What are we to make of America’s insistence — now softened at the edges, if not the core — on an end to Israel’s building of settlements in the West Bank and Israel’s determined refusal to comply?
A red herring — a diversion. The Palestinians say it is everything, the Americans say it is something, and the Israelis… well, the Israelis have in fact not said it is nothing, have said, with important qualifications, it is acceptable. The qualification? They will continue to build in East Jerusalem without restriction, they will complete only the 3,000 units already under construction, they will only build within settlements as may be necessary to accommodate “natural growth.” At the same time, no new settlements, no expansion of settlement boundaries, uprooting of all illegal outposts. In the muddled ongoing context of the conflict, that actually represents progress.
Now, before all my friends accuse me of treason for writing that , I have a little thought experiment I commend to them. Imagine that before the Obama administration’s first assertion of its view, Israel had come forward with its own initiative. Imagine that the Israelis had announced that they would freeze the building of new settlements, that once the 3,000 existing building permits were exhausted there would be no more save to accommodate “natural growth” and that the illegal outposts would be dismantled. Yes, there are those who would have said that’s not nearly enough, but I believe most students of the conflict would have said that it’s a surprisingly respectable start — if, of course, Israel were actually to follow through. Indeed, some might have said, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did in Jerusalem on October 31, that Israel’s acceptance of precisely these limitations was “unprecedented” and showed “restraint.”
Clinton’s statement on that day was treated by the Palestinians as a betrayal of America’s tough policy, which she had articulated back in May in no uncertain terms: “[Obama] wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not ‘natural growth’ exceptions. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly.” And indeed, just 24 hours after her October praise for Netanyahu was greeted by Palestinian anger, she amended her praise and said, “This offer falls far short of what we would characterize as our position or what our preference would be. But if it is acted upon, it will be an unprecedented restriction on settlements and would have a significant and meaningful effect on restraining their growth.” And, pure and simple, that is true.
Let’s be clear: The Netanyahu government’s refusal to include East Jerusalem in a freeze, the utter emptiness of its commitment regarding the removal of illegal outposts and its continued issuance of new building permits beyond the 3,000 all make a mockery of Israel’s announced undertaking. But if we are going to be clear, then we have to add that until the assertion by the United States that it wanted a comprehensive settlement freeze, no exceptions, such a freeze was not a key obstacle to resumed peace negotiations. In the circumstances that existed before the American assertion of its tough new policy, any demonstration of Israeli restraint on settlements would have been welcomed as a significant and positive shift.
So what happened? What happened was the American statement, which in and of itself moved the goalposts. What had been barely on the table became, overnight, the table’s centerpiece, was seen by the Palestinians as a precondition for the resumption of negotiations. For whatever President Abbas might have been satisfied with privately, he could not afford to be seen as less firm in his opposition to Israel’s settlement policies than the United States. The ante went up, up and very away. Nor, for that matter, was Netanyahu a free agent; his coalition would have collapsed had he moved to accept the American dictum. The result? The sides are farther apart than before.
It is necessary to keep in mind here two different standards by which to judge settlement policy. One is to ask what’s needed to establish sufficient Israeli credibility to get the process going; the other is our expectation of the far more comprehensive solution that will necessarily be included as part of the permanent agreement between the parties, not because America wants it but because, each for its own reasons, both Israel and the Palestinians need it.
The debilitating back and forth regarding settlements has led some Palestinian leaders to turn from a negotiated settlement to the unilateral assertion of statehood within the 1967 boundaries and with East Jerusalem as Palestine’s capital. Clever, but still more chaos. (And what of Gaza?) Netanyahu has replied by threatening unspecified unilateral responses by Israel.
And New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has argued that the Palestinians want a settlement without negotiation while the Israelis want negotiation without a settlement and that so long as all that’s true, there’s nothing to be done; the United States should fold its tent for a time, until the parties decide they really do need America’s help to arrive at an agreement. What Friedman does not account for is the likelihood that in the months or years of the “benign neglect” he proposes, the idea of a one-state solution — i.e., an end to the Jewish state — will gather momentum and strength.
Alas, all this is about maneuvers, about tactical advantage. Neither side has sufficient credibility with the other to move from such stale games to serious negotiations. It was precisely to get beyond tactics that America intended to intervene. Instead, it has been drawn into the fruitless bazaar.
The real game is not yet over, not by a long shot, but the hands on the game clock are moving closer and closer to midnight. It is time for all the positional niggling to be done and for movement toward an end of conflict agreement, using one of the several existing draft agreements as a starting point. We are now in a “too little, too late” phase, perhaps quite soon to be replaced by a “too much, too soon” phase. Only America can restore the focus to where it needs to be.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Claims Conference Chief Knew of $57M Holocaust Fraud Probe Earlier 
Top Dog: Who Makes the Best Kosher Hot Dog in America?
Why Do Jews Intermarry at a Much Higher Rate Than Others?
End Orthodox Monopoly on Jewish Marriage in Israel
Boston Bombers Pal Slain in Florida Eyed in 'Jewish' Triple Murder
You've successfully signed up!
Good and balanced article !
Why is this even an issue? The reality is that Israel is in repeat violation of numerous U.N. Security Resolutions, including 242 and 446, which explicitly forbid Israel from colonizing any part of the Occupied territories, including East Jerusalem. It is outrageous that the number one recipient of U.S. aid continues to give the U.S. the bird by refusing to freeze settlements.
Actually, the U.S. should immediately insist that Israel completely end all settlement activity and should begin the process of evacuating all settlements unless they are willing to unconditionally negotiate with the Palestinians on some modification of borders. If Israel refuses, let's see how they like going without U.S. aid. I know it is not going to happen, given the power of the Israeli lobby and the fear of being called anti semitic, but it would be the right and just thing. Someday Americans will wake up, but I am afraid it will be too late to save the lives of both innocent Israelis and Palestinians.
Mr Fein - You often express fear that the failure of the two-state solution will mean that the one-state solution "will gather momentum and strength". Both solutions are possible on the very same condition: The two sides agree to end the conflict. That is to say, also the "one-state solution" must be agreed upon. If there is no agreement, then the status quo continues. So, there are three obvious possibilities. There might be an agreement to end the conflict based on two states: the Jewish state and the Palestinian state. There could be an agreement to end the conflict based on one single state for two peoples. Lastly, we just might continue to be in conflict. I would imagine that the third possibility is the most likely in this generation.
The Palestinian position is to gain achievements without obligating themselves to end "the struggle against Zionism". The latest talk of setting up an independent Palestinian state through a decision of the Security Council fits exactly this Palestinian political thinking: They would like to found a state, but it should be founded WITHOUT their promising that there are no further claims and grievances (they would also agree to a one-state "solution" - if, within this arrangement, they could continue the conflict with its endless list of grievances). Israel's position is the exact opposite: A political agreement, whatever it may be, will be finalized WITHIN the framework of an end of conflict (i.e. no more grievances). Since neither side can force its political vision on the other, the conflict continues.
Daniel misrepresents the facts. UN 242 not only calls on Israel to withdraw from (some, not all) of the territory that she occupied, but also calls for an end to claims of belligerency and a recognition of Israel's right to exist in secure borders. Until the Arabs are willing to accept this rather basic right to live in peace and security, only an idiot (or someone desiring Israel's destruction) would insist on a unilateral withdrawal from those territories. Israel withdrew from Gaza and got over 9,000 rockets over 8 years without the UN saying "boo."
Regarding UN 446, Israel respectfully disagrees with the conclusions of the Security Council. When Jordan took over these territories in 1948, where were the UN complaints? Oh, that's right. There weren't any. The only "Palestine" that ever existed was the one the Romans established when they destroyed the Jewish Commonwealth a couple thousand years ago. If the "Palestinians" want a state, then all they need to do is stop sending suicide bombers and missles at Israel. Agree to live in peace and reap the benefits of living next to one of the most dynamic countries in the world. Unfortunately, their leaders do not care for the man in the street. While the leaders eat cake, the population suffers.
Israel has repeatedly offered unconditional negotiations, so Daniel is logically unopposed to the continued support of Israel. Also, please note that the US is helping its ONLY true ally in a rough part of the world. The military support enjoyed by the US by having the Israeli Defense Forces in place far exceeds the economic cost (most of which funds are spent in the USA giving jobs to thousands of Americans). What do we get for the billions given to Egypt?
What must occur is that the Arab street must rebel against its leaders. Only when the Arab people are liberated will there be hope that they can break their shackles and live in a democracy. Till then, there's not much we can do but protect ourselves. Sad, but such is life.
The Root Cause of the entire conflict is very simple: The constant refusal on the part of the Arabs and Palestinians to recognize that the Jewish people have ANY historical connection At All to ANY part of this land. They continue to claim that Jews are outsiders dumped on them by Europeans to relieve European guilt over the Holocaust (for those that don't deny the Holocaust). Therefore, according to the Arab side, the Jews have no rights to any part of this land.
Obama has played into this narrative in his Cairo speach. In his ignorance, Obama has created obstacles to peace that didn't exist before. He put Abbas up a tree that Abbas can not get down from now. He has perpetuated the false narrative that says that Jews are outsiders to Jerusalem (like his latest attack on Gilo - what's next? Ramat Eshkol? French Hill? Talpiot?)
Mr. Obama, you are no help.
Larry,
"...The constant refusal on the part of the Arabs and Palestinians to recognize that the Jewish people have ANY historical connection At All to ANY part of this land."
Just because you have a historical connection doesn't necessarily mean you have a right to return and establish a country. What would the U.S. government do if the American Indian tribes that lived in what is now New York City came back and demanded at least part of the city? What would New Yorkers do?
I think Zionism (at least if the word is defined as meaning there had to be a Jewish state established in Palestine) was a profoundly stupid idea, to be honest.
It is amazing how little logic and how little historic scholarship one can use and still write a published article. To repeat a quote from a comical tendentious character like Friedman with his empty soundbites is without judgement. Asking Israel to drop its guard is utterly irresponsible. It won't be your face being smashed open but an Israel. Just look at one of your reader response in how he lies in his use of Un Resolutions. It is easy to capitulate from seven thousand miles away. Speaking of capitulation the one term bowing joke who operates out the White House and also thinks like Chamberlin, England's biggest joke that one can reason and talk with primitive madmen and lunatics is badly mistaken. Henry Kissinger's introduction to his thesis "A World Restored" should be your thanksgiving reading assignment and then maybe you could write a real article influenced by a scholar not a middlebrow comedian in a black turtleneck.
Lee: Most Americans Jews think that Zionism was a movement for the establishing of a Jewish state in the ancient land of Israel (mostly for the benefit of victims of persecution). Hence, throughout the years, many Jews have debated (as you have) if it was a wise idea. Obviously, for most reasonable people who opposed the founding of Israel, the debate ended when the state was founded. There are, of course, people like yourself for whom the debate continues even 60 years later. Well, it is a waste of energy to discuss the existence of Israel - she exists, and she will defend her existence just like any other state in the world. Those who really seek peace in the Middle East should encourage Israel's enemies to accept her as their neighbor.
However, as long as you raise the historic question of the wisdom of Zionism, perhaps you will find it enlightening to hear what was the motivation of the movement. Zionism was a movement of Jewish renaissance. That is why the revival of the Hebrew language was the very center of its educational activities. The revival of Hebrew has become the basis of an entire Jewish culture which wishes to ensure the continuity and the thriving of Jewish identity. All Diaspora communities have come under the impact of the dramamtic changes that have occurred since the revival of Hebrew and the creation of a Hebrew-speaking society (and hence encourage their members to go and see for themselves).
Perhaps for you, the language and the culture of the Jews are not a topic on the agenda. Hence, the focus on Israel is only political. Moreover, the view of Israel is through the eyeglasses of an American (for whom the Hebrew language and the Jewish renaissance are foreign issues). Looking at Israel through the eyeglasses of Jewish history and Jewish cultural continuity, obviously the rise of our Hebrew society is the biggest success story of Jewish history.
Qol:
"There are, of course, people like yourself for whom the debate continues even 60 years later. Well, it is a waste of energy to discuss the existence of Israel - she exists, and she will defend her existence just like any other state in the world."
I wasn't saying that Israel should be dismantled now. What I was saying was that I don't agree with Larry's contention that the conflict was and is solely the fault of the Arabs and Palestinians.
I wonder if am blocked once again from posting on forward or is s'mthing else wrong? One of my posts had been also erased!
Lee: You said that Zionism (defined by you as the founding of a Jewish state) "was a profoundly stupid idea." So, true, you weren't saying that Israel should be dismantled now, but you were saying that she should not have been founded in the first place. In short, you are debating 60 years later about Jewish statehood. Apparently, you see it as a source of conflict - and hence a "stupid idea". I'm certain, however, that there are struggles in the world that you do identify with. I would imagine, for example, that your heart would have been with the Hungarians in 1956. You wouldn't have said that it is a "profoundly stupid idea" to assert their independence at the price of conflict with the Warsaw Pact. For you it's a "profoundly stupid idea", only because you don't identify with a particular cause.
Again, I wish to emphasize that the drama in the Land of Israel is cultural: The rise of a Hebrew-speaking society has dramatically changed the reality of Jewish life and continuity. Now, with the loss of the Yiddish-speaking Jewish world (through assimilation and because of the Holocaust), Israel has risen up as the central Jewish society that creates its own Jewish culture its own Jewish language, renewing the historic reality of Jewish life since antiquity. I don't think that you'll find a serious Jewish educator who would agree with you that this renaissance of Jewish life was a "profoundly stupid idea".
There is a much better chance of Mr Fein regaining a full head of luxurious hair than any Palestinian accepting a Jewish state on Islamic Waqf land. Obama has complicated things by demanding a halt to settlement growth, and thus was acting as a Palestinian proxy. Therefore, any negotiations are farther away than before. Let the EU support the economic integration of Palestinian cities into Jordan, and those of Gaza into Egypt, and then let the EU admit Jordan and Egypt as members
Qol:
"Lee: You said that Zionism (defined by you as the founding of a Jewish state) "was a profoundly stupid idea." So, true, you weren't saying that Israel should be dismantled now, but you were saying that she should not have been founded in the first place. In short, you are debating 60 years later about Jewish statehood."
So by your logic, if I say that the European colonists in the New World shouldn't have displaced the Indians, am I "debating" U.S. statehood as well? Larry had said that the conflict is solely the fault of the Arabs and Palestinians. Given that the Zionists chose to establish a nation in Palestine without their consent, I don't think this is fair.
When I said that I thought the idea of Zionism was "stupid," I said that because most justifications for the creation of Israel I have heard are based on the idea that Jews need a safe haven from persecution. But these are often the same people who say that "there will never be peace" between Israel and the Arabs and Palestinians. Isn't there a contradiction here? If a safe haven is itself in constant danger, is it really a safe haven? If you believe that Zionism is an expression of Jewish nationalism that can only be realized in Palestine, then you're right, it would be unfair to call Zionism stupid.
Daniel comments that he'd like to see Israel go without US aid. He also calls it Occupied territory. Sounds like Daniel is more concerned with hurting Israel than helping the Palestinians.
The Jews living in the West Bank of The Jordan River are living on land that their ancestors lived on 3500 years ago. Daniel is living on land stolen from the Indians less than 500 years ago.. Who is living on "occupied " territory? The difference is that Israel has 10% of its Knesset filled with Arabs...do we see 10% of the senate or House filled with Indians...rascist?
If you cut off aid to Israel, Israel will survive. There is no choice. Israel will find another friend, but the US wont. I'm unhappy as an Israeli to stop transferring our technology to the US but what choice do we have. Maybe we can work with benign countries like India...maybe its going to be China...but if things get tough we may have to go to some countries the US doesnt like, but what alternatives do we have.
I'd think twice about losing the best friend you have for the sake of people who want to wipe both Israel and the US off the map.
Remember the day the twin towers went down...shall we re-send the videos of the Palestinians dancing and handing out candies?