Settlements & U.S. Policy

The U.S. has long opposed settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, recognizing them as a political and security liability for Israel and an impediment to achieving a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unfortunately, the U.S. has failed to translate this longstanding official opposition to settlements into a coherent policy that has convinced Israel to stop settlement expansion. Settlements today continue to grow, despite Israel's obligations under the Roadmap, Israel's repeated commitments to the U.S. and the international community, and - in some cases - in violation of Israeli law.

The Obama Administration's focus on Israeli settlements in its first two years reflects the reality that settlements are a central obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace. A settlement freeze is not and has never been an end unto itself: the goal of any peace policy is to achieve a conflict-ending agreement that renders the settlement issue moot. That said, while a settlement freeze need not be a precondition for peace negotiations, continued settlement growth cannot be dismissed or ignored.

For the sake of Israeli-Palestinian peace, the U.S. must convince Israel's leaders that American opposition to settlements can no longer be dismissed. Continued settlement expansion undermines Palestinian moderates, feeds extremism, exacerbates tensions on the ground, and diminishes the chances of achieving a negotiated agreement that could end the conflict. Likewise, Israel's failure to rein in settler renegades threatens the viability of peace efforts.

For the sake of Israel's own vital interests, the U.S. must convince Israel that expanding settlements and coddling settler extremists is a self-defeating and dangerous path that threatens Israel's social contract, security, economic prosperity, and viability as a democracy and as a Jewish state.

APN believes the U.S. should remain firm in its longstanding opposition to settlements, including in East Jerusalem, and should continue to press Israel to halt such activity.

(Feb. 2011)

1 Comment

Alexander | August 16, 2011 5:28 AM

I think most of us agree on three things:
--- The only difference between Barak and Netanyahoo is one of style.
--- The right of Israel to a secure existence within the green line.
It's obvious (even if not to the secluded, elderly Brooklyn Zionists
reading right wing rags and copying them here) that these things are not
really in question anywhere.
--- The fact that any lasting peace would require a return of the
territories Israel acquired in its war of aggression.** The issue in
Syria is transparent to everyone. A final status with the Palestinians
would need include, broadly, the lines the PA has already suggested
(shared sovereignty in the Palestinian sector of a united Jerusalem, a
Palestinian right of return in principle even if it's largely unrealized
in practice, borders near the Green line with a land trade for annexed
settlement blocs in this area, complete Palestinian control of water
resources in its land)

Name

Email Address

URL

Remember personal info?

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)

People for Peace

Ori N.

Ori Nir is a Person for Peace

feed

twitter

2/22 5:56a Mourning Marie Colvin, fearless professional, kind, generous colleague. She helped me several times on assignments in the West Bank.
1/20 APN Concerned about Attacks on CAP