Will a settlement freeze bring anything from the other side?
The Washington Post's David Ignatius says the Obama administration is serious about a total Israeli settlement freeze -- but that it's unlikely to produce much from the other side:
It's a hardheaded strategy, but it has one big flaw: The Obama team is assuming that if it can pressure Israel into a real settlements freeze, the Arabs will respond with meaningful moves toward normalization of relations -- which will give Israel some tangible benefits for its concessions. But that hope appears to be misplaced.
"What will I do in exchange for a settlements freeze? Nothing," says a senior Arab diplomat. "We're not interested in confidence-building, or a step-by-step approach," he continues. Instead, the Arabs would like Obama to spell out the details of a final agreement, now. "Unless we define the endgame, this will be a road map to nowhere," the Arab diplomat argues.
A settlements halt would produce some limited Arab response. Trade or diplomatic contacts might be revived by countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman and others. But Saudi Arabia, the Arab kingpin, probably wouldn't offer major concessions until the negotiating process was further along.
The settlements issue illustrates why the Arab-Israeli problem drives people crazy. Even if you achieve a breakthrough, there's always another snag ahead. White House officials grumble about Israeli intransigence, but they're also worried about "squishy" Arab promises and demands for preconditions. "Don't keep faxing it in, saying I gave you a peace plan in 2002," complains the senior White House official.
That's why Jackson Diehl, also in the Post, says the administration should never have pressed the issue so publicly -- and should quickly make a deal with Israel on the issue:
The result of such posturing is that the administration now faces a choice between a protracted confrontation with Israel -- an odd adventure given the pressing challenges from Iran and in Iraq, not to mention the disarray of the Palestinian camp -- or a compromise, which might make Obama look weak and provide Arab states further cause to refuse cooperation. The White House, I'm told, still hopes Netanyahu will accept a construction moratorium, with a time limit and perhaps a waiver for some buildings under construction. But at this point some damage is probably unavoidable: If Barak and Middle East envoy George J. Mitchell agree on any formula short of that spelled out by Clinton and her spokesman, Arab media will trumpet it as an Obama cave-in.
The best course nevertheless lies in striking a quick deal with the left-leaning Barak this week under cover of the tumult in Tehran. The administration could then return to doing what it intended to do all along: press Palestinians as well as Israelis, friendly Arab governments and not-so-friendly Iranian clients such as Syria to take tangible steps toward a regional settlement. Such movement would be the perfect complement to the cause of change in Iran; how foolish it would be to squander it over a handful of Israeli apartment houses.
4 Comments
Share This
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
On the contrary, the Palestinians and the Arab world have everything to do regardless of what the Israelis do with the settlements.
They are obligated by the Road Map to actually take action to stop the terrorism and incitement, including in their educational institutions, regarding the conflict. Unfortunately, it seems that their idea of “peace” is different from ours, so it’s not likely that even if Israel did freeze the settlements that would make a difference in their stand.
The commenter would have us believe that Israel is the criminal in this situation. On the contrary, Israel did not illegally settle this land; many other sources have indicated that these settlements are legal under international law. Jordan, in fact, illegally seized the West Bank; it was captured in war by Israel in 1967. The actual ownership is in dispute at best, since the West Bank was part of the Palestine mandate, which was meant to be a Jewish country. The justification for Jews being in this land is that it is indeed the land promised to the Jews in Biblical times.
Sadly, we are hearing the Palestinian narrative repeated. What seems to be ignored is that it is the Arabs (and the Palestinians in the immediate area) that have “systematically brutalized” the Jews, first in Arab countries where they lived for centuries, then in Israel. It’s time for a proper settlement of this conflict, but surrendering everything and getting nothing in return is not the answer--the Arabs have to fulfill their commitments before Israel does more for them.
The lopsided focus on “settlements” obscures the real obstacle to peace. If there were no Jews on the West Bank, if the Dalai Lama was Israel’s Prime Minister, and Israel was just Tel Aviv, the Arab world would still find pretexts for hostility - just as they did in 1948 and many times since.
For the real reason for the ongoing conflict is Arab refusal to accept Jewish self-determination in any shape or form. Indeed, recently Israel’s PM Netanyahu accepted Palestinian and Jewish states side by side. The unanimous Arab reaction was a refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state.
Israel’s territorial compromises, such as the Gaza handover, led only to more rocket attacks and extremism. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has stuck to every hardline position of Arafat. In particular, he demands resettlement of refugees in pre-1967 Israel, not the West Bank. This denies the rights of the similar number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands, and sidesteps Arab responsibility for starting the wars. When will the story of Jews expelled from Arab countries ever be told?
One-sided pressure on Israel, while ignoring Arab refusal to compromise on any major issue, is not going to encourage peace. Rather it will only exacerbate hostility, and bring more conflict. It has already encouraged an even harder line from the Arab League.
i was surprised to see that Michael Hess lives in N. Carolina - someone with a European sounding name, living on up until 300 years ago was Native American land, and who so self righteously decries Israel’s settlements on lands that Jews have lived on for 3000+ years is - ? - Well maybe Mr. Hess is a full-blooded Cherokee.
Leave a Comment
To comment on this article, you must first be registered with JTA.
Not Registered?
There are real advantages to a FREE registration with JTA.org:
- Make your voice heard through comments on articles
- Receive our e-mailed Daily Briefing, an invaluable quick-read
- Help decide what Jewish news matters most with interactive tools
Register Now
Already a JTA member?
Michael Hess
06/29/09 12:11 PM
The Palestinians and the Arab world have no reason to do anything as a result of a complete and indefinite “settlement” freeze.
It truly is hard to understand why logic goes out the window when some “journalists” write about the Israeli-Palestinian illegal occupations.
Each and every one of those “settlements” that are outside of Israel are illegal.
By trying to come up with some justification to allow just some of the illegality to further continue is ludicrous.
If one was going after a car theft ring, do the authorities negotiate with the criminal head of the car theft ring and agree to let a few cars be stolen; just please stop the majority of your car thefts?
Israel is and long has been engaged in systematic brutality of a captive people and they have been stealing land and resources from them for decades.
It’s time for Israel to face the full brunt of what it has done contrary to UN resolutions and international law.