BICOM

Key Points

• Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, in his meeting with US Mid-East Envoy George Mitchell in London today is expected to propose a freeze on building in settlements limited in time, conditional on steps toward normalisation from Arab states, and US guarantees on crucial security issues.[1]

• More broadly, Israel’s strategy is to embed the issue of a settlement freeze within a more comprehensive series of moves in the diplomatic process, on the basis of reciprocity. 

• It is not clear whether either the extent of the freeze to be proposed, or the conditioning of it on progress toward normalisation will be acceptable to the US Administration.

• The US stress on a settlement freeze has meant that the onus for progress on the peace process has become placed almost entirely on Israel. Some analysts believe that given the disarray in Palestinian politics, this is an attempt to ‘manufacture movement.’ Even if a freeze is achieved, if no progress on Palestinian unity is made, it is difficult to see how the process can move forward.    

• On the issue of ‘natural growth’, Israel will seek US acquiescence to complete building projects already begun. Projects of considerable size are currently under way. Overall, approximately 2,500 housing units are under construction in the West Bank settlements.[2]

• Failure to find agreement on the issue of a settlement freeze is likely to produce a period of coolness in US-Israeli relations, reminiscent of the early 1990s. Such an outcome would benefit neither side. It is therefore likely that a compromise formula acceptable in both Washington and Jerusalem will emerge in the coming weeks.  

 

Defence Minister Ehud Barak is due to meet today with US Middle East Envoy George Mitchell, in London. The meeting represents the latest evidence of the major role in diplomacy currently being played by the defence minister and Israel Labour leader. High on the agenda of the discussions will be the issue of the US demand for a freeze on building in Jewish settlements in the West Bank. The Obama Administration has made clear that it regards such a freeze as essential in its efforts to revive the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. The government of Israel is seeking to clarify precisely what is meant by a settlement freeze, and to reach agreement with the US on the form and the extent of the freeze.

Of particular centrality will be the issue of the completion of construction projects which have already begun. The developing Israeli position appears also to focus on the issue of ‘normalisation’ moves between Israel and the Arab states in return for a freeze on building in the settlements. The Mitchell-Barak meeting in London is being seen as an attempt to clarify these positions, in the approach to a meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Mitchell on the issue. This document will seek to outline the parameters of the debate and the developing Israeli and US stances.

What would a ‘settlement freeze’ consist of?

US President Barack Obama’s conviction that the issue of freezing construction in the settlements is central to reviving the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has been apparent since he took office. Contrary to some predictions, the urgency of other issues on the international stage has not led the Administration to lose focus on this issue. However, a number of officials closely engaged in the diplomatic process have noted that at no stage has the Administration made clear, in detail, what it means by a ‘freeze’ on settlement building.

Israel has clarified that it has no intention of building new settlements. It is now also accepted that any construction within settlements will take place within the existing current radius of the settlements. This is not a new policy, but rather reflects an Israeli stance of long-standing. But this leaves the question of the implications of a freeze for construction as part of ‘natural growth’ in the settlements, and completion of construction projects already underway. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton a few weeks ago appeared to rule out in a statement any construction whatsoever, including for ‘natural growth.’[3] President Obama, however, has not expressed himself in so categorical a manner. The seriousness of the Administration is not in doubt, but clarifying the US position on these matters of detail is now vital. 

There is a sense that the US president’s determination on the issue of settlements represents a genuinely new development in US-Israeli relations. No Israeli government has previously ordered a total freeze on construction in the West Bank settlements. The position of PM Netanyahu and those around him has traditionally been that the presence and/or growth of Jewish settlements in the West Bank should not be a matter of primary importance in determining the likely success or failure of the diplomatic process. Clearly, this position is not sustainable in the face of the current US Administration’s focus on this issue.

As Defence Minister Barak and US envoy Mitchell discuss the details, it will become clear whether a formula acceptable to both sides to address this issue can be found.

The Israeli and US positions

US determination on the issue of a settlement freeze appears to have genuinely surprised senior Israeli officials. However, the signs are that Israel has now developed a coherent response, for which it is seeking US agreement. In general, Defence Minister Barak is expected to propose a freeze on building in settlements limited in time, conditional on steps toward normalisation from the Arab states, and US guarantees on significant security matters. 

On the issue of ‘natural growth’, Israel will seek US acquiescence to complete building projects already begun. Projects of considerable size are currently under way. Overall, 2,500 housing units are under construction in the West Bank settlements.

More broadly, Israel’s strategy is to embed the issue of a settlement freeze within a more comprehensive series of moves in the diplomatic process, on the basis of reciprocity. The stress on normalisation moves by the Arab states is seen by some analysts as a reflection of the gulf between the US Administration and the Netanyahu government. In his first term as prime minister, Netanyahu directed his expectations of reciprocity toward the Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu may well feel that any attempt to ask for reciprocity from the Palestinian Authority would be pointless, given the Administration’s stances.   

President Obama, following a meeting with Jordanian King Abdullah II three months ago, expressed his views regarding the way forward, in what has been characterized as a ‘gestures plan.’ This idea of sequential movement by Israel and by the Arab states and a broader distribution of responsibilities has been a recurring theme in Obama’s statements on the conflict. The President said that he hoped that:

“Over the next several months, that you start seeing gestures of good faith on all sides…I think that the parties in the region probably have a pretty good recognition of what intermediate steps could be taken as confidence-building measures. And we will be doing everything we can to encourage those confidence-building measures to take place. At some point, steps have to be taken so that people can see progress on the ground. And that will be something that we will expect to take place in the coming months and we will help hopefully to drive a process where each side is willing to build confidence.”[4]

Florida Congressman Robert Wexler, who is considered close to the president, said that in tandem with its demand for a settlement freeze, the US Administration is making “equal, if not greater, demands on the Arab world’ for normalisation with Israel. Wexler mentioned Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the North African Arab states in regard to this, and said that what was being discussed was the possible opening or reopening of trade offices, direct economic links, cultural and educational exchanges and flyover rights for Israeli commercial airlines.[5]

President Obama sent a letter last week to King Mohammed VI of Morocco, encouraging him to end Israel’s ‘isolation’ in the region. Statements by Israeli officials suggest that Israel is seeking US acquiescence to a form of tacit ‘linkage’ between a settlement freeze and progress in Arab steps toward normalisation with Israel. As one unnamed Israeli official quoted in Haaretz put it, “the length and breadth of the temporary building freeze will be in proportion to the scope of the renewal of peace talks, and signals received from the Arab states.”[6]

Thus, the emerging Israeli position appears to be one which accepts a commitment to a temporary freeze on construction within West Bank settlements, while seeking to ensure that the freeze leaves open the possibility of construction for natural growth and completion of construction projects already commenced. Israel is also seeking to ensure that the extent and continuation of the freeze is linked in with parallel progress in the normalisation process with the Arab world. 

An additional Israeli proposal, which reportedly arose in the talks, is for a regional peace summit that would seek to secure comprehensive regional agreement on the steps to be taken by both sides toward peace in the coming period. In recent weeks, sources in Washington have aired similar ideas and a summit of this sort may me convened in the coming months.

It is not at all clear whether either the extent of the freeze to be proposed or its conditioning on progress toward normalisation will be acceptable to the US Administration. This lack of clarity derives from the noticeable gap between the Administration’s clear determination to secure a settlement freeze, and the equally apparent vagueness as to the Administration’s definition of what precisely an acceptable settlement freeze would constitute in the Administration’s view or what concrete steps Washington would like to see the Arab world take in the coming period. The Mitchell-Barak meeting this week represents another attempt to reach US-Israeli agreement in this matter. The meeting between Mitchell and PM Netanyahu, scheduled to take place in Jerusalem in two weeks, is being seen as likely to constitute the ‘moment of truth’ in this regard.

Conclusion

Failure to find agreement on the issue of a settlement freeze is likely to produce a period of coolness in US-Israeli relations. Such an outcome would benefit neither side. The PA leadership is currently refusing to meet with the Israeli government, and this stance would be maintained if US-Israeli disagreements increase. The current disarray in Palestinian politics means that the Israeli government can hardly be seen as the sole barrier to rapid progress in the peace process. Within Israeli domestic politics, the perception of US pressure will not necessarily lead to greater support for acquiescence to US demands. It is therefore likely that a compromise formula acceptable in both Washington and Jerusalem will emerge in the coming weeks.

 

---

[1] Barak Ravid, “Israel seeks Arab response for settlement building freeze,” Haaretz, 5 July 2009.

[2] Barak Ravid, “Israel seeks Arab response”

[3] Lachlan Carmichael, “No exceptions to Israel settlement freeze: Clinton,” Agence France Presse, 27 June 2009.

[4] Barak Ravid, “Obama aims to push peace through settlement freeze, normalization,” Haaretz, 23 April 2009

[5] Herb Keinon, “Wexler: Israel will freeze settlements,” Jerusalem Post, 1 July 2009

[6] Ravid. “Israel seeks Arab response.”