Defining "settlement activity"[=beyond "construction line"] & State
Department on tender

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing
Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman
Washington, DC
August 17, 2004
www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2004/35296.htm
...

[IMRA: It should be noted that the wording of the Mitchell Report [2] never
defines "settlement activity" and "settlement construction activity".
Nowhere in the text does it explicitly say "construction in settlements".
This leaves open the interpretation that "settlement activity" and
"settlement construction activity" refers to activity that extends and
expands the physical area covered by settlements rather than construction
activity within the area of existing settlements - with the question being
defining that area. The letter from Mr. Dov Weissglas to Dr. Condoleezza
Rice of 18 April 2004 [3] that was coordinated with the Americans supports
this interpretation since it commits to "jointly define the construction
line of each of the settlements".

The only reason that it is relevant to "define the construction line" is if
construction continues within those lines.

[1]Road Map: "Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all
settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)."

[2]Mitchell Report:
www2.haaretz.co.il/breaking-news/Intifada/362927.stm
"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."..

" The GOI should freeze all settlement activity, including the "natural
growth" of existing settlements. ."

[3] Letter from Mr. Dov Weissglas to Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

Letter from Mr. Dov Weissglas to Dr. Condoleezza Rice. (18/April/2004)
...
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.
www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=20479 ]

QUESTION: Change subjects. The Israeli Government invited construction bids
for 1,000 new homes in the West Bank. An Israeli official said that it's
within the guidelines of the government and the agreements with the
Americans. What's your comment on that?

MR. ERELI: Our comment is that we are studying the details regarding the
tenders that have been issued by the Government of Israel. Our concern is to
determine whether these tenders are consistent with the Government of
Israel's previously -- previous commitments on settlements.

As you well know, National Security Council officials were in Israel
recently, discussing with Israelis those commitments. I think we made it
clear that we expect Israel to fulfill pledges it made to President Bush on
the question of settlement outposts and settlement activity, and obviously,
this is a subject of continuing discussion with the Government of Israel.

QUESTION: Adam, it seems pretty clear this is not consistent with the
Government of Israel's previous statements. Why is it -- you know, it's
pretty -- it seems fairly -- there seems to be a fairly obvious case to be
made that this is a violation of their roadmap commitments. Why is it that
you can't say that?

MR. ERELI: Because I'm not in a position now to say that any specific action
is a violation of commitments. I'm just not -- we're not there yet.

QUESTION: Well, hold on. The commitment -- well, the roadmap says, "freeze
all settlement activities." Okay? And that is what it says, right?

MR. ERELI: Freeze settlement activity, including natural growth.

QUESTION: Okay. This is a tender for 1,000 new houses in the West Bank. How
is that -- I mean, it's -- it seems absurd that that's not a violation, or
that there is anything to study here.

MR. ERELI: Right. I would say we've got to look at where these tenders are,
what previous discussions were, what these tenders are for, what specific
commitments were made, and then based on those discussions, I would perhaps
be more comfortable telling you more.

I would also note that there is a technical team that's going out to Israel,
to work with Israel, to study, you know, some of these specific questions.

QUESTION: Adam, I'm sorry, that just -- that does not fly. The commitment
that the Israelis made was "freeze all settlement activity." So isn't
this -- this is not freezing all settlement activity; in fact, this is the
exact opposite of that.

MR. ERELI: Yeah, I can't go further than that, Matt. I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Adam, you're saying you're studying where these new homes would
be. Why would that make any difference that the roadmap says there cannot be
in the occupied areas new settlement activity?

MR. ERELI: Yeah. Well, let me just leave it where I left it. What I told you
is, frankly, what I'm comfortable saying and I don't want to, really, from
the podium, at this time, to get into a discussion with you of the specifics
of these tenders because, frankly, I don't have the exact specifics of the
tenders; and pronounce to you, at this time, whether or not we think it is a
violation of commitments.

What I would say to you is: (a) we've made clear to Israel what we think
it's committed to; (b) our view is there should be in no doubt about what
our views are; (c) that we continue to have discussions with the Government
of Israel on this issue; and finally, at this point, I'm not going to tell
you that this -- that these tenders do or do not violate those commitments.

QUESTION: Adam, the Israeli --

QUESTION: Within this general attitude, could you explain under what
circumstances the building 1,000 new houses could be considered not --

MR. ERELI: No.

QUESTION: -- a broken settlement?

MR. ERELI: No. No, I could not do that.

QUESTION: So even in general you can't address this?

MR. ERELI: No.

QUESTION: How the -- how it would be possible to build these houses and not
be in violation?

MR. ERELI: No. I cannot do that.

QUESTION: Because there aren't any.

QUESTION: Can you talk more about the technical team that's going out or the
State Department -- if they are?

MR. ERELI: They are, they are from the State -- some of them are from the
State Department. I'm not sure that all of them are from the State
Department.

They'll be going in the coming weeks. I don't have an exact date for you.

QUESTION: Well, where would the others be from?

MR. ERELI: I don't know that there are from other agencies. I know that some
are from the State Department. I don't know that -- that those people from
the State Department comprise the entire group. If they -- and if they don't
comprise the entire group, I'm not sure if they're -- where the others would
be from.

QUESTION: Don't you think it's a bit unrealistic to say that the Israeli
Government should be -- have no doubt about what your position is on their
commitments when your unable to say -- when your unable to take, I mean --
unable to say right now that this is inconsistent with their commitments? If
you're trying to parse the phrase in the roadmap that says "no new
settlement activity," or, "a halt to settlement activity," you can't do
that. It's black and white. It says it right there.

MR. ERELI: Yeah.

QUESTION: I realize -- I appreciate that you're on a -- kind of a tight rein
on what you can say and what you can't say here, and you don't want to go
beyond it, but it needs to be pointed out, I think, for the record, that you
guys are very wishy-washy on this right now.

MR. ERELI: I would point out a couple things. Number one, not everything we
say to the Israelis is on the record. So we have discussions with the
Israelis. As I said, we've had discussions most recently with our Ambassador
and the senior National Security Council officials about our concerns in
this area. We continue to have discussions with the Israelis about our
concerns in this area.

Obviously, this issue -- these tenders, as well as previous tenders at
Maaleh Adumim, are subjects of those discussions and we've been very clear
with the Israelis about what our views and what our understandings were --
are.

Now, just because I'm not going to -- I'm not in a position to speak to
those from the podium right now doesn't mean that it's not something we've
talked to the Israelis about.

But second of all, I think what's also important is that, you know, we're --
it's important to look at this as part of a bigger picture. We are working
on these issues, both with the Israelis and the Palestinians, with a goal in
mind, and that goal is to help promote Palestinians and Israelis finding
ways to disengage and to promote their own national aspirations. So this is
part of a -- I urge you to look at this as part of a larger process, and
that's the way we're engaging with the Israelis on it, and that's the way
we're engaging with the Palestinians.

QUESTION: Well, when you say that not all your conversations with the
Israelis are on the record, are you suggesting -- because it sure sounds
like it -- that in a closed-door meeting someplace someone is saying, "Okay,
well, we realize that you signed up for this halt on all settlement
activity, but -- wink, wink, nudge, nudge -- you can add a few here and
there and we won't say anything"?

MR. ERELI: No, I don't mean to suggest that at all.

QUESTION: Well, it certainly sounds like it.

QUESTION: Given that, to most people, there isn't a gray area here and this
is -- this does contradict the formal agreement you have, can you explain
what understandings the Housing -- the Israeli Housing Minister thinks he
has with Washington that he thinks that -- he said publicly these new
settlement activity adheres to understandings he has with Washington?

MR. ERELI: No, I can't speak for the Israeli Housing Minister.

QUESTION: Well, perhaps you can speak for the United States. What
understandings do you have with Israel regarding this? It sounds precisely
what I just said, that behind the scenes you guys are saying, "Well, you
know, we're not really going to hold you to it."

MR. ERELI: No. We are, I think, very clear both publicly and with the
Israelis --

QUESTION: Well, not today you're not.

MR. ERELI: Let me be clear, if there's any misunderstanding or lack of
clarity. We are clear with the public and with the Israelis that they have
made a commitment to freeze settlement activity, including natural growth,
and that is the position -- that is the commitment they have made, that is
what we are working with the Israelis to follow through on, both publicly
and privately.

QUESTION: Well, if that's the case, then how can you not see this as just a
giant slap in the face from Sharon?

MR. ERELI: That's as much as I can do for you. I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Adam, how much money does the United States give Israel every
year? It's 3 -- it's a little over $3 billion. You're saying that you have
zero influence now?

MR. ERELI: No, I'm not saying we have zero influence. I'm saying that we are
working with the Israelis to see that they fulfill their commitments that
they've made.

QUESTION: Well, that would mean, then, does not that necessarily mean that
you're telling them, "Stop, take back these tender offers"?

MR. ERELI: I'm not going to get into the details of what we're discussing.

...
(The briefing was concluded at 1:30 p.m.)

DPB # 136
[End]

Released on August 17, 2004