Obama should pressure Israel to remove some West Bank Settlements

Great Debates
1

By now it should be pretty well established the US and Israel are not going to appease any terrorists. So now that we’ve used the stick, it’s time to break out the carrot. President Obama should pressure the Israeli government—privately and behind the scenes—to dismantle several West Bank settlements. Not only would this be a confidence-building measure with regard to the Palestinians in general, it would stand in contrast with the situation in Gaza and thus be playable as “triangulation” between Fatah and Hamas.

The Israelis need to get over the notion that they can achieve peace “on the cheap”. So long as Israel maintains settlements, troops, and security barriers in Arab lands, then peace between Israel and the Arabs—or between the US and the Muslim world for that matter—remains a non-starter. That’s not to say that Israel should withdraw from the whole kit-n-kaboodle overnight—confidence-building measures from one side need to be met with some from the other. And if there appears to be little that Fatah can do to reciprocate that is tangible, this can be compensated for by bringing in to the conversation other Muslim factions and regimes.

Whether a step-by-step Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank will lead to reduced tensions with the Muslim world is a question that needs to be put to them. You can’t expect all of them to pretend to welcome it while secretly plotting to exploit it to their terroristic advantage—not with such a drawn-out process replete with numerous rounds of consultation.

Having shown to the Palestinians what can happen when they take a belligerent approach, Israel must now show that cooperation leads to tangible results. And they must be given hope that more territorial concessions will be forthcoming so long as they continue to be peaceful while being made to understand that a resumption of violence will halt the process. Only the prospect of very substantial eventual movement on the settlements front has any chance of persuading the Arabs to make any concessions on the key issue of Jerusalem.

The Israelis can’t be expected to hand the Holy Sites over to a Palestinian state, but an arrangement acceptable to Muslims as well must be pursued. Shared sovereignty schemes have been proposed in the past, but I think a more ambitions plan to create an “International Holy Land” where all 3 major religions are represented and a non-aligned regime providing security presents the only chance for success. Obama could use his prestige on the world stage to advocate for such a plan. These issues are, after all, the key to world peace.

2

I vote for “all”, not “some”. I realize that “some” is more politically realistic, but let’s make sure they know for absolute certain that “all” have to go at some point.

3

This is where your suggestion breaks down. Nobody except outsiders looking through rose colored goggles could ever imagine Israel and Muslim nations sharing the responsibility of policing the holy sites. How does a non-aligned regime get put into place? Are they elected? By who? This suggestion is completely unreasonable.

4

That just encourages the Israelis to dig in their heels. Absolute demands never work in that part of the world without military intervention. Much better to encourage the dismantling of the settlements that are poising the greatest difficulty and the ones which the Isrealis themselves view as problematic.

5

It’s hard to remove settlements they must resettle the settlers who are by that point belligerant and rioting.

6

Too big a risk. Any “pressure” on Israel would have to be of the mildest advisory. The power of America’s commitment to Israel is huge, more than his political capital could bear, especially with all the stuff he has on his plate right now.

I admire and support Israel, but believe that the extent and reflexive nature of our support is ill-advised, and exacerbates The Problem. But I am aware that any American politician who dared to agree with me would find himself in a world of hurt. If Obama were to even tip-toe away from an absolute and unequivocal support of Israel, his political enemies would be on that like a starving dog on a pork chop.

But if the reports I’m seeing are true, she has much to be ashamed of. And, by extension, so do we.

7

On the surface I agree whole-heartedly with the OP but then I don’t know much about the current status of the settlements. This should be an interesting discussion.

8

I think what is more important than removing some settlements now is to completely and permanently stop their expansion including “organic growth” of existing settlements. Almost nothing has undermined the peace process more than the steady growth of the settlements over the last 15 years. After all they are costly to build and costly to remove and evacuate. And almost everyone agrees that most of them will have to go before any real peace settlement. So if Israel believes in an eventual peaceful settlement why spend resources expanding settlements which will eventually be removed? What the Palestinians have inferred quite reasonably is that Israel isn’t interested in peace at all but some kind of Bantustan solution where it grabs the choiciest bits of the West Bank and leaves the rest for some Palestinian rump. So the settlements have to stop expanding now and eventually they can be removed or evacuated.

I think it will also help if the US states unequivocally that it considers the settlements to be illegal under international law and that they will eventually have to go. I believe this used to be the official position earlier but in recent decades they have muddied their stance. Making a clear statement about the settlements would enhance the very limited credibility the US has as an honest broker.

Finally I am skeptical that the current Israeli onslaught will make the Palestinians more receptive to a peace overture by acting as a stick before the carrot. The problem with such reasoning is that it grossly exaggerates the role of calculation in a crisis when passions are inflamed. It also ignores the fact that in the current atmosphere Hamas controls the narrative. There may well be many Palestinians who have been cowed down by Israeli attacks but they won’t be the ones shaping public opinion; instead they will be shouted down and dismissed as cowards by those who advocated revenge and defiance.

9

What do Israelis think of Obama?

10

Here’s a good account:
A view on Obama from Tel Aviv

Her recent posts on the Gaza crisis are also interesting, btw.

11

This dovetails in well with a discussion in progress in another thread. The pertinent part begins with my post#263 which includes this statement:

Obviously I agree with the central thesis of the op if not the details.

Things that won’t happen: Israel will not relinquish control over Jerusalem even if it does cede some area that is officially within city limits as a Palestinian capital; Israel will not forcibly remove the bulk of the settlers in the West Bank or give up all some of the larger ones; there will be no Right To Return for Palestinians even if there is some concession made in its name. Thing is a Palestinian leadership interested in peace and having a successful country of their own could trade those chips for quite a bit else. The Palestinian public needs to see that moderation gives meaningful and tangible results or there is no motivation to turn away from Hamas and its tactics.

I am a long time American supporter of Israel and I can see that it is Israel’s best interest to have some pressure put on Israeli leadership to make these sorts of concessions (albeit we can all quibble over which exact ones); I am not alone among American supporters of Israel. Despite claims to the contrary made here often there is no iron clasp grip of the Jewish lobby on American foreign policy. Obama and Secretary of State Clinton will first try to exert these pressures behind the scenes as suggested, but so long they make sure that nothing they suggest risks Israel’s safety they can weather any barrage from the more absolutist segments of American support of Israel.

12

Thank you. That was interesting.

13

Including especially those between the Green Line and the Wall.

14

The US should, certainly, make it clear that we’ll cut off the spigot if there is any new construction of the settlements, at all.

However, I disagree that they should be dismantled (if by that you mean literally taken apart), or even evacuated, until it’s part of an actual peace deal. Unilateral withdrawal will not necessarily lead to peace, but withdrawal tied to peace offers is a much, much better carrot. For the record, I don’t think that the PA will ever get a deal that’s more generous than Clinton’s Bridging Proposal. I think that’s a pretty good target of what to shoot for.

However, Jerusalem as an international city simply wouldn’t fly. To begin with, who administrates it? How are they chosen? What process is there to remove the regime governing it, and elect a new one? Israel has real reason, for instance, not to accept the UN as the arbiter of anything. And seeing what happened the last time an Arab regime was in control of Jerusalem, I’d wager not many folks are too keen to try that again.

There’s also the fact that, as long as there’s peace, there should be absolutely no problem for Christians, Muslims, Jews and anybody else who want to visit the holy sites in Jerusalem.

With that being said:

Camp David in 2000, and especially the Bridging Proposal tend to suggest that they’ve already accepted that. Or at least, they had before the Palestinian response to their offer was the second Intifada.

Why is the current setup not conducive to success? Both times I’ve been to the Dome of the Rock, for instance, there were plenty of Muslims praying there in perfect peace and security. If terrorism was a thing of the past (and with it, blockaes and checkpoints), why would Israeli control over the holy sites be a problem at all?

15

You have to look at the situation from the perspective of the Palestinians. Over the past 40 years they were a stateless people with no land, were almost crushed by the Jordanians, and had their leadership living in exile. Now they have the West Bank, and Gaza ruled by Palestinians, the US is supporting a state for them, and their leaders are getting rich off European aid. They accomplished all this through terrorism. Each round of terrorism brings Israel back to the negotiating table, and each round of negotiations brings the Palestinians a little more. Why shouldn’t they continue this pattern and see how much they can get? All they have to lose are martyrs. and they are a dime a dozen.

16

Agreed. And politically dividing a city is always a bad idea. Let the Palestinians have their capital at Nablus or Jericho.

17

Indeed you do. But to emphasize what you said above, there’ll be little, if anything, that Obama can do that will deviate from current US Foreign Policy vis-a-vis Israel.

To wit: US Senate supports Israel’s Gaza incursion

Or as this well known conservative once said:

Which no doubt makes him an utterly despicable anti-Semite, despite his open, if not unconditional, support for the State Of Israel:

In Buchanan’s opinion, “The Israeli people are America’s friends and have a right to peace and secure borders. We should help them secure these rights.” He believes that the United States has a “moral commitment” to recognize Israel’s right to defend itself, “But U.S. and Israeli interests are not identical. They often collide, and when they do, U.S. interests must prevail”. – bolding mine.

18

The Swiss Guards take care of security when this plan is used in Tom Clancy’s The Sum of All Fears. IIRC Jerusalem becomes an international city with a council of three mayors- one Christian, one Muslim and one Jewish.

19

I’m getting a little ahead of myself into la-la land with line of reasoning (and I could e-la-la-laborate a bit more), but Jerusalem is the critical issue, and a solution must be found that is acceptible to all parties.

OTOH, my plan B for Jerusalem is elagant in it’s simplicity: detonate a dirty bomb at the Temple Mount and let God have the place to Himself.

20

It is a relief to me that, for the first time in my adult life, I am content to leave this sort of decision to the discretion of the president.