Commentary: Tzipi Livni Turns Back on ....

Commentary: Tzipi Livni turns back on settlement construction deal that was critical element in Gaza retreat

Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 7 June 2009

(As always, many thanks to Dr. Lerner for his daily efforts on our behalf)

"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. It is realistic to expect that
any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually
agreed changes that reflect these realities.
.
Mr. Prime Minister, you have described a bold and historic initiative that
can make an important contribution to peace. I commend your efforts and your
courageous decision which I support. As a close friend and ally, the United
States intends to work closely with you to help make it a success.
Sincerely,
George W. Bush"
14 April 2004

"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 &
Samaria. 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."

Dov Weissglas, Chief of the PM's Bureau 18 April 2004

In return for PM Sharon's unilateral retreat from the Gaza Strip, President
Bush agreed to an exchange of letters which provided for settlement
construction to continue within building lines with recognition that these
"realities" would be reflected in an agreement. The exchange of letters was
critical in gaining approval for Sharon's proposed retreat by the various
Israeli authorities.

Critical.

Yes. I ridiculed the letters at the time.

I warned that they had no permanent standing because, legally, they could be
unilaterally withdrawn by the Americans.

I even went so far as to warn that the phrase "reflect these realities" in
the Bush letter actually meant that the U.S. saw the settlement blocs as
legitimate bargaining chips ("realities") with the idea that in the final
status talks the Palestinians would agree to Israel retaining Ramat Eshkol
and French Hill in return for all the rest of the chips.

But that's not what the team that was pushing the retreat said.

That's not the bill of goods that they sold to the Israeli public.

With the full cooperation of the White House.

Tzipi Livni was a key member of the Israeli team that pushed the retreat
from Gaza.

In point of fact, her meteoric rise within the Sharon administration was
thanks to her tremendous support for the retreat.

Again.

The deal that Livni and the other members of the Sharon team foisted on the
Israeli public was "settlements with continued construction" in return for
retreat from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria.

Retreat was the "payment" and the ongoing construction (as well as American
support for retention of the "major Israeli population centers" in the final
deal) was the "pay-off".

Today Livni sits in the opposition and yearns for the moment that Netanyahu
is somehow removed from office.

But she has an obligation to history.

As a key "saleswoman" of the retreat from Gaza she owes her "customers" to
stand behind the "deal".

Tzipi Livni should be condemned for refusing to take a clear public stand
defending the "trade" she pushed so hard.

The irony: The people pushing to abandon this "deal" all want Israel to
trade its security for various promises and assurances. They are sending a
message to the Israeli People that no weight can be given to any future
American promises that might be made in order to facilitate Israeli "risk
taking for peace".