s U.S. Open To A Settlement Compromise?

Abraham Foxman
Special To The Jewish Week

By this time one would have hoped that the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government would have resolved their dispute over Israeli settlements. In the first instance, what was so troubling about the administration’s approach was its handling of the issue in public, making it harder to reach a compromise and making Israel appear to be the problem in the region. As time goes by, however, and meeting after meeting takes place in Washington, Jerusalem, London and again in Jerusalem, the issue still goes unresolved and the gap between the U.S. and Israel takes on larger meaning. The Israeli government, which after all is a right-wing group committed ideologically to the settlement enterprise, has made significant concessions from its perspective. It has agreed in
principle to dismantle the illegal settlements and not to expand existing ones on new land beyond the boundaries of existing settlements. But this has not been good enough. Washington seems to be eager to squeeze out every last ounce of Israeli resistance on the subject by rejecting not only the concept of natural growth but even of Israel completing structures in midstream.

As the disagreement drags on, the impact goes beyond the subject of settlements. Now the Obama administration’s approach begins to raise a series of more fundamental questions: Is the historic special relationship between the two countries being eroded? Is the administration’s outreach to the Muslim world predicated on distancing the U.S. from Israel and putting pressure on the Jewish state? Are the unrelenting U.S. demands on Israel regarding settlements giving the Palestinians an excuse to avoid direct negotiations with Israel, the only path toward real peace? Is the continuing focus on settlements creating the perception around the world that the U.S. now agrees with Israel’s critics that it is Israeli policy that is the critical obstacle to peace?

If the administration denies the points embodied in these questions, the only way to demonstrate that is to be open to a compromise with Israel on the settlement issue. Such a move will send a very different message to Israel, the Palestinians, the Arabs and the world than it has been sending until now.
To Israelis it will indicate that the administration, like previous ones, wants Israel to stop expanding settlements but it also recognizes the realities of daily life, doesn’t see the issue as the be-all and end-all of the peace process, and knows that a strong U.S.-Israel relationship is critical for any peace process.

To Palestinians, the message will be that the U.S. will press Israel on settlements, but that it won’t allow itself to become the substitute for critical Palestinian decision-making, including good-faith negotiations with Israel, clamping down on terrorism and ending the teaching of hate so rampant in Palestinian society. Ultimately, since there is no greater reason for the duration of the conflict for decades than the unwillingness of Palestinians to make critical decisions for peace, everything must be done to encourage and motivate the Palestinians to accept responsibility for their future rather than to provide a disincentive for them to do so.

To the Arab states, the message will be that they cannot stand on the sidelines, claim that they have made a peace offer and there is nothing else for them to do until Israel gives in to the administration demands. The administration, by reaching agreement with Israel on settlements, will be insisting that there are no longer any excuses to procrastinate about normalizing relations with Israel. At the same time, by removing a source of contention between the U.S. and Israel, the administration will be saying to the Arabs that now we must all focus on the common threat to the region, that of Iran and its impending nuclear capability.

To the world, the administration will be signaling that yes, Washington will be more engaged; that yes, it is making outreach to the Muslim world, but that these important actions should not be misunderstood in any way as a weakening of the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel. This is an important message to convey to tamp down the cynical aspirations of anti-Israel forces that saw the opportunity to turn America away from Israel. It is an important reassurance to nations in the Middle East threatened by radical Islam, that the U.S. will stand strong with its allies Israel and the moderate Arabs, when the extremist threat from Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and al-Qaeda looms very large.

Continuing the tension over settlements will only produce a lose-lose situation. Israel will feel more insecure and be less willing to consider concessions; Palestinians will feel less of a need to make critical decisions; Arabs will be no closer to getting the Palestinian issue off their agenda and focusing on the Iranian threat. Resolving the problem, on the other hand, can begin to free the process that ultimately can be a win-win proposition, for Israelis on one side and Palestinians and Arabs on the other.

Abraham H. Foxman is national director of the Anti-Defamation League and author of “The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control.”