
Did Obama misplay settlements issue?
A variety of voices suggest that the Obama administration botched the Israeli-Palestinian issue by publicly insisting on a full settlement freeze.
- Marty Peretz: "Indeed, the Israeli political system watched in utter (but almost comic) disbelief as the president attempted to get fundamental concessions from Jerusalem while letting the Palestinians off the hook. Which is, as you know, just how they took it. They did nothing. And suddenly the president and secretary Clinton, who had been so frosty with the Israelis and Hillary really frosty, as only she can be, had to change not only their tune but their very line to find some stasis for themselves. You are back where you started. And, by the way, did the Saudis help any?"
- Joe Klein: "Suddenly the Obama Administration seemed wobbly on the Middle East; clearly, Clinton had been too bullish on Netanyahu's proposal (which had been negotiated over months with Middle East envoy George Mitchell and was seen, privately, by the Americans as real progress). But the Administration's mission was to get the parties into peace talks without preconditions. The Israelis were now in favor of talks. The Palestinians were setting preconditions. And Clinton had violated an essential rule of her job: boring is almost always better."
- Glenn Kessler: "The administration's key error, many analysts say, was to insist that Israel immediately freeze all settlement growth in Palestinian-occupied territories. The United States has never accepted the legitimacy of Israeli settlements, but the Obama administration took an unusually tough stance. It refused to acknowledge an unwritten agreement between Israel and Bush to limit growth in settlements, with Clinton leading the charge to demand a full settlement freeze."
- Washington Post: "The administration set the stage last spring for this diplomatic impasse by demanding 'a stop to settlement construction, additions, natural growth -- any kind of settlement activity,' as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton put it. No Israeli government has agreed to such terms, and the administration's public insistence on them only served to boost Mr. Netanyahu's approval rating with Israelis, while Mr. Obama's plummeted to the single digits. The administration now wants to set the issue aside and move on with the talks; officials say a settlement freeze was never a precondition. But Ms. Clinton is having trouble clambering out of the hole she helped to dig: Last weekend she praised as 'unprecedented' an Israeli proposal for limiting settlement growth; this week, after Arab protests, she backpedaled. Mr. Abbas has a similar predicament. Having adopted the original U.S. demand as his own, he cannot easily drop it. Arab leaders could provide Mr. Abbas political cover, but neither they nor he seems to share Mr. Obama's notion that the time is ripe for a deal."
2 Comments
Share This
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
The settlements issue is and will continue to be at the very forefront of any potential progress or lack of it, realistically speaking, regardless of who likes it or not. Obama, the Arabs and Israel itself know that.
Those who refuse to understand or appreciate the sensitivity and significance of this issue, and continue to repeat the same trite and tired reasoning, know that being stubborn and unyielding about it will undoubtedly render the whole effort to start any negotiations, much less make peace, a waste of time and a mere stalling tactic.
Simple old logic, which is no secret, is the fact that not freezing all settlements activities, regardless of its scope, will only lead to reducing further and further the piece of land where the Palestinians may be able to have a state on, one day; and by keeping it unchecked will naturally lead to leaving no land worth mentioning to seriously negotiate about. And we all know, well most of us, that this is the real intention behind Netanyahu’s government’s insistence on not restricting, seriously, settlements building and expansion.
Peace is in Israel’s interest as much as it is in The Palestinians’ interests, and God help us all if those who have no interest in peace end up having the upper hand, which we’ll all then live to regret – sooner or later.
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




Yosef Hartuv
11/05/09 02:42 PM
Why Are Arabs Unhappy with Hillary? Blame Obama- J. Tobin
If Hillary Clinton is unhappy about the abuse she is taking from the Arab world over her equivocal attitude toward Israel, then she should blame President Obama and those of his foreign-policy advisers who urged him to make picking a fight with the Jewish state over settlements one of their top priorities once they took office.
http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-are-arabs-unhappy-with-hillary.html