U.S. NIE was refuted by the U.S. herself, Despite GW refusing an Air attack on Iranian nuclear sites early on or later on, Despite GW not bringing about sanctions as Obama did in under 2 years... nonetheless GW Bush walks away popularly called the greatest U.S. President Israel ever dealt with, while Obama ( who never brokered any deal and never suggested any land giveaway or military withdrawal that wasn't already publicly a GW Bush position) goes on to be characterized as the most hateful, antagonistic, fight picking, and confrontational U.S. President with whom Israel ever dealt. His behavior is defined as being the opposite of a friend.
    Back to Lee Smith: Firstly, Obama never said anything even remotely like the above Smith statement. He never asked Israel to return to the 1967 borders prior to, during, or upon completion of the negotiations! Obama's speech indicates the opposite to be the case. Furthermore Obama never picked a fight with Israel the likes of which had not been already picked by GW. And since GW Bush was the greatest U.S. president Israel ever had ( right ?? ) then it Obama is tied for first place.
    Where are the differences in todays U.S. Israel PA landscape?
    The differences lay precisely with the Israel and PA players. Netanyau's and Abbas' red lines, posturing, and decisions or non-decisions to not go ahead with negotiations.


    Smith, Troy and the others should name one real world threat from Obama that isn't the same as Bush's. ( See the postscript below at bottom of article for numerous such CONSEQUENCES THAT RESULTED UNDER REAGAN and HW Bush, and Kissinger ( ala Nixon).



    Here are Bush's exact public words, "Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion….Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice Lines must be mutually agreed to.”
    GW Bush's preconditions for the NEGOTIATION PERIOD and EVEN ACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE FINAL SETTLEMENT are no different than Obama's. GW Bush policy is clear: All natural growth terminated, final settlement entails a 2 state solution based on the 1967 borders with agreed upon swaps, contiguity and not a patchwork of Palestinian bantustans, East Jerusalem is the same as the West Bank in all regards ( see Condi Rice's Bush Administration policy statements below). From the peace offer Bush presided over ( see below) we see Bush brokered the return of 10,000 Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel and proffered the internationalizing of parts of East Jerusalem- so we see that GW's remarks on EJ were not political posturing! Furthermore, after Bush completed the 2005 speech in the Rose Garden, a reporter asked Bush, “But Israel continues to build settlements and continues to seize Palestinian territories. What is your position, Mr. President?”

    Read Bush say that the negotiations are based on the 1967 borders-- he says this using the words "the point of departure ".... January 10, 2008 at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080110-3.html

    This policy was precisely conducted by Bush, Powell, and Rice on through to Bush's brokerage of the 2008 Olmert offer to Abbas ( below ). Bush was glatt. The Wiki- Like-Leaked "Palestine Papers" add thousands of details showing what was ALREADY PUBLICLY KNOWN. The nitty gritty looked the same, not at all surprising, and all understandable in light of the Road Map. See again the 2008 statement saying exactly that the negotiations are based on the 1967 borders with mutually agreed swaps at this link http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080110-3.htmlwhere Bush says what the point of departure for the negotiations is:
    January 10, 2008
    PRESIDENT GW Bush: "...The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent....
    I reaffirm to each leader that implementation of any agreement is subject to implementation of the road map. Neither party should undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudices the final status negotiations. On the Israeli side that includes ending settlement expansion and removing unauthorized outposts. On the Palestinian side that includes confronting terrorists and dismantling terrorist infrastructure.
    I know Jerusalem is a tough issue. Both sides have deeply felt political and religious concerns. I fully understand that finding a solution to this issue will be one of the most difficult challenges on the road to peace, but that is the road we have chosen to walk....”





    Now here is highlighted final offer :
    "He [ Prime Minister Ehud Olmert] says that on August 31, 2008, three weeks before he resigned, he offered 100 percent of West Bank land (minus 6.8% in land swaps), 10,000 Palestinian refugees returning to Israel’s final borders, and the holy basin of Jerusalem’s Old City coming under joint Israeli-Palestinian-American- Jordanian-Saudi control. He last met with Abbas on September 16 of that year – five days before he resigned, and more than six months before he left office – and Abbas did not respond or make a counteroffer."
    Negotiations: Vindicating Israel By GIL HOFFMAN 29 /04/ 2011 Jerusalem POST: "Palileaks," corroborate Israel’s narrative according to a US organization. Will this argument help Israel make its case en route to UN in Sept?") http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=218340


    Now for the petty items: Smith lied when he said Netanyahu rebuked Obama at the joint press conference on May 20, 2011. ( days after the Obama Mideast speech ); the Republicans and the media certainly portrayed it that way, but nothing Netanyahu said in front of Obama after their private 2 hours together was in disagreement with Obama. The liberal and conservative media sensationalized the news conference as to be expected but Netanyahu gave the World a lecture- not Obama.Netanyahu then wound down with... "The President and I discussed all these issues and I think we may have differences here and there, but I think there's an overall direction that we wish to work together to pursue a real, genuine peace between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors; a peace that is defensible." This wrap up echoes what Obama began with minutes before, "Obviously there are some differences between us in the precise formulations and language, and that's going to happen between friends. But what we are in complete accord about is that a true peace can only occur if the ultimate resolution allows Israel to defend itself against threats, and that Israel's security will remain paramount in U.S. evaluations of any prospective peace deal." Of course nothing that the media characterized as within a lecturing tone was in disagreement with anything Obama said or implied directly before Netanyahu spoke or before that time.

    [B] What makes GW Bush singularly revolutionary when it comes to U.S. policy is not that he correctly bragged on Irish radio that he was the first president to ever call for and establish U.S. policy as advocating a 2 state solution. Rather, the special cataclysm he initiated was being the first U.S. President to actually enunciate as [1] written American policy ( i.e. The Road Map) tied to an international body ( ie. the Quartet ) requiring the total cessation of all natural growth as intrinsic to the negotiating process that would lead to the final settlement ( i.e. The Road Map leads to the final settlement)....and all done without Israel's approval of the process or the Road Map itself.
    It is Bush's playbook: he got the United Nations together in the nomenclature of the Quartet and forced a Road Map on Israel that Israel disagreed with and stated so in a letter sent to the Quartet containing its disagreements. Bush forced Israel to accept the commitment to abide by the Map Road anyway. GW’s preconditions to negotiations contained stopping all natural growth. That makes it a policy about the conditions of the negotiations due to the fact that the final settlement will be mostly a Palestinians state in the WB ( otherwise natural growth wont matter). No differences exist between Bush and Obama on any of these points. Obama’s entire policy and conduct is born straight out of Bush's playbook.
    [C] the degree to which Israel has a free arm to protect itself.

    It was GW Bush who gave his major U.S. policy speech in the Rose Garden May 26, 2005 ( about 3 years after he created the Roadmap) telling the world that U.S. Policy was based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps ( i.e. Palestinians can effectively veto a swap) and natural growth( Road Map) must be entirely terminated. (This goes all the way back to the Bush policy of the Road Map despite Ariel Sharon's 20 objections.). The fraud perpetrated on the Klal about Obama initiating this "new" policy is known as such by the frauders.


    Bush said this after Ariel Sharon initiated the Gaza Withdrawal but Bush didn't even wait to see what the result would be in the territories, which was terror of some 10,000 rockets. Bush approved elections containing Hamas despite this being a capitulation to Hamas who called for Israel's destruction but no one lifted an eyebrow. Why not?. Isn't this Bush making an offer that, if agreed to, would have resulted in a Gaza controlled by Hamas with a passage to the West Bank? Yes. Imagine if Obama had initiated all that?
    See the full text at this link.






    Map- Rose Garden- Annapolis- and the final Bush Brokered offer... was always about the nitty gritty details that were not yet tied up after Taba in 2000 whcih means Bush's offer was greater than Barak's offer.

    We see Bush wasn't just shooting the breeze- the offer Bush brokered then with Olmert within 6 months of that speech was land SWAP based as it was always going to be ( see below ) and East Jerusalem would be mostly internationalized with Bush's help- land swap negotiations are all that took place after and prior to 2005. All the parties knew it. It was public. George Mitchell said it on Charlie Rose in 2009 in a 45 minute interview with Mitchell. Where was the explosion then when Mitchell - hired by Bush before he was hired by Obama- said that everyone during Bush and Obama's tenures know that a swap based 1967 border plan was the "only one" under consideration by all the parties. We also see Bush says the PA deserves a contiguous state that he brokered with Olmert despite 10,000 rockets from Gaza and despite Hamas calling for Israel;'s destruction and despite the PA not recognizing the State of Israel as the homeland and State of the Jewish people.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W73v4p6Yyg

    Further quotes from the Bush adminstration on the territories during negotiations:

    Condi Rice: Jerusalem Post January 8, 2008: "US entirely opposed to Har Homa" by Hilary Leila Krieger, Hern Keinon, and Khaled Abu Toameh, 08:39. http://newstopics.jpost.com/topic/George_W._Bush Condi Rice, who was accompanying Bush en route to Israel overnight Tuesday, said that “the United States doesn’t make a distinction between settlement activity in east Jerusalem and the West Bank" and that "Israel’s Road Map obligations" which include a building freeze "relate to settlement activity generally.” Rice's comments underlined that the settlement issue will be high on the agenda of the talks between Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.


    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/rice-har-homa-homes-harm-talks-1.234841

    • Published 00:00 09.12.07
    • Latest update 01:30 09.12.07

    Rice: Har Homa homes harm talks

    By Barak Ravid and Jonathan Lis
    U.S.Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday the plan to build 307 new housing units in Jerusalem's Har Homa neighborhood beyond the Green Line does not help the peace process.
    "I've made clear that we're in a time when the goal is to build maximum confidence between the parties, and this doesn't help to build confidence." She spoke after meeting with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on the issue.
    Haaretz reported Thursday that senior American diplomats had told senior Israeli officials that the administration sought clarifications on the plan to build the units at Har Homa. The project was made public at the beginning of the week.
    Rice said she had brought up the matter with Livni in a phone call and at Brussels. "It is even more important now that we are really on the eve of the beginning" of negotiations, she said.
    Government officials said there is no tension between Israel and the U.S. over Har Homa.
    Livni said in a speech at NATO headquarters that Israel is ready to do its part in the road map, but expects the Palestinians to fight terror. She said only the two parties in the conflict can make decisions about their future.
    Housing Minister Ze'ev Boim was critical of Rice's statements on Har Homa.
    "Secretary Rice is to be praised for her part in getting the peace process restarted, but it is inconceivable that at every opportunity this will be tied to construction in Jerusalem," he said.
    "The neighborhood of Har Homa is within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem to which Israeli law applies. Accordingly, there is no obstacle to building there as there is no obstacle to building anywhere else in Israel."
    Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski, who is in a reelection campaign, said construction at Har Homa was not political, but would alleviate a housing shortage."

    http://hftm.org/blog/?p=288

    HAR HOMA- HERE WE GO AGAIN!

    LIEBERMAN: RICE WRONG WITH HAR HOMA CRITICISM!
    US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was mistaken when she called upon Israel to reconsider its plan to build more than 300 housing units in Har Homa, Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski said on a tour of the outlying Jerusalem neighborhood on Wednesday.
    Lieberman purposely visited Har Homa at the same time that the Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams launched the final-status peace talks. The visit was intended to send a message to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert not to give in on Har Homa, despite pressure from the United States and from the Palestinian negotiating team that protested the building plan during the talks.
    “I have to correct the State Department,” Lieberman said. “They spoke about 300 housing units in Har Homa, but there are 3,000 on the way.”
    Har Homa’s building plan was approved by the government of Yitzhak Rabin when the mayor of Jerusalem was Ehud Olmert. That’s as consensus as it gets.”
    Lieberman came to the neighborhood and spoke to the press near the hilltop where the controversial 300 additional units will be built. When he spoke, sheep grazed in the background on land that will soon house a school, a synagogue and a community center.
    “Every Jew has the right to live here,” Lieberman said, purposely using the same language former prime minister Ariel Sharon used to justify his controversial visit to the Temple Mount in September 2000.
    “When it comes to building in Jerusalem, there are no considerations of timing, politics or pressure. It’s incumbent on us to withstand pressure.”
    Lieberman said he disagreed with the State Department assessment that building on Har Homa would “violate the trust between the Israelis and Palestinians.” He said that if anything, the building plan would increase the trust of Israelis in their own government.
    Asked if it bothered him that the Palestinian negotiating team canceled a photo-op ahead of Wednesday’s negotiations to protest the building plan, Lieberman said that he hoped the next meeting between the negotiating teams would be canceled completely.
    “We are in the government to try to stop the Kassams and Annapolis and so we will continue building here,” Lieberman said. “This government will restore order in the Gaza Strip and the Kassams will stop in 2008.”
    Lieberman called upon Sderot Mayor Eli Moyal to rescind his resignation letter. He said he agreed with Moyal that the government had not done enough to help Sderot. National Union MK Effi Eitam called upon Lieberman to follow Moyal’s lead and quit to protest the government’s mishandling of Sderot.
    Lupolianski, who headed Jerusalem’s planning committee when Har Homa was approved, said Rice was “mistaken” for thinking that the neighborhood was a settlement. “Har Homa is part of Jerusalem and there is no difference between building here and building in Rehavia, Romema or Ramot,” Lupolianski said. “I don’t see how anyone can be so cynical to raise objections to a plan that has all its permits.”
    Lupolianski lashed out at Olmert for not budgeting enough money to promote the city. “The American federal government is investing in their capital, Washington, DC, but our government isn’t investing in our DC, which is David’s City,” Lupolianski said.
    http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/israel/har_homa_new_front_lineJewish Week: title: Har Homa, the New Front Line- The New Front Line? Wednesday December 26, 2007 by Michele Chabin
    "....Just after Israel’s Housing Ministry announced earlier this month that 300 more housing units were to be built in Matitya’s hilly neighborhood over the Green Line, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered a sharp condemnation. Israel’s announcement, which came just after the Annapolis summit, prompted Rice to say, "I made it clear we are in a time when the goal is to build maximum confidence with the parties. This [construction at Har Homa] is not going to build that confidence." "Rice’s comments jolted many Har Homa residents. And it threw a spotlight on a quiet neighborhood — only a couple of miles from the trendy Jerusalem neighborhoods of Baka and Old Talpiot — most Israelis consider part of the country’s capital.
    Rice’s remarks should be a warning sign to all other Israelis who live in other parts of Jerusalem, like Gilo, Ramat Eshkol, East Talpiot, that are over the Green Line," Matitya said, standing on his terrace. He was referring to just three of the many Jewish neighborhoods built in East Jerusalem since it was captured by Israel in 1967. French Hill, adjoining Mount Scopus, and Malcha, next to the popular Macha mall, are two others.
    Matitya says he can envision a time when the American government might demand the dismantling of some Jewish East Jerusalem neighborhoods as part of a deal with the Palestinians.
    "Officially, the U.S. government doesn’t recognize any east Jerusalem neighborhood as part of Jerusalem or Israel," he said. "If Condoleeza Rice decides to hand over Har Homa to the Palestinian Authority, it would be a hotbed for terrorists, just like Gaza since the Israeli withdrawal."
    Were this to happen, Matitya said, "there could be shooting into places like Talpiot," a middle-class neighborhood in southern Jerusalem that served as the front line during the 1967 war. "What’s happening in Sderot, the constant bombardment, was unthinkable before the pullout from Gaza. Nothing is unthinkable in this part of the world."
    Israeli officials responded to Rice by saying that Har Homa is "an integral part of Jerusalem," built within the city limits. (This week a Housing Ministry budget proposal for 2008 included 500 more apartments in Har Homa and 240 in Maale Adumim, the largest settlement in the West Bank.)
    Still, Rice’s speech has many Israelis wondering whether the Bush administration intends to interfere with the expansion of Jewish neighborhoods beyond the Green Line to further the peace process.
    Har Homa, which has a population of about 16,000 (2,400 families), is situated in southeast Jerusalem, sandwiched between the Arab municipalities of Beit Sahur and Umm Tuba, both in the West Bank and under Palestinian rule. Bethlehem is just down the road, behind a daunting roadblock.
    Har Homa lies within the Jerusalem boundaries set by Israel in 1967, after it captured the West Bank from Jordan. In 1992, the Israeli government expropriated 1,850 dunams of uninhabited land that contained a forest. Seventy percent of this land belonged to Jews (including 25 percent purchased by the Jewish Agency in 1937) and 30 percent belonged to Arabs. The Israeli government says all landowners were compensated.
    Arabs and their supporters petitioned the High Court to prevent construction, but bulldozers were ultimately permitted to break ground in the late 1990s.
    Geshon Baskin, CEO of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, a left-wing think tank, maintains that Har Homa "is a settlement and all settlements are illegal under the Geneva convention. It is illegal for an occupying power to settle civilians on occupied territory: anything beyond the pre-1967 borders."
    The fact that Har Homa was built largely on Jewish-owned land is irrelevant, Baskin says, "because Palestinians don’t have the same rights in Israel proper. There were 400-plus Arab villages [in present-day Israel] before 1948 that no longer exist," he says, "yet Palestinians cannot claim ownership or build on these lands."
    On a purely practical level, Baskin says, the Palestinian municipalities adjoining Har Homa are cramped for space, "and Palestinians feel the land on which Har Homa was built should be part of a Palestinian state." Building a Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem violated the so-called road map for peace, he says, "because Israel said it would freeze all settlements, even for natural growth.
    "According to international law, there is no difference between Har Homa and other Jewish settlements/neighborhoods built after 1967."
    Rice Just ‘Making Noises’
    Efraim Inbar, director of the Besa Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University, doesn’t think Rice’s Har Homa comments have any teeth.
    "I think Rice was just making noises, probably after talking to the Palestinians, but I don’t’ think anything will change."
    This is not the first time an American government has opposed construction at Har Homa, Inbar stresses.
    "They also didn’t like it when Bibi [Netanyahu] built Har Homa, but realistically speaking, I think it will always be in Jewish hands. Israelis will not agree to relinquish Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem."
    Rena Draiman, who with her husband, Arnie and children, plans to move into their still-under-construction four-bedroom apartment in Har Homa in a month or two, says she was dismayed by Rice’s comments.
    "I thought, ‘Wait, I hope all this media attention won’t lead the Arabs living nearby to attack Har Homa the way they attacked Gilo during the intifada,’" Draiman, an architect, said. "But I’m very excited to be going to a place outside the ‘Baka Bubble,’ a sort of Upper West Side lifestyle. We love our neighborhood and wish we could afford to stay, but people who can afford to stay are in a different place from what we are economically."
    Referring to Har Homa’s diversity — about half are Modern Orthodox, while the other half are either religiously traditional or secular — Draiman thinks the community "will be good for all of us. I feel like we’re moving to the real Israel."
    Arnie Draiman, a philanthropy consultant, is convinced that "anyone who describes Har Homa as a settlement doesn’t know the geography. It’s a Jerusalem neighborhood like any other neighborhood. It’s exactly two kilometers from where I’m sitting right now," he said during an interview in the family’s rental apartment on the edge of Baka, where moving boxes were stacked.
    Rivka Matitya, Moshe’s wife, says the family has found a real home in Har Homa, no small thing when facing a life-threatening illness.
    "Almost as soon as we moved here I was diagnosed with breast cancer," Rivka, a popular swimming instructor, says with an ironic smile. "One day a man, a stranger, came to our house with food. He asked for my phone number and within an hour his wife calls and says, ‘How can I help? Can I shop for you? Pick up the kids?’ ... There is tons of chesed here."
    Rivka says the family could have moved to a big house in the West Bank but intentionally chose to remain in the capital.
    "I wanted very much to stay in Jerusalem. My kids learn in the Jewish Quarter and they run around the Old City as if it’s their backyard. This was an opportunity to stay in Jerusalem and have a house large enough for our parents to come and stay, to have overnight company. We’ve got the best of both worlds," Matitya said.
    Tamar Zedek, who along with her husband, Moshe, and three children, moved to Har Homa five years ago, says Har Homa isn’t perfect, but that the pluses far outweigh the minuses.
    "There’s still no post office or bank, but there are so many synagogues to choose from. I used to live in Arnona [a section of Talpiot], and there was no neighborhood mikveh. There’s a mikveh here and a women’s Torah class every Shabbat. Even my 7-year-old has a class on Shabbat," Zedek, a librarian at the National Library, says.
    Looking down from her expansive balcony at the cranes and bulldozers building the next section of Har Homa — construction approved long ago — Zedek is convinced that Israel "needs a peace agreement," but that "it won’t give Har Homa to the Palestinians."
    "In my opinion," Zedek said, "this is Jerusalem."
    http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=37155Sunday, December 9, 2007
    [Dispute to improve Kadima image or serious dispute?] Rice: Har Homa homes harm talks
    [Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: The wall-to-wall response in Kadima supporting
    construction on Har Homa - including Chaim Ramon on Israel Radio this
    morning - serves to improve its image in the Israeli public. It remains to
    be seen if U.S.Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice takes this beyond her
    remarks last Friday, escalating the move from the "doesn't help to build
    confidence" category to an out and out violation. Rice's team knows that if
    they go beyond such remarks that the PA could easily come the next day with
    a complaint about building activity in French Hill and Ramat Eshkol and they
    will find themselves drawn even further into positions that make it just
    that much easier to rally public opinion against the entire "piece process"
    .]
    Rice: Har Homa homes harm talks
    By Barak Ravid and Jonathan Lis Last update - 01:30 09/12/2007
    www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/932400.html
    U.S.Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday the plan to build 307
    new housing units in Jerusalem's Har Homa neighborhood beyond the Green Line
    does not help the peace process.
    "I've made clear that we're in a time when the goal is to build maximum
    confidence between the parties, and this doesn't help to build confidence."
    She spoke after meeting with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on the issue.
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124701#.TkLEhGERrAE
    U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas, and even UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon sharply castigated Israel, at the recent fund-raising extravaganza for the PA in Paris, for deigning to build Jewish housing in territory liberated in the 1967 Six Day War.
    Why is it that when a Republican President does this it is " Just making noise" but when a Democrat one is it is an attempt to sacrifice the State of Israel?



    GW Bush authored the 2003 "Road Map" which created this especially nuanced policy in writing in concert with the International Community in the form of the Quartet, including: The "Government Of Israel freezes all settlement activity including natural growth of settlements."

    Bush at Annapolis in 2007 said “Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity on the West Bank” Bush said at the time. “This is the position of the United States today; it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.”
    It was GW Bush who took pride in brokering the big peace offer:


    * Bush writes with pride about his brokering this offer ( in his book "Decision Points".) ( Obama has never hinted at a 10,000 Arab return to Israel)

    Fuller section of article cited above from mpec.org follows: 

    Whatever the U.S. position on Arafat, Bush’s stance on Sharon was hardly close or even friendly. Indeed, from the beginning, Bush had personal antipathy for Sharon. In Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack, Bush is quoted as calling Sharon “a bull” out of contempt.86 And, he added, “the alternatives are worse than him.”87 The early Bush-Israel relationship during the Second Intifada was anything but harmonious, marked by episode after episode of discord. From the beginning of Bush’s first term, his administration was adamant against Israel’s targeted killings of Palestinian leaders. After the killing of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine leader Abu Ali Mustafa in August 2001, U.S. Ambassador Dan Kurtzer warned Sharon about the risks of collateral damage, and State Department spokesman Richard Boucher condemned the assassination publicly, warning: “Israel needs to understand that targeted killings of Palestinians don’t end the violence but are only inflaming an already volatile situation and making it much harder to restore calm.”88 Bush’s attempts to quell Israeli-Palestinian fighting just after September 11 provoked more friction with Sharon, as was apparent when Sharon refused Bush’s push for Foreign Minister Shimon Peres to meet Yasser Arafat.89


    [later] Two days later, Bush sent Riyadh a two-page letter: “Let me make one thing clear up front: nothing should ever break the relationship between us. There has been no change in the strategic equation.” He added: “I firmly believe the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination and to live peacefully and securely in their own state, in their own homeland, just as the Israelis have the right to live securely in their own state.” This was the first time a U.S. president ever directly supported a Palestinian state, going beyond even Clinton. On September 6, Crown Prince Abdullah replied: “Mr. President, it was a great relief to me to find in your letter a clear commitment in which the peace process was established. I was particularly pleased with your commitment to the right of the Palestinians to self-determination as well as the right to peace without humiliation, within their own independent state.” In addition, he iterated, “First, it is very essential that you declare your position publicly, which was stated in your letter. Such a declaration at this level will eliminate the common impression prevailing in the region of the U.S. bias toward Israel.” Bush thereafter agreed to do just that. He planned to roll out the public declaration of Palestinian statehood the week of September 10, 2001.91
    Discordant U.S. and Israeli priorities thereafter clashed publicly when, less than a month after September 11, on October 5, 2001, Sharon delivered his famous “Czechoslovakia” speech, further resisting American pressure for concessions to the Palestinians. “I call on the Western democracies and particularly the leader of the free world, the United States. Do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938, when enlightened European democracies decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient temporary solution. Do not try to appease the Arabs at our expense. This is unacceptable to us. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight.” Bush and company were livid. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer called the remarks “unacceptable.” Angry phone calls were made by Colin Powell, the U.S. embassy in Israel and the National Security Council.92 Under American pressure, Sharon issued a statement apologizing.93
    Bush administration officials continually opposed Israeli actions in Operation Defensive Shield to reoccupy Gaza and the West Bank. Colin Powell urged the administration to intervene in the fighting and pressure Arafat to denounce terrorism and Sharon to withdraw from newly occupied territory. Before Powell departed, Bush told him: “Do you understand what you’re saying to the Israelis? You’re going to have to look Sharon in the eye and say, ‘Get Out.’”94 When Powell arrived in Israel, he and Sharon had a vehement argument, Powell demanding to visit Arafat and Sharon refusing. Sharon said to Powell: “Their world is an empire of lies — Arafat’s like Osama bin Laden. Why do you apply different standards to Arafat than to Bin Laden?” Powell replied: “No, it’s a different situation.” Finally. Sharon relented.95 There followed an emotionally fraught meeting with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at Bush’s Crawford ranch on April 25, 2002. Abdullah threatened to walk out on the spot if Bush did not pledge to rein in Sharon by making him end the siege of Arafat’s compound and of the Palestinian militants who seized the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Bush acceded to his demand.96 Sharon thereafter acquiesced to Powell and Rice’s pressure to lift the siege on Arafat’s compound.97
    A further crisis emerged when Israeli commandos razed and stormed the muqata in September 2002 after a serious of suicide bombings. Bush and Powell were again furious. As Powell later explained, “Every time we put Arafat in his place and started to move him to the sidelines, [Sharon would do something and] suddenly Arafat is right back in the centre of everything,…and rather than isolating him, [Sharon would] just bring him right into the game.”98 Furthermore, this came just days after George W. Bush had addressed the UN General Assembly, making the case for both war against Saddam Hussein and in favor of a Palestinian state: “America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices.” A Palestinian state was central, he enunciated, to his plans for Iraq:
    Mr. Barbalat is a doctoral candidate at the University of Chicago, Center for Middle Eastern Studies. This paper was supervised by Marvin Zonis, professor emeritus at the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago.

    If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government and respect for women and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.99
    Israel’s behavior, thus, was obstructing Bush’s war planning.100 Flynt Leverett, senior director of the National Security Council at the time, relates that in a Situation Room meeting, Bush said the raid “really calls into question Sharon’s commitment to a peaceful resolution of this conflict.”101 A furious Condoleezza Rice summoned Israeli Ambassador Danny Ayalon and Sharon’s chief of staff, Dov Weisglass, and rebuked them:
    …I am telling you, if you do not end this siege [of Yasser Arafat’s compound] in Ramallah, if you don’t withdraw your forces from the compound, you are going to have a public rift with this president. This needs to end now. If you and I are having this same conversation a week from now, you are going to have a serious problem in this building, and you’re going to have a serious problem with me.102
    As time passed, indeed, Arafat failed to stop the attacks. This, not the backing of Sharon, motivated Bush’s decision to cut off ties with the Palestinian Authority. The decision by administration officials to “drop Arafat” and cease dealings with him was made in a meeting in the Situation Room a week before Bush’s June 24 speech, when Bush stated this publicly. The meeting was convened in the aftermath of the June 5 suicide bombing at the Megiddo junction that killed 16 Israelis, the twenty-first such bombing since the beginning of the Intifada two years before. Two more bombings occurred in Jerusalem in the meantime before Bush’s address on June 18 and 19.103
    Yet, with Arafat sidelined, the Bush-Sharon relationship persisted with the same friction as before. At the Sharm el-Sheikh summit of 2004, when Bush met with Israeli leaders and Palestinian leadership minus Arafat, Bush argued angrily with Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz. When Mohammad Dahlan called for Israeli help for the Palestinian security forces, Mofaz balked, at which point Bush shot him down: “Their own security service? But you have destroyed their security service.” Bush looked at Sharon and asked: “Who are these?” Sharon replied, “My ministers.” Bush retorted: “No, I mean what do they represent?” Sharon answered, “These are my doves,” to which Bush shot back: “Your doves! My God, if these are your doves, God preserve us from your hawks!”104 After that meeting, Bush turned to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and said, “We have a problem with Sharon, I can see, but I like that young man [Dahlan], and I think their prime minister [Mahmoud Abbas] is incapable of lying. I hope that they will be successful. We can work with them.”105
    86 Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack (Simon and Schuster, 2004), p. 231.
    87 Ibid.
    88 Jane Perlez, “U.S. Says Killings by Israel Inflame Middle East Conflict,” The New York Times, August 28, 2001.
    89 Ahron Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 161.
    90 Woodward, State of Denial, pp. 75-6. My italics.
    91 Ibid., p. 77.
    92 Suzanne Goldenberg and Julian Borger, “Furious Bush Hits Back at Sharon,” The Guardian, October 6, 2001.
    93 Bregman, Elusive Peace, pp. 163-4.
    94 Interview with Colin Powell, as quoted in Bregman, pp. 191-2.
    95 Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 196.
    96 Ibid., p. 209; see also, Karen DeYoung, Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell (Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), p. 386.
    97 Bregman, Elusive Peace, pp. 211-2.
    98 Interview with Colin Powell, as quoted in Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 238.
    99 President Bush’s address to the United Nations, September 12, 2002, http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/ 12/bush.transcript/.
    100 See also Douglas Feith, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism (HarperCollins, 2008), pp. 207-8, 511.
    101 George W. Bush, as quoted in Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 239.
    102 Interview with Flynt Leverett, in Bregman, Elusive Peace , p. 241.
    103 Bregman, Elusive Peace, pp. 224-7.
    104 Interview with Yasser Abed Rabbo, as quoted in Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 258.
    105 Akiva Eldar, “People and Politics: Bush Likes Dahlan, Believes Abbas, and Has ‘a Problem with Sharon,’” Haaretz, June 10, 2003.




    Postscript

    Netanyahu
    in front of Congress a few days later conceded publicly that the key position on the whole matter was the same as Obama’s position on the matter:
    "As President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967.”
    Prior to Netanyahu's speech to Congress, however, the Republicans created a hysterical fantasy to execute their propaganda smeer against Obama- that Obama threw Israel under the bus ( i.e. despite the policy in FACT not being different, as pointed out above from Bush's and the specifics of the Rose Garden Policy Speech).


    In an analysis on May 29, 2005 Arutz Sheva, an Israeli Nationalist Orthodox right wing media organ, spoke up when it exposed Ariel Sharon's propaganda and lies about the concessions [he] claimed to have received from GW Bush. The Arutz Sheva analysis


    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/82861

    The Republicans were silent when Bush made his pronouncements- the same pronouncements that Obama would one day plagiarize from GW Bush, would subsequently be excoriated for saying, and subsequently have even those statements changed into statements of fact that were never said. Furthermore, the murmurings that 'Obama says publicly what Bush said only privately' is the merest nonsense, the type of which you might hear in a bar. Read the rest of this article to learn.


    The fact of the matter is that this May 2011 Mid East speech hysteria can be summed up with one word: plagiarizing. Obama has merely plagiarized all of Bush and Condi's word formulations . Bush was glatt: The Road Map created and required the total cessation of all natural growth even in East Jerusalem. The Rose Garden policy speech and Annapolis summit reiterated the freezing of the all natural growth of settlements as the preconditions for the negotiations of a final settlement and added more and more fereverently about how little Israel would retain due to the contiguity and ease for the Palestinians that Bush emphasizes at every turn. . (Every previous American president including Reagan and HW made it policy to stop settlements even prior to any negotiations about a final settlement and readers can read about this in public sources 30 and 20 years ago.) Therefore we see the urgency the Bush - Condi team had to carry on about "natural growth" --when Reagan was in office there were 16,000 Jews in WB, and now how many? How much more land that will lend to contiguity and ease of movement (that is sacrosanct in the Road Map authored by Bush ) would be expropriated by Israel under Bush?

    Olmert didn’t entirely stop natural growth throughout the time he was negotiating. The fact that Olmert didn’t listen to the U.S. is the same as Netanyahu not listening with the difference being that Olmert did so quietly and then ignored the administration as is historically the case with Labor; whereas Likud’s Begin Shamir and Netanyahu have a long history of publicly disapproving of American requests and then reaping the Reagan and HW Bush responses that came along with threats and initial attempts to carry out the threats ( Reagan delaying military ammunition parts and GW holding back on loan guarantees), as well as the Clinton and GW Bush responses that didn't evoke any known concrete threats. Never has Obama ever hinted at any type of threat.



    * The Likud Coalition also irritated its US ally in coming away by 2009 as the highest leaking Israeli administration in history. There is ample reporting on this.

    How did these consistently reported lies stick? Who is responsible for the hysterical fantasies about the differences between Bush and Obama policy and the suppression of Bush's policies?

    The answer is right in front of us. The responsible parties are the ones who engage in the communication that brings on the hysteria: The Republicans, the Jewish Republican Coalition, and their allies like Malcolm Hoenlein and his allies, charging Obama with being 1-anti Israel, 2-throwing Israel under the bus, and 3- attempting to create a final settlement that will be different than the one that Bush and Olmert offered, or insinuating this and insinuating that there is a concrete difference between GW and Obama. This propaganda is in turn dutifully reported by the liberal establishment media as well as the conservative media, reporting (a) the Republicans' false statements of fact and (b) the sensationalizing of irrelevant statements of fact ( relying on partial context of the stories, of course.) An example: failing to tell their audiences that all of Obama's policies came from GW Bush or even prior to GW Bush). (When Obama ran for president, ludicrous lies were propagandized by the Republicans and the Jewish Republican Coalition. The JRC web site was filled with the crude type of propaganda you see on Palestinian and Arab web sites. Although distinguished gentlemen like, for example, Malcolm Hoenlein, did not take part in the propaganda ( as far as we are aware), he did not excoriate the lies ( as did, for instance, Michael Bloomberg). This of course doesn't take away from Hoenlein being one of truly great askanim for the Klal Yisroel, however we still do not hear from him a protest to these lies despite the great friendship Obama has concretely shown to Israel ( regardless of how we feel about U.S. -Israel policy, so long as we factor out everything GW and Obama have in common, Obama must be regarded on the same level as GW, and higher than Reagan, HW, and Nixon (and Kissinger) with regard to Israel policy ( see comments on Reagan and HW below),


    GW Bush received an absolute pass from the Republicans, the JRC, and Malcolm Hoenlein throughout his two adminstrations. The main result of Hoenlein's silence and the JRC's propaganda is that Obama loses votes in 2012. There is no POSITIVE result FOR ISRAEL from this propaganda because there is no outcome that can result from lying that Obama is different than GW that can positively impact Israel. So the propaganda BENEFITS Republicans, and NOT Israel. We need to call people out on the carpet when they are communicating statements of facts to the KLAL that are indeed FALSE, and we must point out what the real results of the propaganda indeed are.


    - LeonardMoscowitz at Gmail.com


    POSTSCRIPT: Obama's May 2011 statements on 1967 borders and negotiations and Ronald Reagan Statements on Israel and the territories:
    Thursday May 19, 2011: Obama Mideast speech excerpt

    Obama’s Mideast speech Thursday May 19 [Obama] "Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them — not by the United States; not by anybody else. But endless delay won’t make the problem go away. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows — a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace. So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state...."


    Friday May 20, 2011 ….. Jay Carney, White House spokesperson, hours after Obama gave his mideast speech, said in response to a question from a reporter on the Bush 2004 letter.
    I think, again, there is nothing that the President said yesterday that contradicts the 2004 letters that were exchanged between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon, or what Prime Minister Netanyahu said today in the Oval Office. We -- the President said in his speech that a starting point for resolving the territorial issue is the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps and security for both nations. I think that's -- there’s nothing in that statement and the President’s speech yesterday that is contradicted by what the Prime Minister said.


    Saturday May 21, 2011 …..


    President Obama the next day in interview with the BBC:


    “The basis for negotiations will be looking at that 1967 border recognizing that the conditions on the ground have changed and there are going to need to be swaps to accommodate the interests of both sides, that’s on the one hand. On the other hand, this was an equally important part of the speech, Israel’s going to have to feel confident about its security on the WB and that security element is going to be important to the Israeli’s. They will not be able to move forward unless they feel that they themselves can defend their territory particularly given what they’ve seen happen in Gaza and the rockets that have been fired by Hezbollah.”




    (That is a duplicate of GW Bush and Olmert’s offer to Abbas in 2008 ( see at bottom) )


    Sunday May 22, 2011 Obama at AIPAC:


    “That is why, on Thursday, I stated publicly the principles that the United States believes can provide a foundation for negotiations toward an agreement to end the conflict and all claims – the broad outlines of which have been known for many years, and have been the template for discussions between the United States, Israelis, and Palestinians since at least the Clinton Administration.

    I know that stating these principles – on the issues of territory and security – generated some controversy over the past few days. I was not entirely surprised. I know very well that the easy thing to do, particularly for a President preparing for reelection, is to avoid any controversy. But as I said to Prime Minister Netanyahu, I believe that the current situation in the Middle East does not allow for procrastination. I also believe that real friends talk openly and honestly with one another. And so I want to share with you some of what I said to the Prime Minister.

    Here are the facts we all must confront. First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian territories. This will make it harder and harder – without a peace deal – to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state.

    Second, technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace.

    And third, a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region. A just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two Arab leaders. Going forward, millions of Arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained.

    Just as the context has changed in the Middle East, so too has it been changing in the international community over the last several years. There is a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process – or the absence of one. Not just in the Arab World, but in Latin America, in Europe, and in Asia. That impatience is growing, and is already manifesting itself in capitols around the world.

    These are the facts. I firmly believe, and repeated on Thursday, that peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict. No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state. And the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the UN or in any international forum. Because Israel’s legitimacy is not a matter for debate.

    Moreover, we know that peace demands a partner – which is why I said that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist, and we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric.

    But the march to isolate Israel internationally – and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations – will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative. For us to have leverage with the Palestinians, with the Arab States, and with the international community, the basis for negotiations has to hold out the prospect of success. So, in advance of a five day trip to Europe in which the Middle East will be a topic of acute interest, I chose to speak about what peace will require.


    “There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. Administrations. But since questions have been raised, let me repeat what I actually said on Thursday.

    I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

    As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

    That is what I said. Now, it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion’s share of the attention. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.

    By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides.
    The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

    If there’s a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance. What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately.
    I have done so because we cannot afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades, to achieve peace. The world is moving too fast. The extraordinary challenges facing Israel would only grow. Delay will undermine Israel’s security and the peace that the Israeli people deserve.”.


    POSTSCRIPT: REAGAN - HW BUSH & ISRAEL


    First a few remarks.


    [A] The republicans were not eager to nail their republican president for Israel criticism.


    [B] There are factors that need to be considered to qualify our comparisons ( publicly known) of Begin & Reagan / HW Bush & Shamir histories with the histories of the GW & Sharon/ Olmert and Obama / Netanyahu histories.


    [C] The internet didn't yet revolutionize media until post HW Bush, after which media brought us voluminous instantaneous details of publicly available information. The ability to both correctly report news as well as to lie about news mushrooms into a new worldwide media phenomenon.


    DailyKos reports: "For all the right-wingnut amnesiacs out there, here are a couple of trips down memory lane you might enjoy. First, does anyone remember the Reagan Administration and the AWACS controversy? I do, as I was in the process of finishing my Master's Degree in Middle East Studies from George Washington University at the time (1986-1987) and was following this situation closely. What happened, in a nutshell, is that the Reagan Administration's proposed sale of advanced Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia "saw objections from a majority of Americans, prominent US Senators, the State of Israel and the Israel lobby." Israel, under right-wing (Likud) Prime Minister Menachem Begin, expressed "profound regret and unreserved opposition" to the proposed sale. In response, the Reagan Administration lashed out harshly: The Reagan Administration actively sought to diminish Israel’s voice and influence over the deal. In public speeches, Administration officials admonished Israel for getting involved in a U.S. foreign policy matter." Reagan told Israel through Secretary of State Alexander Haig that the President must be [ Haig] “free of the restraints of overriding external vetoes,” and went on to say that were the AWACS deal blocked by Israeli influence, there would be [Haig] “serious implications on all American policies in the Middle East... I’ll just leave it there.". { Boston Globe 9/ 18/ 81 as cited by Dailykos,5/ 22 /11) and Reagan himself declaring [Reagan] “It is not the business of other nations to make American foreign policy.( Boston Globe 10/1/81). Furthermore Reagan delayed indefinitely the delivery of military aircraft to Israel, a move that Israelis interpreted as pressure to approve of the AWACS sale ( Boston Globe 8/ 12/ 81). And what about James Baker's (HW Bush driven ) speech " For Israel, now is the time to lay aside, once and for all, the unrealistic vision of a Greater Israel. Israeli interests in the West Bank and Gaza, security and otherwise, can be accommodated in a settlement based on UN Resolution 242. Foreswear annexation; stop settlement activity; allow schools to reopen; reach out to the Palestinians as neighbors who deserve political rights.". http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/22/978295/-Remember-When-Reagan,-Bush-and-Bush-Threw-Israel-Under-the-Bus?detail=hide%20%0d


    Secretary of State George Shultz in early December 1982 wrote: " I got word that a supplement was moving through the lame-duck session of Congress to provide a $250 million increase in the amount of U.S. military assistance to be granted to Israel: this in the face of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, its use of cluster bombs, and its complicity in the Sabra and Shatila massacres! We fought the supplement and fought it hard. President Reagan and I weighed in personally, making numerous calls to senators and congressmen. On December 9, I added a formal letter of opposition saying that the supplement appeared “to endorse and reward Israel’s policies.” Foreign Minister Shamir called President Reagan’s opposition “an unfriendly act,” and said that “it endangers the peace process.” The supplement sailed right by us and was approved by Congress as though President Reagan and I had not even been there. I was astonished and disheartened. This brought home to me vividly Israel’s leverage in our Congress. I saw that I must work carefully with the Israelis if I was to have any handle on Congressional action that might affect Israel and if I was to maintain congressional support for my efforts to make progress in the Middle East". ( from Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State, by George W. Shultz, page 112.}


    Zvi Harry Hurwitz in "Begin His Life, His Words: Reagan broke off the "Implementation of Memorandum of Understanding on Strategic Cooperation "in response to annexing the Golan Heights which was against American policy and Reagan's policy. Three months prior Reagan suspended weapons sales of fighter planes to Israel for bombing Iraq. Reagan condemned israel for bombing PLO HQ in Beirut.





    On August 4, 1982 Reagan personally calls Moshe Arens and demands the "terrible bombings" cease immediately on Lebanon due to the civilian deaths. M Arens tells M Begin that Reagan "threatened" to "review Israel American Relations". On Augst 12, 1982 Reagan called M Begin himself and demanded the bombing stop.

    Following the bombing end in August 1982 Reagan gave Yasser Arafat and the PLO leadership protection from Israel and allowed them to go into exile in Tunis. More significantly, in December 1988, Reagan authorized the State Department to enter into a dialogue with the PLO, reversing the U.S. policy of refusing to recognize the terrorist organization. This ended Israel’s strategy of marginalizing the PLO and stimulating the development of an alternative leadership. Reagan eventually proclaimed the PLO the sole respresesentative of the Palestinian People.
    On September 1, 1982 the "Reagan Plan" as it became known as, was created. Upon receiving Reagan's letter from U.S. Ambassador Samuel Lewis, Begin exclaimed, "It is the saddest day I have had since becoming Prime Minister."




    Hurvitz writes, "Menachem Begin rejected the plan as not even a basis for negotiation". What incensed Begin primarily was that Reagan carefully constructed a mideast plan in consultation with Arab governments, but not with Israel, whose very future was to be decided." Reagan announced that he opposed the creation of a Palestinian state, but believed the Palestinians should have self-government in association with Jordan. He said Jerusalem should remain undivided, but its final status negotiated. He called for a settlement freeze and suggested that Israel could not be expected to return to the 1967 borders. Prime Minister Menachem Begin denounced the plan as "an affront to Israel" ( Time Magazine: "Reagan's Fresh Start" by George Chruch Douglas Brew and Johanna McGeary 9/ 13/ 82).
    Sounds like the 20th century version of the 21st century urban phrase " threw Israel under a bus".


    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,951800,00.html#ixzz1TlDjMrMP
    Begin held an emergency session with his Cabinet which unanimously agreed that "on the basis of these proposals, Israel will not enter into any negotiations with any party whatsoever."
    Sounds like the GW Road Map without a Sharon outright refusal.

    Reagan, called for an undivided Jerusalem but said the final status was to be negotiated. GW Bush actually brokered the offer of a final settlement with Israel giving up authority over EJ as quoted above.


    Unverified: GW Bush: After Pres. George W Bush demanded that Ariel Sharon pull Israeli forces out of Jenin, declaring “Enough is enough!,” he was besieged by a 100,000 emails from supporters of Israel, Jewish and Christian and accused by Bill Safire of choosing Yasser Arafat as a friend over Sharon and by George Will, of losing his “moral clarity.” Within days, a humiliated Bush was declaring Sharon “a man of peace” despite the fact that he had not withdrawn his troops from Jenin. But his initial exclamation is supppressed, and the backtracking is suppressed, and now limited to Obama IN CONTRAST ( falsely) to Bush.


    author can be reached at Leonard.Moscowitz at gmail.com


    The Reagan Administration

    In Reagan’s view, Israeli settlement was not illegal, but merely “ill-advised” and “unnecessarily provocative.”

    “The Reagan Plan states that ‘the United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transition period (5 years after Palestinian election for a self-governing authority). Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlements freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be free and fairly negotiated.”
    Reagan Plan – September 1982

    The Reagan Administration actively sought to diminish Israel’s voice and influence over the deal. In public speeches, Administration officials admonished Israel for getting involved in a U.S. foreign policy matter. Secretary of State Alexander Haig said the President must be “free of the restraints of overriding external vetoes,” and went on to say that were the AWACS deal blocked by Israeli influence, there would be “serious implications on all American policies in the Middle East... I’ll just leave it there.”Reagan himself declared, “It is not the business of other nations to make American foreign policy.”In August 1981, the Administration delayed indefinitely the delivery of military aircraft to Israel, a move that Israelis interpreted as pressure to approve of the AWACS sale.

    The Reagan Administration actively sought to diminish Israel’s voice and influence over the deal. In public speeches, Administration officials admonished Israel for getting involved in a U.S. foreign policy matter. Secretary of State Alexander Haig said the President must be “free of the restraints of overriding external vetoes,” and went on to say that were the AWACS deal blocked by Israeli influence, there would be “serious implications on all American policies in the Middle East... I’ll just leave it there.”[7]
    {^ a b Boston Globe 9/18/81}
    Reagan himself declared, “It is not the business of other nations to make American foreign policy.”[11] ^ Boston Globe 10/1/81
    In August 1981, the Administration delayed indefinitely the delivery of military aircraft to Israel, a move that Israelis interpreted as pressure to approve of the AWACS sale.
    Boston Globe 8/12/81
    And here:

    September 1982
    ". . . the question isn't whether they [settlements] are legal or illegal; the question is are they constructive in the effort to arrange a situation that may, in the end, be a peaceful one and be one in which the people of the region can live in a manner that they prefer.  [President Reagan's] answer to that is no, expansion of those settlements is not a constructive move."
    Secretary of State George Shultz, news conference following President Reagan’s statement on the PLO departure plan, September 05, 1982
    Boudreault, Jody, Naughton, Emma, Salaam, Yasser, eds. U.S. Official Statements: Israeli Settlements, the Fourth Geneva Convention.  Washington D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1993.
    Department of State Bulletin v. 82, no. 2066 September 1982 p. 10
    Or, available online at, Foundation for Middle East Peace Website, http://www.fmep.org/reports/vol07/no1/08-us_government_policy_on_israeli_settlement_in_the_occupied_territories_1967_1996.html.


    September 1982
    “The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transition period.  Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlements freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks.  Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be fee and fairly negotiated.”
    Reagan Plan, September 01, 1982
    Lukacs, Yehuda, ed. Documents on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 1967-1983. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Or, available online at, Churches for Middle East Peace Website, http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006

    September 10, 1982
    “The status of Israeli settlements must be determined in the course of the final status negotiations.  We will not support their continuation as extraterritorial outposts, but neither will we support efforts to deny Jews the opportunity to live in the West Bank and Gaza under the duly constituted governmental authority there, as Arabs live in Israel...”
    Statement by Secretary of State George P. Shultz to the Foreign Affairs Committee (House of Representatives), September 10, 1982
    Boudreault, Jody, Naughton, Emma, Salaam, Yasser, eds. U.S. Official Statements: Israeli Settlements, the Fourth Geneva Convention.  Washington D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1993.
    Department of State Bulletin v.82, no.2067 October 1982 p. 6
    August 02, 1983
    “We also share the view expressed in the draft resolution that the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 are applicable to the territories occupied by Israel.  The United States Government has stated this position on numerous occasions, and I affirm it again today.  Israel, as the occupying power in the West Bank, is bound by the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
    Mr. President, the draft resolution contains elements which are unacceptable to the United States, and we therefore, were obliged to vote against it.  Let me make clear, however, that we did not vote against the draft because we approve of Israel’s settlement policy.  On the contrary, as President Reagan said on September 1, 1982: “further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated."...
    Statement by Ambassador Charles M. Lichenstein, Deputy United States Representative to the United Nations Security Council, August 02, 1983
    Thorpe, Merle Jr., Prescription for Conflict: Israel’s West Bank Settlement Policy. (Foundation for Middle East Peace: Washington D.C., 1984) (Out of Print).

    For all the right-wingnut amnesiacs out there, here are a couple of trips down memory lane you might enjoy. First, does anyone remember the Reagan Administration and the AWACS controversy?  I do, as I was in the process of finishing my Master's Degree in Middle East Studies from George Washington University at the time (1986-1987) and was following this situation closely. What happened, in a nutshell, is that the Reagan Administration's proposed sale of advanced Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia "saw objections from a majority of Americans, prominent US Senators, the State of Israel and the Israel lobby." Israel, under right-wing (Likud) Prime Minister Menachem Begin, expressed "profound regret and unreserved opposition" to the proposed sale. In response, the Reagan Administration lashed out harshly:
    The Reagan Administration actively sought to diminish Israel’s voice and influence over the deal. In public speeches, Administration officials admonished Israel for getting involved in a U.S. foreign policy matter. Secretary of State Alexander Haig said the President must be “free of the restraints of overriding external vetoes,” and went on to say that were the AWACS deal blocked by Israeli influence, there would be “serious implications on all American policies in the Middle East... I’ll just leave it there.”[7] Reagan himself declared, “It is not the business of other nations to make American foreign policy.”[11] In August 1981, the Administration delayed indefinitely the delivery of military aircraft to Israel, a move that Israelis interpreted as pressure to approve of the AWACS sale.
    In short, the Reagan Administration's actions precipitated a serious crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations, as well as barely-veiled charges of dual loyalty on the part of U.S. supporters of Israel (translation: Jewish Americans, although the majority of American supporters of Israel are almost certainly not Jews, but evangelical Christians). The reaction by American Jews makes the current tempest in a teapot over Barack Obama's remarks look like nothing. For instance, Rabbi Simcha Krauss argued that American Jews had made a huge mistake in believing that Reagan and the Republicans were more "pro-Israel" than Jimmy Carter and the Democrats. In fact, according to Rabbi Krauss:
    It was in the AWACS debate that the fundamental error of American Jews embracing right positions was revealed. For in the AWACS debate, the President himself initiated a barrage of anti-Semitic statements which, we had hoped and prayed, had ceased on this continent a long time ago. I do not accuse President Reagan of being anti-Semitic. But I do accuse President Reagan of unleashing the rhetoric of anti-Semitism, of injecting anti-Semitic rhetoric into the public forum - something which has not happened in America for a long time. And here, I believe, we are unfortunately reaping the bitter harvest of our own making.
    Then there were these comments by Hyman Bookbinder, at that time the director of the American Jewish Committee:
    Why is Israel singled out for having expressed a point of view, when no administration spokesman. from the President on down, has ever expressed concern that Saudi Arabia itself is trying to influence our foreign in its direction?...Why I ask, in a serious non-rhetorical spirit, is only Israel (actually its American friends) being berated for expressing a view?...what the White House evidently resents is the fact that the "Jewish lobby" has not been equally restrained. Well, we are Americans - and we have every right in the world to exercise our right to petition, our right to speak out...Why are we being singled out and berated for our efforts? We are being told, in the words of the New York Daily News front-page headline this morning, to "BUTT OUT." That front page also headlines the President's speech with this line: "[Reagan] Raps Jewish anti-AWACS lobby."

    That's right, those were the "good old days" of U.S.-Israeli relations under the great Republican President Ronald Reagan.





    Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff under Ronald Reagan said this:

    "I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."  (
    They Dare to Speak Out. By Paul Findley.)

    While a guest on ABC's Face the Nation,  William Fulbright - US Senator and Chairman of the US Foreign Relations committee - said this before a national television audience:

    "Israel controls the United States Senate. We should be more concerned about the United States' interests."
    .( Senator William Fulbright on ABC's Face the Nation. Google users enter: fulbright israel controls senate)

    And US religious leader Billy Graham and President Richard Nixon once had the following exchange, which was caught on tape:

    GRAHAM: "The Jewish stranglehold on the media has got to be broken or this country's going down the drain".
    NIXON: "You believe that?"
    GRAHAM: "Yes, sir."
    NIXON: "Oh boy. So do I. I can't ever say that but I do believe it"
    Rev. Billy Graham and Richard Nixon. CNN Google users enter: graham jewish media stranglehold

    The Ford Administration

    “Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future negotiations between the parties on the locations of the borders of states by the Middle East. Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors.” 
    William Scranton, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, UN Security Council – March 23, 1976
    The Nixon Administration

    “The expropriation or confiscation of land, the construction of housing on such land, the demolition or confiscation of buildings, including those having historic or religious significance, and the application of Israeli law to occupied portions of the city are detrimental to our common interests in [Jerusalem]. The United States considers that the part of Jerusalem that came under the control of Israel in the June war, like other areas occupied by Israel, is governing the rights and obligations of an occupying Power. Among the provisions of international law which bind Israel, as they would bind any occupier, are the provisions that the occupier has no right to make changes in laws or in administration other than those which are temporarily necessitated by his security interests, and that an occupier may not confiscate or destroy private property. The pattern of behavior authorized under the Geneva Convention and international law is clear: the occupier must maintain the occupied area as intact and unaltered as possible, without interfering with the customary life of the area, and any changes must be necessitated by the immediate needs of the occupation.”
    Charles Yost, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, UN Security Council – July 1, 1969



     

    Jimmy Carter

    We have a special relationship with Israel. It's absolutely crucial that no one in our country or around the world ever doubt that our number one committment in the Middle East is to protect the right of Israel to exist, to exist permanently, and to exist in peace. It's a special relationship. " (Source: The White House, May 12, 1977)
    A few days ago in a conversation with about 30 members of the House of Representatives. I said that I would rather commit suicide than hurt Israel. I think many of them realize the two concepts are not incompatible. If I should ever hurt Israel, which I won't. I think political suicide would automatically result because it is not only our Jewish citizens who have this deep commitment to Israel, but there is an overwhelming support throughout the nation, because there is a common bond of commitment to the same principles of openness and freedom and democracy and strength and courage that ties us together in an irrevocable way. (October 22, 1977 speech to the Democratic National Committee [DNC])
    We have a committment to the preservation of Israel as a nation, to the security of Israel, the right of the Israeli people, who have suffered so much, to live in peace that is absolutely permanent and unshakeable. The ties that bind the people of the United States and the people of Israel together, the ties of blood, kinship, ties of history, ties of common religious beliefs, the dream, centuries old, of the founding of the new nation of Israel have been realized. But the dream that the new nation of Israel should be guaranteed a right to live in peace has not yet been realized for its people and those who love Israel around the world. ... Peace can come from a guarantee of security, and our staunch friendship for Israel will continue to be a major element in this foundation for progress. (Source: The White House, March 21, 1978)
    The special relationship between the United States and Israel still stands. Our total committments to Israel's security and our hope for peace is still preeminent among all the other considerations that our Nation has in the Middle East. ..... But there need be no concern among the Israeli people nor among Jews in this country that our Nation has changed or turned away from Israel. (Source: The White House, May 26, 1978)
    I would like to emphasize, in the strongest possible terms, that our aid for Israel is not only altruistic; indeed, our close relationship with Israel is in the moral and the strategic interest of the United States. There is a mutual relationship and there is a mutual benefit and there is a mutual committment, which has been impressed very deeply in my mind and also in the minds of the leaders of my Government and the Government of Israel. And I will continue to work with the leaders of Israel to strengthen even further our common commitments and our common goals. We know that in a time of crisis, we can count on Israel. And the people of Israel know that in a time of crisis, they can count on the United States. ...
    Let me assure you that in this negotiation, as we work for the legitimate rights of the Palestinians, recognized in the Camp David accords by Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat, that we will countenance no action whcih could hurt Israel's security. This is because of our commitment to Israel's security and well-being, and it's because Israel's security is so closely linked to the security of the United States of America.
    ... I am opposed to an independent Palestinian state, because in my own judgement and in the judgement of many leaders in the Middle East, including Arab leaders, this would be a destabilizing factor in the Middle East and would certainly not serve the United States interests. (Jimmy Carter at the United Jewish Appeal National Young Leadership Conference, February 25, 1980).
    That concept offers a first real hope for keeping our common pledge -- a pledge made by all three of us -- to resolve the Palestinian problem in all its aspects while fully protecting the security and the future of Israel ...
    And we oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state. The United States, as all of you know, has a warm and unique relationship of friendship with Israel that is morally right. It is compatible with our deepest religious convictions, and it is right in terms of America's own strategic interests. We are committed to Israel's security, prosperity, and future as a land that has so much to offer to the world. A strong Israel and a strong Egypt serve our own security interests.
    We are committed to Israel's right to live in peace with all its neighbors, within secure and recognized borders, free from terrorism. We are committed to a Jerusalem that will forever remain undivided with free access to all faiths to the holy places. Nothing will deflect us from these fundamental principles and committments. (Source: First anniversary of the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty / White House joint conference, March 23, 1980).

    The United States...has a warm and a unique relationship of friendship with Israel that is morally right. It is compatible with our deepest religious convictions, and it is right in terms of America's own strategic interests. We are committed to Israel's security, prosperity, and future as a land that has so much to offer the world.
    Since the rebirth of the State of Israel, there has been an ironclad bond between that democracy and this one.
    In Israel, free men and women are every day demonstrating the power of courage and faith. Back in 1948 when Israel was founded, pundits claimed the new country could never survive. Today, no one questions that Israel is a land of stability and democracy in a region of tyranny and unrest.
    America has never flinched from its commitment to the State of Israel--a commitment which remains unshakable.2
    Israel exists; it has a right to exist in peace behind secure and defensible borders; and it has a right to demand of its neighbors that they recognize those facts. I have personally followed and supported Israel's heroic struggle for survival, ever since the founding of the State of Israel 34 years ago. In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.3
    Since the foundation of the State of Israel, the United States has stood by her and helped her to pursue security, peace, and economic growth. Our friendship is based on historic moral and strategic ties, as well as our shared dedication to democracy.4
    For the people of Israel and America are historic partners in the global quest for human dignity and freedom. We will always remain at each other's side.5


    ** October 2001 " Bush administration officials continually opposed Israeli actions in Operation Defensive Shield to reoccupy Gaza and the West Bank. Colin Powell urged the administration to intervene in the fighting and pressure Arafat to denounce terrorism and Sharon to withdraw from newly occupied territory. Before Powell departed, Bush told him: “Do you understand what you’re saying to the Israelis? You’re going to have to look Sharon in the eye and say, ‘Get Out.’” When Powell arrived in Israel, he and Sharon had a vehement argument, Powell demanding to visit Arafat and Sharon refusing. Sharon said to Powell: “Their world is an empire of lies —Arafat’s like Osama bin Laden. Why do you apply different standards to Arafat than to Bin Laden?” Powell replied: “No, it’s a different situation.” Finally. Sharon relented.
    [Interview with Colin Powell, as quoted in Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 238, 163-4, 191-2, p. 196.]

    A furious Condoleezza Rice summoned Israeli Ambassador Danny Ayalon and Sharon’s chief of staff, Dov Weisglass, and rebuked them: …I am telling you, if you do not end this siege [of Yasser Arafat’s om-pound] in Ramallah, if you don’t withdraw your forces from the compound, you are going to have a public rift with this president. This needs to end now. If you and I are having this same conversation a week from now, you are going to have a serious problem in this building, and you’re going to have a serious problem with me." [end quote Condi]*
    [ * See also Douglas Feith, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the [Dawn of the War on Terrorism (HarperCollins, 2008), pp. 207-8, 511.
    [ * George W. Bush, as quoted in Bregman, Elusive Peace, p. 239.]
    [Interview with Flynt Leverett, in Bregman, Elusive Peace , p. 241.]

    *



    Now let's briefly review relevatn parts of Elliot Abrams famous letter to the WSJ which turns out to be, as expected, a work of fiction that no Bush official will ever back up- on the contrary- all responses are denials of what Elliot Abrams has said.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588743827950599.html
    In his op-ed article in the WSJ June 26, 2009 Abrams makes claims about verbal understandings about where construction could take place within a current settlement.  The evidence is against Abrams however since, but not exclusively, there are no written documents of the Bush Adminstration to this effect, GW Bush doesn't even claim he made this deal ( if someone asked him to day and he answered affirmatively, would that count as evidence? ), and Hillary Clinton, yet to be disproven, claims "in looking at the 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."  That is interesting- no personnel in positions of authority, including the president of the US and the VP nor Powell nor Condi claim this, and Condi and the PRESident's through 2008 negate this Elliot Abrams claim.  Now Elliot Abrams wasn't in a position of authority at the time, nor is his credibility intact on political matters due to his escaping jail time -- for lying under oath to the United States government during his stint in the Reagan Adminstration -- only due to cutting a deal after he was caught lying and having commited a felony, and after he was pardoned by HW Bush.     That aside, to reference George Mitchell on Charlie Rose, Mitchell says all parties in a negotiation start asking for 100% and then negotiate, referencing his Ireland win as well as other negotiations the U.S. has been involved in.      Again and again Mitchell stated in a 45 minute interview to Charlie Rose that Israel considered these disputed territory and so Israel has a different opinion on matters than the policy of decades of U.S. policy on the matters.  What is more, the same lying disingenuous nature of Abrams is that he knows all this and knows that the "new" demands upon which Bush put the screws to Israel, along with the acquiescence of the Israeli government to those demands at that time, are light years more restrictive and burdensome on Israel as a measure of a new restriction than anything that Obama and Hillary have initiated and upon which they persist, as evidenced by the comprehensive sequential public record regarding what the Obama Adminstration actually aimed for, which is to keep Netanyahu from actual expansion of the construction lines the territories as delineated. for a short period of time intended for the period through which the negotiations were to be restarted and in full swing.

    All of the above however is really besides the point for which Elliot Abrams letter has been highlighted here on this page.   Why are we then highlighting his letter?  We are highlighting this letter that we will quote instantly, in order to illustrate once again EVEN THE EXTENT TO WHICH ABRAMS the Republican propagandist publicly acknowledges were the demands and outcomes of those demands made on Israel but the Bush Administration, according to convicted felon Elliot Abrams who didnt see jail time for a crime he admits he committed, which if not for his deal, would have meant jail, and if not for his pardon, would have meant we were reading a felon's op-ed article in the WSJ to figure out something about...the truthful sequence of events of history !

    Here are the quotes to the effect of what Abrams admits Sharon agreed to after Bush pressure, however we will leave out Abram's spinning propaganda and fiction spinning. 
    [Abrams] " The U.S. government ....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. ...

    Text of PRESIDENT GW Bush spoken on MAY 26, 2005 at the Rose Garden:



    "Israel must continue to take steps toward a peaceful future, and work with the Palestinian leadership to improve the daily lives of Palestinians, especially their humanitarian situation.
    Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudice final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Therefore, Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion….Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice Lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity on the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. ( There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza). This is the position of the United States today; it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations…."


    After the Rose Garden Speech a reporter asks GW Bush a question: “But Israel continues to build settlements and continues to seize Palestinian territories. What is your position, Mr. President?”


    PRESIDENT BUSH RESPONDS TO REPORTER: “Well, I told you what my position was. And it’s exactly what I said when I was in Crawford by the way, when Prime Minister Sharon was there, as well. I mean, when you say you’re going to accept the Road Map, you accept the road map. And part of the obligations of the Road Map is not the expansion of settlements. And we continue to remind our friends, the Israelis, about their obligations under the road map, just like we remind President Abbas about the obligations under the road map that the Palestinians have accepted. So nothing has changed.”


    ( ed; note Bush's response includes reference to April 11, 2005 in Crawford TX. Bush did not have to mention Crawford-- but note that BUSH insists that there is not only NO change from the speech he just gave and what he told Sharon in Crawford. Bush is telling the world and Israel in unmistakable terms that nothing else prior to today that he has ever said may be interpreted as different than what was said today.




    January 10, 2008


    PRESIDENT GW Bush: "...The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent.... "
    http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080110-3.html

    Furthermore Bush says at this January 10, 2008 speech:


    "Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides. While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous. I believe we need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue…..


    I reaffirm to each leader that implementation of any agreement is subject to implementation of the road map. Neither party should undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudices the final status negotiations. On the Israeli side that includes ending settlement expansion and removing unauthorized outposts. On the Palestinian side that includes confronting terrorists and dismantling terrorist infrastructure….


    I know Jerusalem is a tough issue. Both sides have deeply felt political and religious concerns. I fully understand that finding a solution to this issue will be one of the most difficult challenges on the road to peace, but that is the road we have chosen to walk….


    The establishment of the state of Palestine is long overdue. The Palestinian people deserve it. And it will enhance the stability of the region, and it will contribute to the security of the people of Israel. The peace agreement should happen, and can happen, by the end of this year. I know each leader shares that important goal, and I am committed to doing all I can to achieve it.”


    Now here is the offer President GW Bush brokered with Olmert and offered to Abbas:
    "He [ Prime Minister Ehud Olmert] says that on August 31, 2008, three weeks before he resigned, he offered 100 percent of West Bank land (minus 6.8% in land swaps), 10,000 Palestinian refugees returning to Israel’s final borders, and the holy basin of Jerusalem’s Old City coming under joint Israeli-Palestinian-American- Jordanian-Saudi control. He last met with Abbas on September 16 of that year – five days before he resigned, and more than six months before he left office – and Abbas did not respond or make a counteroffer."
    Article: Negotiations, Vindicating Israel By GIL HOFFMAN 29 /04/ 2011 Jerusalem POST: "Palileaks," corroborate Israel’s narrative according to a US organization. Will this argument help Israel make its case en route to UN in Sept?") http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=218340

    [Olmert, GW Bush, and all voices that enunciate anything regarding this offer minimally AGREE this offer was made ( i.e. "minimally" means that there are non-credible voices that claim the PA was offered EVEN MORE than what Olmert and Bush claim and all the others claim was offered ( GW Bush in his book "Decision points") ] ( we see here - and we see in the offer Bush brokered with Olmert later in 2008 that Bush does not care that Hamas is a party in actual power over Gaza and that Gaza will be connected to the West Bank and Hamas has not forsworn violence nor has the PA recognized a Jewish State. Bush brokered the deal nonetheless [ see below] and the PA recognizing Israel as a Jewish State and the homeland of the Jews did not take place. No one cared and made the offer anyway) 

    The testimony of both the US and Israeli defense leadership agrees. Said Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak in September 2011, “The Obama administration is backing the security of Israel…in a way that could hardly be compared to any previous administration.” Said US Defense Secretary Robert Gates in March 2011, regarding US-Israel security cooperation, “more has been done in the last two years than in any comparable period in my entire career.”
    Also exceptional was the campaign to block the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations. Thanks to an all-out effort by the US and Israel to align UN Security Council members against the bid, the US has not even needed to use its veto. Mr. Obama’s speech at the UN on this issue was described by right-leaning journalist Amir Mizroch as “the most pro-Israeli speech I think anyone has heard at that world forum for a very long time.” The Israeli newspaper Maariv reacted with an illustration of Mr. Obama as a Zionist superhero on the cover of its weekend supplement (23 September 2011; http://twitpic.com/6p40gd).
    One last appraisal: Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon—who served as Israeli Ambassador to the US during the Bush administration—said in September 2011, “I can tell you in a very categoric way, and I believe also in an authoritative way, that we have not had a better friend than President Obama.”

    _____________________________________________________________________________

    Statements from U.S. Government Officials Concerning Israeli Settlements

    Introduction
    The policy of all Israeli governments since 1967 of settling Israeli citizens in the territories Israel occupied in the 1967 war is regarded by most governments as a violation of international law defined by the “Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.” In 2004, the International Court of Justice confirmed this in an advisory opinion.
    The United States supported the applicability of the Geneva Convention and the unlawful character of settlements until February 1981 when President Ronald Reagan disavowed this policy by asserting that settlements are “not illegal.” President Reagan’s policy has been sustained, implicitly, by subsequent U.S. administrations, all of whom have declined to address the legal issue, although they have all opposed, with varying emphasis, settlements or settlement expansion. 
    The following is chronology of statements by U.S. officials on U.S. policies toward Israeli Settlements in the Palestinian Occupied Territories.

    The Obama Administration
    "We reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity. For more than four decades, Israeli settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967 has undermined Israel’s security and corroded hopes for peace and stability in the region. Continued settlement activity violates Israel’s international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens the prospects for peace.”

    “While we agree with our fellow Council members—and indeed, with the wider world—about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, we think it unwise for this Council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians."
    Ambassador Susan Rice – February 18, 2011
    "Israel's settlement moratorium has made a difference on the ground, and improved the atmosphere for talks. ... We believe that the moratorium should be extended.”
    President Obama to the UN General Assembly – September 23, 2010
    "I think that additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel's security. I think it makes it harder for them to make peace with their neighbors. I think it embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous.”
    President Barack Obama – November 18, 2009
    “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.”
    President Barack Obama in Cairo – June 4, 2009
    "With respect to settlements, the President was very clear when Prime Minister Netanyahu was here. He wants to see a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions. We think it is in the best interests of the effort that we are engaged in that settlement expansion cease. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly, not only to the Israelis but to the Palestinians and others. And we intend to press that point."
    Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton in a joint press conference with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Ali Aboul Gheit – May 28, 2009
    “And yes, I underscored the longstanding American policy that does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlements.”
    Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton at AIPAC – March 22, 2009
    “First, we want to see a stop to settlement construction, additions, natural growth – any kind of settlement activity. That is what the President has called for.”
    Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton in an interview with Abderrahim Foukara of Al Jazeera – May 19, 2009
    "...Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward. That's a difficult issue. I recognize that, but it's an important one and it has to be addressed."
    President Barack Obama in a press conference with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel – May 18, 2009
    The George W. Bush Administration
    “[T]hey should not be expanding the settlements. There should not be expansion of the settlements and outposts should be removed.”
    Sean McCormack, Spokesman, Daily Press Briefing – September 7, 2006
    "The Security Council underlines the need for the Palestinian Authority to prevent terrorist attacks and dismantle the infrastructure of terror. ... It reiterates its view that settlement expansion must stop and its concern regarding the route of the barrier."
    John R. Bolton, U.S. Ambassador to the UN -- February, 2006, while Bolton was serving as president of the Security Council and just weeks after Hamas won Palestinian elections.
    “Israel must continue to work with Palestinian leaders to help improve the daily lives of Palestinians. At the same time, Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes its road map obligations, or prejudices the final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. This means that Israel must remove unauthorized posts and stop settlement expansion.”
    President George W. Bush speaking with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas – October 20, 2005
    “Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudice final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Therefore, Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion.”
    President George W. Bush speaking with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas – May 26, 2005
    “Now, our position on settlement activity has not changed. We have said to the Israelis that they have obligations under the roadmap, they have obligations not to increase settlement activity."
    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Interview with LA Times – March 24, 2005
    “I would say that we continue -- our policy continues to be that Israel should freeze settlement construction.”
    Daily Press Briefing by Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman – December 31, 2003
    "Settlement activity must stop. And it has not stopped to our satisfaction."
    Secretary Colin Powell – September 21, 2003
    "Israel has got responsibilities. Israel must deal with the settlements. Israel must make sure there is a contiguous territory that the Palestinians can call home."
    President George W. Bush – June 3, 2003
    “Our position on settlements, I think, has been very consistent, very clear. The secretary expressed it not too long ago. He said settlement activity has severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope, preempts and prejudges the outcome of negotiations, and in doing so, cripples chances for real peace and prosperity. The U.S. has long opposed settlement activity and, consistent with the report of the Mitchell Committee, settlement activity must stop.”
    Richard Boucher, U.S. Department of State – Daily Press Briefing – November 25, 2002 
    “Our opposition to the settlements is political. Washington feels that Israel would be better protected and more accepted inside borders where there are no settlements, so a decision on their future must be accepted on the basis of their feasibility. It is a fact that we have opposed the settlements for decades and you continue to build them and we have done nothing untoward to you [in response]. If Israel wants, it can even expand to the borders promised in the Bible. The question is whether it is able to do so from a security and political standpoint.”
    Daniel Kurtzer, U.S. Ambassador to Israel – May 29, 2002 – Ha’aretz
    “Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338.”
    President George W. Bush’s Rose Garden Address – April 4, 2002
    “During the half-century of its existence, Israel has had the strong support of the United States. In international forums, the United States has at times cast the only vote on Israel’s behalf. Yet, even in such a close relationship there are some difficulties. Prominent among those differences is the U.S. government’s long-standing opposition to the Government of Israel’s policies and practices regarding settlements.” …..“The GOI should freeze all settlement activity, including the “natural growth” of existing settlements. The kind of security cooperation desired by the GOI cannot for long co-exist with settlement activity described very recently by the European Union as causing “great concern” and by the United States as “provocative.”
    The Mitchell Report – April 30, 2001 
    The Clinton Administration
    “The Israeli people also must understand that . . . the settlement enterprise and building bypass roads in the heart of what they already know will one day be part of a Palestinian state is inconsistent with the Oslo commitment that both sides negotiate a compromise.”
    President Bill Clinton’s farewell address to the Middle East – January 7, 2001
     “We write you because we are concerned that unilateral actions, such as expansion of settlements, would be strongly counterproductive to the goal of a negotiated solution and, if carried forward, could halt progress made by the peace process over the last two decades. Such a tragic result would threaten the security of Israel, the Palestinians, friendly Arab states, and undermine U.S. interests in the Middle East.”
    Excerpt from a letter written to H.E. Benjamin Netanyahu on December 14, 1996. The letter was signed by: James A. Baker III (Former Se. of State), Zbigniew Brzezinski (Former National Security Adviser), Frank C. Carlucci (Former National Security Adviser), Lawrence S. Eagleburger (Former Sec. of State), Richard Fairbanks (Former Mid East Peace Negotiator), Brent Scowcroft (Former National Security Adviser), Robert S. Straus (Former Middle East Peace Negotiator), Cyrus R. Vance (Former Sec. of State). 
    The George H.W. Bush Administration 
    “The United States believes that no party should take unilateral actions that seek to predetermine issues that can only be reached through negotiations. In this regard the United States has opposed, and will continue to oppose, settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967 which remain an obstacle to peace.”
    U.S. Letter of Assurances to the Palestinians on the terms of the Madrid Peace Conference excerpts – October 24, 1991
    “Every time I have gone to Israel in connection with the peace process on each of my trips I have been met with the announcement of new settlement activity. This does violate United States policy. It is the first thing that Arabs--Arab governments—the first thing that Palestinians in the territories—whose situation is really quite desperate—the first thing they raise when we talk to them. I don’t think there is any greater obstacle to peace than settlement activity that continues not only unabated but at an advanced pace.”
    U.S. Secretary of State James Baker III – May 22, 1991
    “Secretary Baker was speaking for this administration, and I strongly support what he said. . .It would make a big contribution to peace if these settlements would stop. That’s what the secretary was trying to say. . .and I’m one hundred percent for him.”
    President George H.W. Bush's response to press questions about Baker’s criticism of Israel’s settlement policy
    “My position is that the foreign policy of the United States says we do not believe there should be new settlements in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem. And I will conduct that policy as if it’s firm, which it is, and I will be shaped in whatever decisions we make to see whether people can comply with that policy. And that’s our strongly held view.”
    President George H.W. Bush, press conference – March 3, 1990
    "Since the end of the 1967 war, the U.S. has regarded Israel as the occupying power in the occupied territories, which includes the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The U.S. considers Israel's occupation to be governed by the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the 1949 Geneva Conventions concerning the protection of civilian populations under military occupation."
    Thomas Pickering, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations – November 27, 1989
    The Reagan Administration
    In Reagan’s view, Israeli settlement was not illegal, but merely “ill-advised” and “unnecessarily provocative.”
    “The Reagan Plan states that ‘the United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transition period (5 years after Palestinian election for a self-governing authority). Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlements freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be free and fairly negotiated.”
    Reagan Plan – September 1982
    The Carter Administration
    “Our position on the settlements is very clear. We do not think they are legal.”
    President Jimmy Carter – April 1980 interview
    "U.S. Policy toward the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is unequivocal and has long been a matter of public record. We consider it to be contrary to international law and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the Middle East peace process…Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention is, in my judgment, and has been in judgment of each of the legal advisors of the State Department for many, many years, to be. . .that [settlements] are illegal and that [the Convention] applies to the territories.”
    Secretary of State Cyrus Vance before House Committee on Foreign Affairs – March 21, 1980
    The Ford Administration
    “Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future negotiations between the parties on the locations of the borders of states by the Middle East. Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors.” 
    William Scranton, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, UN Security Council – March 23, 1976
    The Nixon Administration
    “The expropriation or confiscation of land, the construction of housing on such land, the demolition or confiscation of buildings, including those having historic or religious significance, and the application of Israeli law to occupied portions of the city are detrimental to our common interests in [Jerusalem]. The United States considers that the part of Jerusalem that came under the control of Israel in the June war, like other areas occupied by Israel, is governing the rights and obligations of an occupying Power. Among the provisions of international law which bind Israel, as they would bind any occupier, are the provisions that the occupier has no right to make changes in laws or in administration other than those which are temporarily necessitated by his security interests, and that an occupier may not confiscate or destroy private property. The pattern of behavior authorized under the Geneva Convention and international law is clear: the occupier must maintain the occupied area as intact and unaltered as possible, without interfering with the customary life of the area, and any changes must be necessitated by the immediate needs of the occupation.”
    Charles Yost, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, UN Security Council – July 1, 1969
    The Johnson Administration
    “Although we have expressed our views to the Foreign Ministry and are confident there can be little doubt among GOI leaders as to our continuing opposition to any Israeli settlements in the occupied areas, we believe it would be timely and useful for the Embassy to restate in strongest terms the US position on this question. You should refer to Prime Minister Eshkol's Knesset statement and our awareness of internal Israeli pressures for settling civilians in occupied areas. The GOI is aware of our continuing concern that nothing be done in the occupied areas which might prejudice the search for a peace settlement. By setting up civilian or quasi-civilian outposts in the occupied areas the GOI adds serious complications to the eventual task of drawing up a peace settlement. Further, the transfer of civilians to occupied areas, whether or not in settlements which are under military control, is contrary to Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, which states "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.’” "Airgram from the Department of State to the Embassy in Israel." 
    Smith, Louis J. (Ed.). Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-1968, V. 20, Arab-Israeli Dispute 1967-1968. DC: GPO, 2001  








    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/82861
    First Published: 5/29/2005, 3:14 PM / Last Update: 5/29/2005, 5:18 PM

    or view the content of the original article here:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1412738/posts
    or view the content of the original article here:



    “[T]hey should not be expanding the settlements. There should not be expansion of the settlements and outposts should be removed.”
    Sean McCormack, Spokesman, Daily Press Briefing – September 7, 2006
    "The Security Council underlines the need for the Palestinian Authority to prevent terrorist attacks and dismantle the infrastructure of terror. ... It reiterates its view that settlement expansion must stop and its concern regarding the route of the barrier."
    John R. Bolton, U.S. Ambassador to the UN -- February, 2006, while Bolton was serving as president of the Security Council and just weeks after Hamas won Palestinian elections.
    “Israel must continue to work with Palestinian leaders to help improve the daily lives of Palestinians. At the same time, Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes its road map obligations, or prejudices the final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. This means that Israel must remove unauthorized posts and stop settlement expansion.”
    President George W. Bush speaking with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas – October 20, 2005
    “Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes road map obligations or prejudice final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Therefore, Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion.”
    President George W. Bush speaking with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas – May 26, 2005
    “Now, our position on settlement activity has not changed. We have said to the Israelis that they have obligations under the roadmap, they have obligations not to increase settlement activity."
    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Interview with LA Times – March 24, 2005
    “I would say that we continue -- our policy continues to be that Israel should freeze settlement construction.”
    Daily Press Briefing by Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman – December 31, 2003
    "Settlement activity must stop. And it has not stopped to our satisfaction."
    Secretary Colin Powell – September 21, 2003
    "Israel has got responsibilities. Israel must deal with the settlements. Israel must make sure there is a contiguous territory that the Palestinians can call home."
    President George W. Bush – June 3, 2003
    “Our position on settlements, I think, has been very consistent, very clear. The secretary expressed it not too long ago. He said settlement activity has severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope, preempts and prejudges the outcome of negotiations, and in doing so, cripples chances for real peace and prosperity. The U.S. has long opposed settlement activity and, consistent with the report of the Mitchell Committee, settlement activity must stop.”
    Richard Boucher, U.S. Department of State – Daily Press Briefing – November 25, 2002 
    “Our opposition to the settlements is political. Washington feels that Israel would be better protected and more accepted inside borders where there are no settlements, so a decision on their future must be accepted on the basis of their feasibility. It is a fact that we have opposed the settlements for decades and you continue to build them and we have done nothing untoward to you [in response]. If Israel wants, it can even expand to the borders promised in the Bible. The question is whether it is able to do so from a security and political standpoint.”
    Daniel Kurtzer, U.S. Ambassador to Israel – May 29, 2002 – Ha’aretz
    “Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338.”
    President George W. Bush’s Rose Garden Address – April 4, 2002
    “During the half-century of its existence, Israel has had the strong support of the United States. In international forums, the United States has at times cast the only vote on Israel’s behalf. Yet, even in such a close relationship there are some difficulties. Prominent among those differences is the U.S. government’s long-standing opposition to the Government of Israel’s policies and practices regarding settlements.” …..“The GOI should freeze all settlement activity, including the “natural growth” of existing settlements. The kind of security cooperation desired by the GOI cannot for long co-exist with settlement activity described very recently by the European Union as causing “great concern” and by the United States as “provocative.”
    The Mitchell Report – April 30, 2001 
    The Clinton Administration
    “The Israeli people also must understand that . . . the settlement enterprise and building bypass roads in the heart of what they already know will one day be part of a Palestinian state is inconsistent with the Oslo commitment that both sides negotiate a compromise.”
    President Bill Clinton’s farewell address to the Middle East – January 7, 2001
     “We write you because we are concerned that unilateral actions, such as expansion of settlements, would be strongly counterproductive to the goal of a negotiated solution and, if carried forward, could halt progress made by the peace process over the last two decades. Such a tragic result would threaten the security of Israel, the Palestinians, friendly Arab states, and undermine U.S. interests in the Middle East.”
    Excerpt from a letter written to H.E. Benjamin Netanyahu on December 14, 1996. The letter was signed by: James A. Baker III (Former Se. of State), Zbigniew Brzezinski (Former National Security Adviser), Frank C. Carlucci (Former National Security Adviser), Lawrence S. Eagleburger (Former Sec. of State), Richard Fairbanks (Former Mid East Peace Negotiator), Brent Scowcroft (Former National Security Adviser), Robert S. Straus (Former Middle East Peace Negotiator), Cyrus R. Vance (Former Sec. of State)

    News Analysis: Bush Policy Pushes Israel Back to 1949 Armistice

    When challenged about his disengagement plan, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon consistently retorts that his concessions earned historic achievements in the form of the Bush letter of April, 2004. 

    First Publish: 5/29/2005, 3:14 PM / Last Update: 5/29/2005, 5:18 PM

    Sharon argues that the disengagement plan cemented US support for retaining large blocks of Israeli towns in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria.

    For example, on April 18th, 2004 Sharon declared in the Knesset:
    "…whoever wants to maintain large settlement blocs under our control forever; whoever wants to guarantee that for as long as the Palestinians don't act against terrorism, diplomatic pressures will not be exerted upon us... must support the disengagement plan."
    Sharon further said:
    "The diplomatic support we received during my visit to the U.S. is an unprecedented achievement. Never since the establishment of the State have we received such support with such strength and comprehension. The Palestinians see the Bush letter as the strongest blow they have received since [our] War of Independence."
    In light of the May 26th Bush-Abbas summit and the subsequent statements, Arutz Sheva presents the following analysis of what is left of Sharon's unprecedented gains:

    U.S. President George W. Bush’s statement welcoming PA leader Mahmoud Abbas into the White House Rose Garden on May 26, provided a highly transparent view of the administration’s policy toward Israel and an unsettling perspective on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s claims that Bush has agreed to allow Israel to retain large settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria.

    The most unsettling, if not shocking remark by the president was a direct reference to the 1949 “Armistice lines” agreed to by Israel and Jordan at the end of the War of Independence. Those lines, the famous “Auschwitz borders” as they were called by the late Israeli Labor-party statesman Abba Eban, leaves Israel’s heavily populated coastal plain, just 9-11 miles from the border of what would be Palestine.

    Not only are none of the major settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria, such as Ma’ale Adumim included in those borders, but neither are the Western Wall, the Old City of Jerusalem, the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Ramot, Gilo, Neve Yaakov, East Talpiot, Pisgat Ze’ev (to name a few), nor the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway (Route 1) as it crosses into the Latrun area.

    Yet President Bush, standing next to the man whom he would like to become the first president of Palestine, told Abbas and the rest of the world, that the reference point for negotiating the future boundary between the two states was the 1949 lines, and that any change to that border “must be mutually agreed to” between Israel and the Arabs.

    In other words, as far as Bush is concerned, Abbas must approve Israel's annexing the Western Wall or even part of the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem highway to the Jewish State. Conversely, without his agreement, those areas are slated to be part of an independent State of Palestine.

    Where then, is the great quid-pro-quo for the Gaza withdrawal, the highly-touted and heavily-marketed Bush promises to Sharon that the U.S. recognizes the facts on the ground in Judea and Samaria, the settlement blocs that preclude a withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice lines?

    According to Yoram Ettinger, a consultant on U.S. Israel relations and former liaison for Congressional affairs in the Israel Washington embassy, Bush’s April, 2004 letter supposedly guaranteeing U.S. support for retaining major settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria “was grossly misrepresented by the Prime Minister and his spokesman. Bush has not committed the United States to recognizing anything beyond the 1949 cease-fire lines. Bush doesn’t recognize any single settlement or blocs of settlements.”

    Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak concurs with this analysis of Bush’s view of the future border between Israel and a Palestinian state. In a recent interview for Haaretz, Barak said:

    “A campaign is under way here whose gist is to mislead the nation about substantive issues in order to prevent it from asking what the quid pro quo for the disengagement is. Sharon’s claim that he made painful decisions in Gaza and in return obtained an unprecedented achievement in Judea and Samaria is not correct…

    “After all, it is obvious that the U.S. administration is against the Ariel-Kedumim bloc and against Ma’ale Adumim and is even against Efrat [locataed in the Gush Etzion bloc]…Sharon is not telling the people the truth. He is treating us all as though we are infantile and incapable of debating our own fate.”

    It is not surprising therefore, that Bush, instead of emphasizing the importance of Abbas fighting terror and keeping his obligations under the road map, focused mostly on Israel’s roadmap obligations, primarily to halt all settlement construction in Judea and Samaria and remove what he called, “unauthorized outposts.”

    George W. Bush is a president who means what he says. After mentioning the 1949 lines, Bush said the following: “A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.”

    Territorial contiguity in Judea and Samaria for a viable Palestinian State is not a prescription for accepting settlement blocs anywhere.

    It’s about time the Israeli public recognizes that the “Bush vision” as expressed repeatedly by the President and his Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, does not include any territory east of the 1949 lines. Rather, it holds the disengagement plan as the first phase of an ongoing process of Israeli withdrawals back to what the Labor party leader termed "the Auschwitz borders."




    6/62004 The ZOA notes that there have been additional indications that the Bush administration has
    backtracked on the promises to Sharon, including the May 3 Quartet statement that Israel "must end the Israeli occupation that began in 1967;" the May 6 statement by President Bush, after his meeting with Jordanian King Abdullah, that the U.S. would not take any positions that would "prejudice" negotiations over the borders; and Bush's May 17 speech to AIPAC, in which he conspicuously failed to reiterate the promises he made to Prime Minister Sharon, even though he was speaking to a pro-Israel audience that would have appreciated such a statement.

    quartet statement
    The Israeli occupation that began in 1967 must end, and Israel must have secure and recognized borders.

    n his remarks at the United States Air Force Academy Graduation Ceremony on June 2, 2004, President Bush described his “Road Map” plan as “the most reliable guide to ending the occupation that began in 1967.” (See www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040602.html)
    But in his April 16 meeting with Prime Minister Sharon, at the White House, President Bush said that “it is unrealistic to expect … a full and complete return” by Israel to the pre-1967 borders.


    William Saffire on Ronald Reagan suspending the first written American Israeli aggreement
    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1915&dat=19811223&id=pAMhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YXUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1433,5334469

    Relations under GOP Presidents

    David Streeter — April 10, 2012 – 12:20 pm |
    Yair Rosenberg provided important historical context on the state of U.S.-Israel relations under Republican presidents—including conservative hero President Ronald Reagan—that helps place relations under President Barack Obama into perspective. Rosenberg wrote in Tablet:
    ‘The policy of publicly humiliating our traditional ally has made us no new friends in the Arab world and removed the trust needed to encourage Israel to take risks for peace,’ argues a prominent conservative columnist. In his piece, he castigates the American administration for its policy toward Israel: ‘You’d think the heaviest cross [the President] had to bear was the Star of David.’
    You could be forgiven for thinking the above was clipped from a column penned by William Kristol about President Barack Obama. But in fact, those are the words of William Safire criticizing Ronald Reagan in 1981.
    Safire, the Nixon speechwriter and New York Times columnist, was none too pleased with the Republican administration’s treatment of the Jewish state. Under Reagan, the United States had withheld promised warplanes from Israel to punish it for destroying Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981 and voted to condemn the action in the United Nations Security Council. It had publicly criticized Israel’s July bombing of the PLO headquarters in Beirut and the ensuing civilian casualties. And it had suspended discussion of a memorandum of strategic cooperation after the Knesset voted to extend Israeli civil law to the occupied Golan Heights.
    Safire wasn’t the only one outraged by the White House’s conduct. On Dec. 20, 1981, six days before Safire wrote his piece, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin summoned the American Ambassador Samuel Lewis to read him a prepared statement. Begin did not mince words. ‘What kind of expression is this-“punishing Israel”? Are we a vassal state of yours? Are we a banana republic? Are we youths of fourteen who, if they don’t behave properly, are slapped across the fingers?’ Israel and its legislators, said Begin, would not be bullied by the United States. ‘Let me tell you who this government is composed of. It is composed of people whose lives were spent in resistance, in fighting and in suffering. You will not frighten us with “punishments.” He who threatens us will find us deaf to his threats.’...
    Don’t know much about this history? That’s no surprise. Open up a right-leaning editorial page, and you’ll find claims that Barack Obama is the most anti-Israel president ever-or at least since Jimmy Carter….
    Yet as the Reagan-Begin showdown demonstrates, these ... myths, while serving the purposes of political partisans, have little basis in historical fact. The U.S.-Israel relationship has weathered far greater tensions than those experienced under Obama, and Israel has had far more conservative leaders than Netanyahu. Such extremist caricatures-promulgated by editorialists and advocacy groups-aren’t just factually wrong, they stunt our ability to have sensible discussions about the United States, Israel, and their special relationship….
    One wonders what Krauthammer and the Emergency Committee would have made of Reagan’s strong-arming of the Jewish state. Beyond the incidents chronicled above, the Gipper also sold Airborne Warning and Control System surveillance planes to the Saudis, over the strenuous objections of Israel and its supporters in Congress. (Sen. Ted Kennedy called it ‘one of the worst and most dangerous arms sales ever proposed.’)
    Reagan was not the only president willing to put daylight between the United States and Israel. His successor, George H.W. Bush, made waves at a 1990 news conference when he said, ‘My position is that the foreign policy of the United States says we do not believe there should be new settlements in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem.’... But unlike Obama, Bush took this controversial position a step further, conditioning $10 billion of loan guarantees to Israel on a total cessation of settlement building. He later compromised and allowed the loans to go forward, but with deductions commensurate with Israel’s construction in the occupied territories.
    His son George W. Bush is often held up as a model of unwavering support of Israel. But he took after his father when it came to settlement policy. As the New York Times reported in November 2003, the Bush Administration rescinded $289.5 million of loan guarantees to Israel as ‘punishment for illegal construction activities in the West Bank.’ These sentiments were also expressed in international forums. Bush’s hawkish ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, serving as the president of the Security Council in 2006, issued a statement on its behalf declaring: ‘The Security Council underlines the need for the Palestinian Authority to prevent terrorist attacks and dismantle the infrastructure of terror. It reiterates its view that settlement expansion must stop and its concern regarding the route of the [Israeli security] barrier.’
    Taken together, these incidents paint a more accurate picture of the American-Israel relationship and its attendant tensions…
    Indeed, many more examples could be marshaled to demonstrate that America and Israel have always had their strategic and diplomatic differences, despite their shared values. President Obama’s more critical stance toward Israel, in other words, is well-represented in the American political tradition-and the robust U.S.-Israel relationship has survived far worse friction than anything that has taken place under this ‘most anti-Israel president.’ Seen in historical context, Obama’s prodding of Israel looks less like throwing the country under a bus and more like poking it tentatively with a salad fork….
    There are many questions one could ask about the choices Obama and Netanyahu have made…
    But while such topics and others are worthy of serious consideration, shrill accusations of unprecedented extremism against the leaders of America and Israel are not. They don’t advance the conversation, and they don’t hold up to the historical record. So, next time you see Barack Obama called the most anti-Israel president, or Benjamin Netanyahu called the Jewish state’s most impudent prime minister, remember Reagan and Begin.
    Click here to read Rosenberg’s full piece.
    Click here for a list of Obama’s pro-Israel achievements along with praise from Israeli leaders.




    footnote on historian who claimed JFK is a counter-example to Halevy's assertion of the benchmark of "throwing Israel under the bus"; we read this historian's article and unfortunately the historian only offers an example of a letter JFK sent to Ben Gurion that includes a statement from JFK that if Israel wasn't forthright with the U.S. regarding the state of affairs of Israel's nuclear activities then it would seriously compromise the people of the U.S.'s relationship with Israel on account of breach of trust.  Then the historian build's up a vast array of assertions by several people who knew Ben Gurion very well that Ben Gurion was emotionally stricken by the letter ( the letter from JFK is publicly available on the internet and linked to by the historian).   We see immediately that the historian wrote an unreasoned article and the event of the JFK letter isn't comparable to what Halevy writes as examples of throwing Israel under the bus which is why Halevy doesn't mention it.  The historian's assertion regarding the JFK article is a joke ( as a last note on this, in fact Israel's claims regarding it's nuclear program under Ben Gurion were false, Israel hid the nuclear weapon building from the American inspectors at Dimona,  and the historian even notes this point.) 

    Even a journal whose contributors include Leslie Gelb and Kenneth Pollack remarked in one of its articles:
    " The episode Halevy recounts that is least well known occurred just before the same administration began its war in Iraq in 2003. As Halevy tells it, in order to retain Tony Blair's support for the war in the face of resistance from members of his own Labour Party who demanded in return some Israeli concessions toward the Palestinians, Bush had to declare that the multilateral diplomatic plan known as the “roadmap,” which included an implied end to Israel's sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, represented U.S. policy. The Israeli government of Ariel Sharon strongly opposed the roadmap, but the Bush administration, anxious not to lose the participation of Britain in the war, made clear to the Israelis that it wanted no opposition or complaint from them. Sharon reluctantly went along and got his cabinet to do so too—although one member of it, Benjamin Netanyahu, abstained when the issue came to a vote.
    The principal lesson to draw from Halevy's extracts from Middle Eastern history is not just his own point about whether Republicans or Democrats have been more willing to exert leverage on Israel. It is the more basic point that such leverage indeed can be exerted and has been exerted in the past—and has worked."
    (Yet Obama has not engaged in that, according to Halevy)
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/buses-twisted-arms-israel-7669

    Mossad Chief Efraim Halevy is interviewed by Aaron David Miller: 

    Miller:  Any thoughts on the US-Israel relationship and our upcoming elections?

    Halevy: "Israeli-American relations have gone through several bumps. I think that basically they have been very good. I think on the practical side, the United States has been very supportive of Israel during the Obama administration. I think both financially and strategically, we have received a lot of support—support both in equipment and support in political moves like the way the United States has behaved at the UN Security Council and in the UN in general. And I think there should be a little less complaining about it on the part of Israel that the administration has not embraced us warmly. I think international relations is not a love fest in which you celebrate love and fondness. I think it has to be practical business. And Israel should not always pray and expect to be embraced and hugged and pacified and so forth. We're grown-ups and we should act as grown-ups.
    "Regarding the election, I think many of the statements made by the Republican candidate are very undesirable as far as Israel is concerned. I remember an article of Governor Romney’s in the Washington Post in March of this year in which he advocated the dispatch of American warships to the Eastern Mediterranean. I think shooting from the hip on these matters is a very dangerous sport to be engaged in. I think it should not be done.  And I think that drawing Israel into the campaign is detrimental to Israeli interests. And I regret that one of the candidates is doing this.


    http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/07/1157961/ayalon-negotiations-us-iran/
    (Halevy on negotiations with Iran)

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4143909,00.html

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4143909,00.html

    "If I'm sitting here in the month of March 2012 reading this,and I'm an Iranian leader, what do I understand? I have nine more months to run as fast as I can because this is going to be terrible if the other guys get in." Efraim Halevy, former Mossad director.