Op-ed: Obama's policy on settlements may prove self-defeating
Washington Post editorial says demand to freeze all Jewish construction in West Bank, east Jerusalem led Palestinian, Arab leaders to 'harden their positions'; claims president 'must be tough on more than one country'
On the heels of visits by a number of US envoys to the Middle East to explore the prospects of jumpstarting the regional peace process, President Barack Obama's policy of pressuring Israel to halt all settlement construction is facing more criticism form home.
A Washington Post editorial published on Thursday said, "One of the more striking results of the Obama administration's first six months is that only one country has worse relations with the United States than it did in January: Israel.
"The new administration has pushed a reset button with Russia and sent new ambassadors to Syria and Venezuela; it has offered olive branches to Cuba and Burma. But for nearly three months it has been locked in a public confrontation with Israel over Jewish housing construction in Jerusalem and the West Bank. To a less visible extent, the two governments also have differed over policy toward Iran," the editorial read.
According to the Washington Post, by "making plain" his disagreements with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Palestinian statehood and Jewish settlements, Obama "hoped to force an Israeli retreat while building credibility with Arab governments - two advances that he arguably needs to set the stage for a serious peace process.
"But the administration also is guilty of missteps. Rather than pocketing Netanyahu's initial concessions - he gave a speech on Palestinian statehood and suggested parameters for curtailing settlements accepted by previous US administrations - Obama chose to insist on an absolutist demand for a settlement 'freeze'," said the newspaper.
'Tough on more than one country'
This policy, said the editorial, led Palestinian and Arab leaders who had accepted previous compromises to immediately harden their positions and balk at delivering the confidence-building concessions to Israel that the Obama administration seeks.
"Israeli public opinion, which normally leans against the settler movement, has rallied behind Netanyahu. And Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, which were active during the Bush administration's final year, have yet to resume," said the newspaper.
The Washington Post said American and Israeli officials are working on a compromise that would allow Israel to complete some housing now under construction while freezing new starts for a defined period, adding that Arab states would be expected to take steps in return.
"Such a deal will expose Obama to criticism in the Arab world - a public relations hit that he could have avoided had he not escalated the settlements dispute in the first place. At worst, the president may find himself diminished among both Israelis and Arabs before discussions even begin on the issues on which US clout is most needed," the editorial said.
"If he is to be effective in brokering a peace deal, Obama will need to show both sides that they can trust him -- and he must be tough on more than one country."
About a month ago Washington Post columnists Jackson Diehl and David Ignatius said that the US must end its spat with Israel and that Obama's "absolutist position" on the settlements was a "loser."
