|
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.
However, on April 14, 2004, President George W. Bush, in a further
retreat from past policy, told Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that,
“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…”
The
following is chronology of statements by U.S. officials, beginning with
the Johnson administration. It was prepared by Matt Skarzynski, an
intern with the Foundation for Middle East Peace, and Holly Byker, a
former staff member of Churches for Middle East Peace.
Contents: Click Below for a Specific Administration
The Johnson Administration
The Nixon Administration
The Ford Administration
The Carter Administration
The Reagan Administration
The George H.W. Bush
Administration
The Clinton Administration
The George W. Bush
Administration
The Johnson Administration
Foreign
Relations 1964-1968, Volume XX, Arab-Israeli Dispute 1967-1968. Document
137. Airgram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Israel,
April 8, 1968
“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."
State
Department Website,
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xx/2667.htm, September
07, 2006
Lyndon B.
Johnson, President of the United States, September 10, 1968
Israel's
settlement program was in its infancy during the presidency of Lyndon B.
Johnson. Shortly before leaving office, Johnson declared,
"Arab governments must convince Israel and the world community that they
have abandoned the idea of destroying Israel. But equally, Israel must
persuade its Arab neighbors and the world community that Israel has no
expansionist designs on their territory."
The 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 18, 2006
The Nixon Administration
Charles Yost, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, UN
Security Council, July 1, 1969
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. I regret to say
that the actions of Israel in the occupied portion of Jerusalem present
a different picture, one which gives rise to understandable concern that
the eventual disposition of East Jerusalem may be prejudiced, and that
the private rights and activities of the population are already being
affected and altered.
"My Government regrets and deplores this pattern of activity, and it has
so informed the Government of Israel on numerous occasions since June
1967. We have consistently refused to recognize those measures as having
anything but a provisional character and do not accept them as affecting
the ultimate status of Jerusalem. . . ."
The 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 18, 2006
Department of State spokesperson, Press conference, June 9, 1971
"As a matter of policy, we do not provide assistance to the Israeli
Government for projects in the occupied territories.
"On the general question of constructing housing and other permanent
civilian facilities in the occupied zone, including Jerusalem, our
policy is to call for strict observance of the Fourth Geneva Convention
of 1949, to which Israel is a party. This Convention prohibits an
occupying power from transferring parts of its own population into
occupied territory. We interpret this to include undertaking
construction of permanent facilities which have the intent of
facilitating transfer of Israeli population into the occupied
territories."
The 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 18, 2006
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations George Bush, UN
Security Council debate on Resolution 298, September 1971
"We regret Israel's failure to acknowledge its obligations under the
Fourth Geneva Convention as well as its actions which are contrary to
the letter and the spirit of this convention."
The 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 18, 2006
The State
Department's deputy legal adviser, George H. Aldrich, April 1973
"Israel,
as occupant of the territories seized during the fighting in 1967, is
bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention--that for the protection of
civilians--but Israel refuses to apply the convention."
The 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 18, 2006
The Ford Administration
President
Gerald Ford’s UN envoy William Scranton, March 23, 1976
“Clearly,
then, substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in
occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the
[Geneva] Convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the
outcome of future negotiations between the parties on the location of
the borders of States of 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.”
Lukacs, Yehuda, ed.
Documents on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 1967-1983. Cambridge,
Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Department of State
Bulletin v. 74, no. 1921 April 29, 1976 p. 528
Or, available online
at, Foundation
for Middle East Peace Website,
http://www.fmep.org/reports/special_reports/no13-summer2006/06-US_policy_on_jerusalem.html,
September 11, 2006
The
Carter Administration
Statement
of Herbert J. Hansell, Legal Adviser, Department of State, Concerning
Legality of Settlements in the Occupied Territories, April 21, 1978
“On the
basis of the available information, the civilian settlements in the
territories occupied by Israel do not appear to be consistent with these
limits on Israel’s authority as belligerent occupant in that they do not
seem intended to be of limited duration or established to provide
orderly government of the territories and, though some may serve
incidental security purposes, they do not appear to be required to meet
military needs during the occupation.”
“2.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of
Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, 6 UST 3516, provides,
in paragraph 6:
The
Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian
population into the territory it occupies.
… The
language and history of the provision lead to the conclusion that
transfers of a belligerent occupant’s civilian population into occupied
territory are broadly proscribed as beyond the scope of interim military
administration.”
“The
Israeli civilian settlements thus appear to constitute a “transfer of
parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies…”
“While
Israel may undertake, in the occupied territories, actions necessary to
meet its military needs and to provide for orderly government during the
occupation, for the reasons indicated above the establishment of the
civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with
international law.”
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.
“The
Hansell Letter” Department of State legal opinion on settlements, April
21, 1978 (submitted to House Committee on Foreign Affairs in response to
an inquiry regarding the U.S. vote on UNSCR 465 [1980] pp. 88-93)
Or,
available online at, Foundation
for Middle East Peace Website,
http://www.fmep.org/reports/special_reports/no11-march2002/02-carter_administration_view.html,
September 19, 2006
Secretary
of State Cyrus Vance
before House Committee on Foreign Affairs, March 21, 1980
"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.”
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.
Resolution
of Inquiry Concerning the U.S. Vote in the United Nations Security
Council on Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories. Hearings, 96th
Congress, 2nd Session. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1980 p. 48
Or,
available online at, Churches
for Middle East Peace Website,
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006
President Jimmy Carter, Q & A session Washington D.C., April 12, 1980
“… Our position on the settlements is very clear. We do not think
they are legal, and they are obviously an impediment to peace. The
Israeli Government, however, feels that they have a right to those
settlements….”
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.
Presidential Papers: Jimmy Carter, 1980, Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1981 p. 680
Or,
available online at, Churches
for Middle East Peace Website,
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006
President Jimmy Carter, Q & A with representatives of the American
Jewish Press Association, June 13, 1980
“We consider these settlements to be contrary to the Geneva Convention,
that occupied territories should not be changed by the establishment of
permanent settlements by the occupying power….”
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.
Presidential
Papers: Jimmy Carter, 1980, Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1982 p. 1114
The
Reagan Administration
President Ronald Reagan’s statements in an interview with the New
York Times, February 02, 1981
"… As to the West Bank, I believe the settlements there—I disagreed
when, the previous Administration refereed to them as illegal, they’re
not illegal. Not under the U.N. resolution that leaves the West Bank
open to all people—Arab and Israeli alike, Christian alike.
“I do think perhaps now with this rush to do it and this moving
in there the way they are is ill-advised because if we’re going to
continue with the spirit of Camp David to try and arrive at a peace,
maybe this, at this time, is unnecessarily provocative.”
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, 1981 Document #295,
Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1984 pp. 681-2
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 18, 2006
Secretary of State George Shultz, news conference following President
Reagan’s statement on the PLO departure plan, September 05, 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."
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 18, 2006
Reagan Plan, September 01, 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.”
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
Statement by Secretary of State George P. Shultz to the Foreign
Affairs Committee (House of Representatives), 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...”
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
President Reagan, interview with Brandon of the London Sunday
Times March 18, 1983
“Q. You know there are a lot of Middle Eastern experts, or so called,
who believe that unless you put certain pressures on Israel, there will
be no moratorium on the building of settlements in the West Bank. How
do you feel about that?
A. Well, the West Bank—there certainly is no illegality to the
building—that bases on the Camp David agreement and the period of
discussion that was supposed to then take place, with no one having a
claim for or against doing such things…”
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.
Presidential Papers: Ronald Reagan, 1983, Washington D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1984 p. 418
Statement by Ambassador Charles M. Lichenstein, Deputy United States
Representative to the United Nations Security Council, 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.”…
Thorpe, Merle Jr., Prescription for Conflict: Israel’s West Bank
Settlement Policy. (Foundation for Middle East Peace: Washington
D.C., 1984) (Out of Print)
Deputy Secretary of State Dam, before the American Jewish Committee,
Philadelphia, PA, October 27, 1983
“… We do not, for example, agree on the settlement policy of Israel.
Our objection is not legal but practical….”
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
The George H.W. Bush
Administration
Thomas Pickering, US Ambassador to the
United Nations, November 27, 1989
"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."
Churches
for Middle East Peace Website,
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006
President George H.W. Bush, press conference, March 03, 1990
“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.”
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.
Weekly
Compilation of Presidential Documents:
George Bush v. 26, no. 10 Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1990 p. 45
Or,
available online at, Churches
for Middle East Peace Website,
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, May 22, 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."
When President Bush was asked about Baker’s criticism of Israel’s
settlement policy, he told reporters, “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 supporting Secretary of State Baker’s
comments
Churches
for Middle East Peace Website,
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006
Secretary of State James Baker, news conference, Jedah, Saudi Arabia,
July 20, 1991
“….Our particular opposition today to settlement activity is that it
constitutes an obstacle to peace. In the past, the position of the
United States has been that it was, in fact, illegal.
Q. But that’s not this administration?
A. That is not out policy. No.”
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.
Foreign Policy Bulletin v. 2, no. 2 Sep/Oct 1991 p. 62
US Letter of Assurances to the Palestinians on the terms of the
Madrid Peace Conference excerpts, October 24, 1991
“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.”
Churches
for Middle East Peace Website,
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006
The
Clinton Administration
Assistant Secretary of State for Near
Eastern and South Asian Affairs Edward Djerejian Redefines Settlement
Policy, 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…”
Foundation for Middle East Peace Website,
http://www.fmep.org/reports/vol03/no3/05-djerejian_redefines_settlement_policy.html,
September 18, 2006
Excerpt from a letter written to H.E. Benjamin Netanyahu on December
14, 1996
“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.”
The letter was signed by: James A. Baker III (Former
Secretary of State), Zbigniew Brzezinski (Former National Security
Adviser), Frank C. Carlucci (Former National Security Adviser), Lawrence
S. Eagleburger (Former Secretary of State), Richard Fairbanks (Former
Middle East Peace Negotiator), Brent Scowcroft (Former National Security
Adviser), Robert S. Straus (Former Middle East Peace Negotiator), Cyrus
R. Vance (Former Secretary of State).
Churches
for Middle East Peace Website,
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006
Department of State spokesperson, State Department Daily Briefing,
May 09, 1996
"In the past, settlement activity has created a great deal of tension
and it has been a complicating factor in the Middle East, and in
relations between Israel and the Palestinians and others. We certainly
believe that to be true.
"I think it's also true that Israel and the Palestinians have decided to
resolve this question, if they can, in the context of the final status
talks. . . . So it's up to them now to resolve that problem, but it has
been a matter of tension and complication in the past, certainly.
The 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 18, 2006
Secretary of State Warren Christopher on "Face the Nation," June 2,
1996
"I think we'll have to adapt our policy to the current situation. That
was our policy. There's been no change in that policy. But I would want
to keep open the situation of adapting our policy to the situation as it
develops, as this new [Israeli] administration forms its government and
begins to develop its own policies."
The 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 18, 2006
President Clinton’s farewell address to the Middle East -- January 7,
2001
“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.”
Churches
for Middle East Peace Website,
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006
The George W. Bush
Administration
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
“Some of the major settlements could be consolidated, and these settlers
could become more confident of their eventual status as part of Israel.”
State Department’s Website,
http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/7483.htm, September 18, 2006
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.”
Churches
for Middle East Peace Website,
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006
President Bush’s Rose Garden Address, 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.”
Churches
for Middle East Peace Website,
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006
Secretary of State Colin Powell -- NBC's Meet the Press, 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."
Churches
for Middle East Peace Website,
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006
Daniel Kurtzer, U.S. Ambassador to Israel – Ha’aretz, 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.”
Churches
for Middle East Peace Website,
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006
Mr. Richard Boucher, U.S. Department of State –Daily Press Briefing,
June 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.”
Churches
for Middle East Peace Website,
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006
President George W. Bush, 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."
Churches
for Middle East Peace Website,
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006
Secretary of State Colin Powell, September 21, 2003
"Settlement activity must stop. And it has not stopped to our
satisfaction."
Churches
for Middle East Peace Website,
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm, September 11, 2006
Daily Press Briefing
by Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman, December 31, 2003
“I would
say that we continue -- our policy continues to be that Israel should
freeze settlement construction.”
State
Department Website,
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2003/27640.htm, September 07, 2006
President
Bush’s comments in joint press conference with former Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon, 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.”
White
House Website,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040414-4.html,
September 07, 2006
Excerpt
from exchange of letters with Israeli PM Ariel Sharon, 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.”
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
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Interview with LA Times, 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.”
Churches for Middle East Peace Website,
http://www.cmep.org/documents/BushAdmin_Jerusalem.htm, September 11,
2006
President Bush speaking with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, 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.”
White
House Website,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050526.html,
September 06, 2006
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, 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
Churches for Middle East Peace Website,
http://www.cmep.org/documents/BushAdmin_Jerusalem.htm, September 11,
2006
Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice, 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.”
State
Department Website,
http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/53625.htm, September 6, 2006
President
Bush speaking with PA president Mahmoud Abbas, 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.”
White
House Website,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051020.html,
September 6, 2006
Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice speaking at a joint press conference with PA
President Mahmoud Abbas, 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.”
State
Department Website,
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/56847.htm, September 6, 2006
Remarks by President Bush and Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel at Joint Press Availability, 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.”
State
Department Website,
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/2006/66812.htm, September 07, 2006
Michael Doran, Senior Director for Near East and North African
Affairs, National Security Council, 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.”
State Department Website,
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/2006/66736.htm, September 07, 2006
Stewart Tuttle, the spokesman for the American Embassy in Israel,
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.”
Tuttle’s statement followed Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s
authorization for the construction of another 690 homes in the occupied
West Bank.
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
Sean McCormack, Spokesman, Daily Press Briefing, September 07,
2006
“[T]hey should not be expanding the settlements. There should not be
expansion of the settlements and outposts should be removed.”
State Department Website,
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2006/71935.htm, September 14, 2006
Press Briefing by Elliott Abrams (Deputy National Security Advisor)
on President Bush’s Bilateral Meeting with President Abbas, New York,
September 20, 2006
Q. “I just wanted to ask about settlements in the West Bank. After the
war with Hezbollah, Israel announced that they were going to go ahead
and build the settlements. And there were a lot of Israeli analysts who
are saying, okay, now, after this war, we don't see a withdrawal from
the West Bank anytime soon. Can you tell us if the President has had any
conversations about these settlements, given that he's talking about a
Palestinian state as such an important objective?”
MR. ABRAMS: “Well, I guess I can say two things. First, the President
-- at the time that Prime Minister Olmert announced his realignment plan
and came to Washington, as you know, the President supported it and
continues to support the idea that there should be a withdrawal of
Israeli settlements in the West Bank as we move closer to peace.
I think I would -- the second thing, though, is I don't think that
Israel has announced any new settlements. I think there was an
announcement last week that several of the settlements west of the fence
are expanding, with additional housing starts in them, rather than new
settlements.
But I think our position has been made clear over time and was made
clear during the late July 2005 Sharon meeting with the President, where
he talked -- gave a sense of his view about settlements on the West
Bank, the major blocks, and so forth.”
Q. So there's been no new discussions with the Israelis about that
announcement of expanding settlements in the West Bank?
MR. ABRAMS: “I think there has been -- I believe that either -- I
believe the U.S. embassy may have sought further details to what exactly
was announced because they are aware that we are concerned about any
expansion of settlements that has any impact on the life and interest of
Palestinians living near those settlements.”
Whitehouse Website,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060920-2.html,
September 27, 2006 |
