Commentary Magazine


Contentions

RE: The Same Mistake

It is not simply that Obama keeps making the same mistake — public demands on Israel for pre-negotiation concessions that no Israeli prime minister would accept, nor could accept once the demands were made public — but that Obama made an even more fundamental error from the very beginning: redefining a realistic “settlement freeze” into an unrealistic “construction freeze.”

During the Bush administration, there was an informal understanding that a “settlement freeze” meant no new settlements and no expansion of the boundaries of existing ones. Such a definition permitted normal construction within existing areas without reducing the area that might eventually be transferred to a future Palestinian state. It enabled Israel to accept the Roadmap and then to engage in the Annapolis Process — which produced still another offer of a Palestinian state on nearly the entire West Bank — and thus demonstrated that settlements were not an obstacle to the peace process. On the contrary, the major settlement blocs were either adjacent to the Green Line or located in strategically important areas that — as the 2004 Bush letter formally recognized — were going to be retained by Israel in any foreseeable peace agreement.

Obama decided to renege on that understanding, declined to endorse the Bush letter itself, and proceeded to embark on successive attempts to stop all settlement building — resulting in the ludicrous situation of George Mitchell suggesting that a freeze in “natural growth” meant a restriction on the number of births within the settlements. Obama then created a major diplomatic crisis out of an administrative announcement of future construction in a Jewish area of Jerusalem. This month, he publicly castigated the settlements in a formal speech at the UN, seemingly oblivious to the effect his words have on the Palestinian insistence that Israel concede a fundamental issue before negotiations have begun.

There is a logical way out of this morass — simply revert to the definition of a “settlement freeze” that previously governed the peace process and that permitted it to proceed without concessions on the issue by either side. But this would require Obama to acknowledge that he inherited a solution from George W. Bush and substituted a mess.


Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.