Obama: Israeli Settlements "Have to be Stopped"

Two cheers for President Obama.

President Obama, at the press conference today with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu:

Now, Israel is going to have to take some difficult steps as well, and I shared with the Prime Minister the fact that under the roadmap and under Annapolis that there's a clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements. Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward.

In calling for an end to Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank, President Obama is restating longstanding U.S. policy. However, under the Bush Administration, U.S. officials tended to use weak formulations like referring to the settlements as "an obstacle to peace" rather saying explicitly that they should stop. And the statements tended to come from folks like Secretary of State Rice, rather than from the president himself. By making the statement in his press conference with Netanyahu, President Obama underscored the policy.

However, what really matters is giving teeth to the policy. There can scarcely be any reasonable doubt that if the Obama Administration really wants to, it can stop Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank. The U.S. has a great deal of leverage over the Israeli government. The question is whether the Obama Administration will use that leverage.

For example, earlier this month, President Obama sent his FY2010 budget request to Congress and, as expected, included in it $2.775 billion in military aid for Israel, an increase of $225 million from this year's budget.

This presents the perfect opportunity for the Obama Administration to "put its money where its mouth is." The Obama Administration could, for example, support conditioning the increase in U.S. military aid on Israeli compliance with a settlement freeze. No-one could plausibly claim that conditioning the increase on compliance with a settlement freeze would "endanger Israel" in any way -- even if Israel did not comply with the settlement freeze, and did not receive the increase in military aid as a result, that would leave Israel receiving exactly as much U.S. military aid as it receives now.

But such a move would make clear that the Obama Administration is serious.

Without a settlement freeze, there can be no progress on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If President Obama truly wants to see an agreement establishing an independent Palestinian state achieved during his first term in office, now is the time to match words with deeds.

Comments

[Justtellthetruth]

I am not sure whether I should be enthused or depressed about the current events.

Settlements are pretty much the entire problem, at least for about the last 20 to 25 years.
Their existence and expansion necessitate the occuaption, and together those two things create most problems for almost all Palestinians. Without them, there would be little popular support for Hamas or any other radical group. Any violent actions on their part would after the end of settlements and occupation would be viewed as antithetical to the welfare of the vast majority of Palestinians. They would be pariahs who would be quashed from all sides.

The language associated with the settlements is not strong enough. They must be condemned. They must end regardless of any other set of circumstances.

Yet, 3/4 of all Senators and Congressmen signed a letter that puts them on the side of Netanyahu, Lieberman and AIPAC, while working to CONSTRAIN our already overly polite treatment of policies that only serve to help reign terror down on both Israel and the US.

[UserLoser]

Every president since Nixon has said " Stop building settlements" they've never stopped building settlements They're not going to start stopping now. And if they did like the withdrawal from Gaza it will be a strategic withdrawal clearing lines of fire not necessarily surrendering territory. I've no doubt eventually they plan on clearing Gaza it's just a matter of time and what they think they can get away with. Right now there is nobody in Gaza to worry about shooting. If they remove anybody in the west bank it will be same story. clear lines of fire so settlers don't get in the way. In some way withdrawal of settlers is bad news.

[gageeandbaba]

Why am I giving Israel money again?

[GKJames]

Sounds easy enough. But the settlement process and its administrative apparatus are designed to permit the inexorable, permanent acquisition of land regardless what platitudes Israeli politicians may mouth from time to time. For four decades it's worked, even if Washington occasionally has bleated about how "unhelpful" Israel's actions are. There is nothing anyone--Obama included--can or will do to compel Israel to act otherwise. This latest U.S. engagement for peace will litter the landscape like its predecessors, while dunam after dunam gets absorbed for some bogus reason or another. As for the U.S. side, while Obama's aspirations are noble enough, there also is nothing tangible that would compel a drastic change in U.S. foreign policy so as to reverse the facts on the ground.

[One State Solution]

There is nothing we can do??? We can stop giving money, arms and support in the UN!!!