The Settlement Pot Simmers

As the settlement controversy continues, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell yesterday in an attempt to assuage the tension between Israel and the United States and reach a compromise on a settlement freeze.

The settlement issue continues to divide Israelis. On Monday, six cabinet ministers-the "forum of six"-convened to discuss next steps. According to media reports, Defense Minister Barak argued that Israel should agree to a temporary freeze (albeit excluding Jerusalem and projects already under construction) in return for U.S. guarantees of support for certain Israeli positions once negotiations resume.

In a statement following the meeting, Barak implied that a compromise was achievable. "It is possible to have effective and practical negotiations with the Palestinians, and within this framework, it is also possible to find an appropriate solution to the issue of settlement construction."

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, MK Benny Begin, and Deputy Minister Moshe Ya'alon all disagreed with Barak, and stressed that a temporary freeze would create a precedent that could become permanent. After the meeting, Ya'alon said, "We must explain to the Americans that we, too, have red lines." (The United States, of course, rejects a temporary freeze precisely because it fears it would not become permanent).

The six ministers insisted that the United States only consider settlements within the broader scope of the conflict. Barak stated after the meeting, "We should not isolate this issue of settlements and make it the most important one. It has to be discussed in the context of a larger peace discussion."

Other government officials offered varying opinions regarding the settlement freeze. Predictably, right-wing officials and spokesmen supported settlement growth. Dani Dayan, chair of the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza said, "There is a strong majority within the coalition and within the government, defense ministry and the prime minister's office that opposes even a temporary freeze."

Ma'aleh Adumim Mayor Benny Kashirel also said that a settlement freeze "would go against promises [Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu made both before and right after the elections."

Head of IDF Central Command Major General Gadi Shamni, on the other hand, disagreed with right-wing politicians. After refusing to approve an expansion of the Mod'in Illit settlement, Shamni argued that a settlement freeze was important "to maintaining security and public order in the area and moving ahead with the separation fence."

While Israelis continue to debate a settlement freeze, the United States has held its ground. A source within the Obama administration stated that a temporary freeze or any compromise that excluded East Jerusalem was unacceptable. Additionally, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly called for implementation of the road map: "In order to create this environment what will be conducive to resumptions of negotiations, both sides need to comply with road map commitments."

The settlement freeze debate rages as facts on the ground continue to change. As of 2007, according to the Foundation for Middle East Peace, 276,462 settlers live in the West Bank in addition to the 189,708 Israelis that live in East Jerusalem. These numbers keep rising.

Barak-Mitchell Meeting

Barak offered his proposal of a temporary and incomplete freeze. He stressed that the United States should focus on the broader conflict and, according to Ma'ariv, made this odd claim to Mitchell: "In 2000 I was the Israeli prime minister who took the boldest steps to make peace, and that year also saw the greatest extent of new construction in the territories." This statement will only confirm Palestinian reservations about him. If he was so determined to achieve peace, why was he simultaneously gobbling up the land?

Barak and Mitchell also discussed other steps necessary to "create a climate conducive to peace." A joint statement issued by the United States and Israel stated that these steps include, "measures on security and incitement by the Palestinians; steps by Arab states toward normalization with Israel; and, from Israel, actions including access and movement in the West Bank and on settlement activity."

The meeting accomplished little. After the discussion, Barak attempted to paint an optimistic picture: "The conversation was held in a very good atmosphere, despite the fact that gaps remain."

A U.S. official, however, offered a less cheery summary: "We have not changed our position at all. . . . Nor has the president authorized any negotiating room."

In fact, the only tangible progress involved Mitchell's promise to meet with Netanyahu within the next two weeks.

The question remains: what happens next? Can the United States enforce its demand for a freeze or will Israel simply ignore it, as it has in the past?

A compromise may be possible.

It would involve the swift move to negotiations to resolve all issues, including settlements. In that context, a temporary freeze could remain in place until all sides agree on a final arrangement.

One caveat: the Israelis seem to have convinced the United States that before a freeze goes into effect, Israel has the right to expect concessions of one kind or another from the Saudis.

But King Abdullah told President Barack Obama last month in Riyadh that the kingdom was not prepared to offer anything in advance of Israel living up to commitments it made not once, but several times.

Waiting for the Saudis is waiting for Godot. They are not coming-at least not until they see Israel take the steps it promised to take. The conflict is between Israelis and Palestinians. If Israel, or the United States, wants Saudi involvement, they can simply accept the Saudi-sponsored Arab Peace Initiative and bring them in. Otherwise, the role of the United States should be to broker between Israelis and Palestinians and leave extraneous issues for later.