Laura Rozen writes on the Obama administration's hard line on Israel:
"Over the past 15 years, settlements have gone from being seen in Washington as an irritant, to the dominant issue," says Georgetown University Middle East expert Daniel Byman. He pointed out that key figures in the Obama administration -- [George] Mitchell, who headed the Mitchell Commission, which recommended a halt to settlements; national security advisor Gen. Jim Jones -- see the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, home to some 290,000 people, as a key obstacle to getting a peace settlement. "I don't think the logic is hidden," Byman said.
President Obama is putting Netanyahu in an impossible position. If he complies with the president's demands, his government may not survive. Natural growth in the Jerusalem settlements, as well as the largest West Bank settlements, is a consensus issue in Israeli politics. Particularly in Jerusalem, these settlements are indistinguishable from the city that surrounds them. On the other hand, if Netanyahu does not comply, he risks a diplomatic crisis with Israel's indispensable ally. That, too, could bring down this new government. Either way, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the hope-and-change White House is hoping to bring about regime change in Israel.
The more immediate result of this, however, is to change the subject from Iran to settlements, as if settlements were the major obstacle to peace in the region and not Iranian funding of Hamas and Hezbollah and its concurrent development of a nuclear capability. Just a few weeks ago, the conversation was focused almost entirely on what kind of time-line the White House had for negotiations with Iran, what kind of sanctions might be employed if diplomacy failed, and whether the Israelis might strike Iran with or without American approval. Now we talk settlements -- "a key obstacle to getting a peace settlement."
All the while, a Palestinian unity government remains a fantasy. There were actual gun battles in the West Bank over the weekend -- not between Jews and Arabs, but between Hamas and the PA. Yet any negotiated settlement will require, before negotiations can even begin, a partner with whom the Israelis can negotiate. If the Israelis are to freeze all settlement construction as the Obama administration demands, construction may well be frozen for a decade or more while the Palestinians coalesce around one terrorist group or another that has the authority and the inclination to enter into serious negotiations. Of course, Obama is powerless to change the facts on the ground in Palestine, while the Israelis can be bullied and pushed to meet any particular demand.
The president clearly wants to travel to Saudi Arabia and Egypt (where he can bow before Muslim royalty and the masses, respectively) with Israeli concessions in hand. Perhaps Obama will relent, or perhaps he will miscalculate and stoke a backlash not unlike what followed the release of the "torture memos," but there is no doubt that the story going in to the Cairo speech will be that Obama is standing up to Israel. And if Obama's speech is to focus on his Muslim background and the unique perspective it provides him on this issue, then friction with Israel is the perfect backdrop. But to the average American -- concerned about Iranian nukes, Islamic fundamentalism, and the nexus between the two -- Obama will have a hard time explaining why settlements are a key obstacle to peace, even if this is conventional wisdom among "key figures in the Obama administration."
