Israel-Palestine-US Special: Stakes Raised With Approval of More Settlements

Palestine: Mahmoud Abbas Sticks Around as “President”

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

On Tuesday, the Jerusalem Municipal Planning Committee approved the construction plan for an additional 900 new housing units beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem.

Washington responded harshly through Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:

We are dismayed at the Jerusalem Planning Committee’s decision to move forward on the approval process for the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem. At a time when we are working to re-launch negotiations, these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed. Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations. The U.S. also objects to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes. Our position is clear: the status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties.

US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly repeated that "they were dismayed". However, even more important --- only weeks after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had praised Israel's "unprecedented" concessions --- was Washington's warning to the Netanyahu Government to withhold support from the Jerusalem committee's move:

QUESTION: On the peace process, Israel has approved today the construction of 900 new housing units in East Jerusalem. How do you view this approval at this specific time?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think, Michel, you’ve heard us say many times that we believe that neither party should engage in any kind of actions that could unilaterally preempt or appear to preempt negotiations. And I think that we find the Jerusalem Planning Committee’s decision to move forward on the approval of the – approval process for the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem as dismaying.

This is at a time when we’re working to re-launch negotiations, and we believe that these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed. So we object to this, and we object to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes.

And – just to repeat what we’ve said all along, our position on Jerusalem is clear. We believe that the – that Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the two parties.

QUESTION: Can you tell us, did this come up in Ambassador Mitchell’s meetings in London yesterday? Apparently, we were told that he met an advisor to Netanyahu, asked them to not permit these new buildings, and then that request was flatly turned down.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Andy, I just don’t want to get into the substance of these negotiations. They’re sensitive. I think you’ve seen the Israeli – some Israeli press reports that did report that this was raised in the meetings. This is – I mean, these kinds of unilateral actions are exactly the kind of actions that we think that both sides should refrain from at a time when we’re trying to start the negotiations again. But I don’t want to get into the substance of the discussions yesterday in London.

QUESTION: Would you steer us away from not believing the Israeli press reports?

MR. KELLY: I just don’t want to get into the substance. I’m not going to steer you one way or the other on it.

QUESTION: Where’s Senator Mitchell today?

QUESTION: How long is the U.S. going to continue to tolerate Israel’s violation of international law? I mean, soon it’s not even going to be possible – there’s not going to be any land left for the Palestinians to establish an independent state.

MR. KELLY: Well, again, this is a – we understand the Israeli point of view about Jerusalem. But we think that all sides right now, at this time when we’re expending such intense efforts to try and get the two sides to sit down, that we should refrain from these actions, like this decision to move forward on an approval process for more housing units in East Jerusalem.

QUESTION: But should U.S. inaction, or in response to Israel’s actions, then be interpreted as some sort of about-face in policy – the President turning his back on the promises he’s made to the Palestinians?

MR. KELLY: You’re – okay, you’re using language that I wouldn’t use. I mean, again, our focus is to get these negotiations started. We’re calling on both parties to refrain from actions, from – and from rhetoric that would impede this process. It’s a challenging time, and we just need to focus on what’s important here, and that’s --

QUESTION: Well, what actions (inaudible) the Palestinians taken recently that would impede progress?

MR. KELLY: Well, as I say, we would discourage all unilateral actions

Reacting to the unilateral action in Jerusalem, Palestinian Authority chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said that there was no point in discussions while Israel expands Jewish neighborhoods in a part of Jerusalem that Palestinians want for their capital.

Palestine: Washington Blocks Unilateral Declaration of Statehood

Analysis: The Israeli-Palestinian Diplomacy Game

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

On Monday, soon after the Palestinian proposal for an unilateral declaration of statehood via the United Nations Security Council,  State Department spokesman Ian Kelly stated that Washington would not support the plan, as it is seeking a two-state solution through negotiations.

U.S. senators visiting Israel said that Washington would veto a Palestinian declaration . For instance, Democratic Senator Ted Kaufman said, "It would be dead on arrival. It's a waste of time," and Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman added, "An essentially unilateral declaration of statehood is the one thing that will not move the stalled peace process forward."

The Transcript of Ian Kelly's press briefing:

QUESTION: A follow-up on this? The Palestinian Authority has asked the European Union today to back their plan to help the UN Security Council recognize an independent Palestinian state. And Saeb Erekat has said that the Palestinian Authority plan to seek U.S. approval. Will – what’s your position toward this request?

MR. KELLY: Well, I don’t think that – I’m not aware that they have come to us seeking our opinion or our approval. I mean, our position is clear. We support the creation of a Palestinian state that is contiguous and viable. But we think that the best way to achieve that is through negotiations by the two parties. And we understand that people might be frustrated, but we would – we just, as I say, we – it is our very strong belief – we are convinced that this has to be achieved through negotiation between the two parties.

QUESTION: So you will veto any --

MR. KELLY: I’m not going to say we’re going to – I mean, I don’t – I can’t say we’re going to veto something we haven’t seen or hasn’t even been proposed yet.

QUESTION: So you support a Palestinian state, just not yet?

MR. KELLY: We support a Palestinian state that arises as the result of a process between the two parties.

QUESTION: There are a lot of people who think that this kind of a unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians might be the thing that is the jolt that is needed to get the actual negotiation started. You don’t agree with that?

MR. KELLY: I don’t necessarily agree with that, no. I think that the thing we have to do is get the two parties to sit down, and that is what we’re putting all of our efforts behind. That’s what Senator Mitchell is doing in London today, and that’s what we’ve been doing throughout is to try to get them to.

Israel: White House Gets Busted on "Private" Meeting with Netanyahu

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Transcript & Analysis: Netanyahu in US – Waiting for Obama, Talking about “Small” Israel

Contrary to initial reports from the US, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did get his private meeting with President Obama in Washington, with discussions on the Iranian nuclear programme and the Middle East peace talks. The White House headline statement was, "The president reaffirmed our strong commitment to Israel's security, and discussed security cooperation on a range of issues."

The problem for the Obama Administration is that journalists were unwilling to let "security cooperation" stand in place of other issues. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly was forced to hand trickier problems back to the White House:

QUESTION: On the peace process, is Senator Mitchell planning to go back to the Middle East, and what are you planning to do after the latest development on the Palestinian side?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think a lot of the focus today, of course, will be on the visit of Prime Minister Netanyahu. He’s meeting with the President tonight. We remain committed to our goal, which is the re-launch of negotiations between the sides and try and create the kind of atmosphere where these negotiations can succeed as soon as possible. As far as Senator Mitchell’s immediate plans, I’m not sure that he has plans in the very near term to return to the region. But of course, he’ll be ready to do so if that can be helpful.

QUESTION: Do you expect anything from the meeting between the President and Prime Minister Netanyahu?

MR. KELLY: Well, I’m not going to try and predict what – what’s going to come out of that meeting. I’ll leave that to the White House.

Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs could only take refuge in repeating Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's "our position has not changed":

Q - What does the White House -- well, one thing first, on the meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister tonight. Why is that closed, no press avail, the statements? What is the thinking there?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, as you know, our schedule since late last week has been up in the air. The President was supposed to speak on Tuesday to the same group that Prime Minister Netanyahu is speaking to. He obviously looks forward to sitting down with the Prime Minister tonight -- and continue to work together to address issues like Middle East peace and the threat that's posed by Iran.

Q - And on the meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, I just wanted to follow up. I understand the schedule has been in flux, but why no television cameras? Is it because you don't want to highlight the fact that there's not a lot of progress in these talks so far?

MR. GIBBS: No, the President wanted to have a meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. That's what we're doing. I'm sure, Ed, that the contents of the meeting generally seem to be well read out and I trust that this time will be no different.

Q - But typically the President will go on camera if he wants to highlight what is a key initiative for him, and if Mideast peace is that important you would think that he would want to do that.

MR. GIBBS: Well, like the date didn't change from Saturday night to Sunday, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the President thinks no less of the importance of the Middle East peace process on simply by subtracting one television camera.

Q - And the last thing, on settlements. Last week, Secretary Clinton was in Israel, and suggested -- she wanted to praise the Israelis for some progress on settlements. And the Palestinians were upset because the U.S. policy has been a complete freeze on settlements.

MR. GIBBS: Policy dating back several decades, yes.

Q - Right, but specifically it was emphasized in the early days of this administration. And the Palestinians felt like maybe there were some back-peddling. Can you just clear up -- there was a sense that she seemed to be shifting last week.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, again, I judge from your question -- the policy of the United States government for many decades has been no more settlements. That's not something that is new to this administration. It's something that I think has gotten disproportionate media coverage, but it's not a policy difference in this administration and previous administrations.

So now a White House which was so embarrassed about the lack of progress on Israel-Palestine that it tried to hide talks with the Israeli Prime Minister finds itself in the floodlights of more indecision and even confusion. Not that this should worry the Israelis, who eagerly leaked news of the "private" talks. After all, they got their headline that Obama was "strongly committed" to them, irrespective of any minor difficulties such as those settlements.