Meet the 'settlers' lawyer' - Elliott Abrams
Elliott Abrams has an oped in today's Wall Street Journal trying to defend Ariel Sharon's legacy, and evidently further ruin the Bush administration's. In his article, "Hillary Is Wrong About the Settlements," he attempts to show that there was a clear understanding between the US and Israel on continuing the "natural growth" of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Lara Friedman has posted a take down of Abrams on the Peace Now blog, including this great intro:
On May 23, 2005, the Washington Post ran a an incisive op-ed by former State Department negotiator and Middle East advisor Aaron Miller, entitled "Israel's Lawyer," in which Aaron argued "For far too long, many American officials involved in Arab-Israeli peacemaking, myself included, have acted as Israel's attorney..." I was reminded of that article when I read today's piece by Elliott Abrams in the Wall Street Journal, which should, I believe, have been entitled "The West Bank Settlers' Lawyer."
Before anyone accuses me of casting aspersions on Mr. Abrams' honor or motivations, let me be clear: I have no doubt he has taken the case pro bono.
Zing! Friedman proceeds to take apart Abrams article bit by bit. In the end I think it might not really matter, because even if we take Abrams at his word (which is know is dangerous given his history) it doesn't add up to a whole lot. I personally believe the Bush administration did promise Sharon he could expand the settlements. But even if he did, why can't that policy be overturned now? Haven't plenty of Bush's other stupid mistakes been undone?
Abrams ends with, "For reasons that remain unclear, the Obama administration has decided to abandon the understandings about settlements reached by the previous administration with the Israeli government." Actually, the reasons are perfectly clear. The Bush administration's deal with Sharon would have made any kind of two-state solution impossible. Obama is trying to at least keep the door open, but he's going to have to do a lot more than just freeze settlements.
Cancer is natural growth too. That's why a map of the West Bank looks like an 80 year old smoker's lungs.
June 25, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1907071,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
That's "Israel's Lieberman" not ours
Lest we get confused
Three billion a year for friends like Israel, for Ahmadinejad - priceless
June 25, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elliot Abrams is taking on Hillary Clinton?
That's not very smart of him.
June 25, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cue the Lieberman Boys
Lieberman Says Obama Isn't Standing Up for Iranian Protesters
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/lieberman-suggests-obama-isnt-standing-up-for-iranian-protesters/
That would be AMERICA's Lieberman, not to be confused with Israel's
June 25, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't read yet, but headline that HILLARY is wrong about settlements. Clinton as SOS voices admin policy. Why is he tying policy to her, and using the familiar form of address?
June 25, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK - thought experiment here. Go to a lawyer's office. Tell that lawyer you have "an understanding" with someone and now disagree. What will the aforementioned lawyer tell you? That "an understanding" is not worth anything without it being spelled out in writing.
"An understanding" = "he said, she said" = meaningless.
June 25, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, a "secret" understanding that contradicted every one of Bush's public statements. The great thing about being The White Man is you do don't lie, you just strategery....
June 25, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
A "secret understanding" isn't worth anything if every aspect of International Law contridicts that understanding. Moreover -- when did anyone give land in the Middle East to George W. Bush to hand out as he wanted?
If I call you up and give you the house next door, but don't own that house, why would anyone assume that house is mine to give?
June 25, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Obama demands an end to settlement expansion – Ehud Barak orders settlements to be increased, and Netanyahu laughs.
Israel is now estimated to be the most powerful, secret nuclear state on the planet - which is a sobering fact that should scare everyone to death, for this is now the tail that wags the American dog.
When the world finally absorbs the reality that a tiny enclave of 6 million people on the eastern Mediterranean has an undeclared, uninspected, underground, nuclear arsenal capable of destroying most of the world - it will be too late, because the ultimate power has been given away.
June 26, 2009 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is not a secret that Israel is a nuclear power. That fact will have to be discussed openly, and I suspect it will come to the "table" if real peace negotiations ever occur.
Are there others that you would call "secret nuclear" states? What are they?
I would argue that "ultimate power" is the power of deterrence, which the U.S. continues to hold. The real danger is a nuclear arms race in the Middle East which increases chances of "accident." Still, those still-implacable foes, India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed have not used them yet. That says something, don't you think?
June 27, 2009 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink