Daily Alert Archives

Why the U.S. Hard Line on Israeli Settlements Is Counterproductive

[Foreign Policy] Steven J. Rosen - The high-profile public campaign to confront Israel on the issue of West Bank settlements was an unusual way to welcome the new leader of a close friend of the U.S. Diplomacy toward an ally normally begins with building relations of trust on areas of agreement, and only later engaging discreetly on issues where there are sharp differences. Why instead did the administration team roll out a campaign of diktats, virtually nailing a decree to Netanyahu's door? Why so dismissively brush aside understandings crafted by the George W. Bush administration, understandings that had achieved a significant reduction of settlement construction? Few in Israel are prepared to freeze construction in the settlement "blocs" that the Clinton administration anticipated would be annexed to Israel as part of a land swap creating a Palestinian state. Nor does Netanyahu have either the legal authority or the support of the public to ban Jewish housing inside the juridical boundaries of Jerusalem. Absolutist demands for a total freeze may win applause in the U.S., but they go much too far to succeed in the real world. If Obama's purpose in authorizing this confrontation was to provide an incentive to the Palestinians and the moderate states in the Arab League to take the steps they need to take for peace, his policy is likely to fail. Reinforcing the long-standing belief in the Arab world that the U.S. can "deliver" Israel reduces Arab incentives to make concessions in direct negotiations with Israel, rather than increasing them. The writer served for 23 years as foreign policy director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
2009-07-03 06:00:00
Full Article