Last night I got an email from an APN activist who raised some concerns about how a settlement freeze would be enforced. The activist was responding to APN's call to action. Her email raises an important question that I thought was worth raising in this forum:
"I believe that the Obama administration is making a mistake by going for just a nebulous settlement freeze without insisting on an operational plan. A freeze is a strategy that the Israeli government can easily manipulate and undermine. Rather I think APN should push for a commitment to totally freeze settlement expansion, to halt settlement planning operations, and to immediately move on evacuating outposts."
APN is pushing for a comprehensive settlement freeze (check out the document we circulated widely, including to senior administration officials, on how to freeze settlements). Peace Now in Israel is making enormous strides on the outpost issue through appeals to the Israeli High Court of Justice. Even the notion of stopping planning operations was raised by an attorney for Peace Now in Israel at an event APN held yesterday in Washington.
On, the question of whether the Obama administration is going for, or should go for, a "nebulous settlement freeze" I would point out that we know very little about the content of the negotiations between the Obama administration and Israel about settlements. Much has been leaked to the press, but these accounts should be taken with a grain of salt. Leaks from negotiations of this type are often motivated by short-term political considerations.
I welcome more thoughts on this issue.
feed
twitter
facebook

You can listen to an interview with Michael Sfard, the attorney for Peace Now mentioned above, at http://www.peacenow.org/audio/Michael_Sfard_16-July-2009.mp3