Israeli/Palestinian Peace Talks on Verge of Breaking Down Again

[Wraith]

U.S. scrambles to save Mideast talks

Clinton criticized for ‘harsh language’ toward Israel

JERUSALEM - Israel's relationship with the United States, a defining feature of the troubled Middle East, was under severe strain as diplomats scrambled on Saturday to save newborn U.S.-brokered peace talks with the Palestinians.

A senior U.S. official predicted "a dicey period here in the next couple days to a couple of weeks" as Palestinians demanded the reversal of a new Israeli settlement plan and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition, which includes pro-settler parties, reacts to unusually blunt criticism from Washington.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Israel's behaviour "insulting" after it approved 1,600 new homes last week at a settlement in the Jerusalem area on the very day Vice President Joe Biden was there to set a seal on relaunched negotiations.

Biden told Reuters on Friday he believed Netanyahu was sincere in seeking a deal to give the Palestinians a state and that the premier understood that Israel had "no alternative."

Though Clinton stressed that Washington's ties with the Jewish state were "durable and strong", she had told Netanyahu in a telephone call on Friday that he must act to repair the relationship and show his commitment to an alliance which, she reminded him, was key to Israel's security in a hostile region.

While accepting that Netanyahu was taken by surprise by the settlement housing approval granted on Tuesday by his interior ministry, which is run by the pro-settler religious Shas party, Clinton said the prime minister was still responsible for it.

Clinton called "to make clear that the United States considered the announcement to be a deeply negative signal about Israel's approach to the bilateral relationship and counter to the spirit of the vice president's trip," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters.

'Gross over-reaction'
There was no reaction from Israeli officialdom during the Jewish sabbath but in Washington, the Anti-Defamation League, which lobbies for Israel with U.S. lawmakers, called Clinton's remarks on the diplomatic debacle a "gross over-reaction."

"We are shocked and stunned at the administration's tone and public dressing down of Israel," the ADL's Abraham Foxman said.

"We cannot remember an instance when such harsh language was directed at a friend and ally of the United States.

"One can only wonder how far the U.S. is prepared to go in distancing itself from Israel in order to placate the Palestinians."

President Barack Obama is seeking better U.S. relations with the Arab world, which backs the Palestinians, as he seeks to bolster alliances in the oil-producing hub, notably against Iran as it develops nuclear technology and against Islamist enemies like al-Qaida.

Breaking the stalemate on a Palestinian state after 20 years of talking might help challenge Arab perceptions that Washington is in thrall to Israel, some analysts believe, although Israel's strong support in Congress tends to limit U.S. pressure on it.

Aides to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he was waiting to meet Obama's peace envoy George Mitchell when he returns to the region in the coming days before deciding whether to maintain his week-old commitment to starting "proximity talks" with Netanyahu via U.S. mediators.

Mitchell and the Obama Administration have spent their first year in office pressing the Palestinians to end a suspension of talks dating from Israel's offensive in December 2008 against Abbas's domestic rivals, the Islamist Hamas movement, in Gaza.

Though unhappy with a partial, 10-month settlement freeze in November, Abbas came under even heavier U.S. pressure to return to the table. A week ago, he agreed to four months of indirect talks, aided by endorsement from the Arab League which offered him some political cover from criticisms by Hamas hardliners.

Now, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, said: "President Abbas told the Americans it was going to be very difficult to embark on talks without a cancellation of the Israeli decision to build 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem and a commitment not to initiate any settlement activities in the future."

A senior U.S. official indicated that Washington may focus on playing down the significance of the past week's approval for future housebuilding — "this was a year away at minimum", he said — and voicing understanding for Netanyahu's difficulties.

'Perilous'
The official described the premier's position as "perilous" due to his coalition dependence on pro-settler groups.

But he also said Washington expected Netanyahu to avoid a repeat of disputes over settlements: "The Israelis know the only way to stay on the positive side of the ledger — internationally and with us — is to not have them recurring."

Even the scope of possible talks is still in doubt, however, and few see any rapid prospect of a solution to the conflict.

Israel has so far balked at Palestinian demands that the indirect phase include talks on "final status issues," including borders, refugees and sharing the city of Jerusalem.

Washington wants the talks to cover issues of "consequence" but has yet to spell out publicly what that would entail.

The Quartet of Middle East peace mediators — the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia — also condemned the settlement plan and said it would assess the situation at a scheduled meeting in Moscow next week.

Source

Quick Summary: Israel's new settlement expansion is threatening to destroy the chance for any peace there. People are pissed at Clinton for being pissed at Israel.

This was really not a smart move by Israel, and I can't really muster any outrage at Clinton for her statements. Expanding the settlements, especially now, was stupid. Now it looks like yet another peace talk is going to break down, and this time it'll be tough to place all the blame on the Palestinians.

[Loki]

Real summary: Israel's actions are threatening to destroy the useless talks that would lead to somewhat useless talks that would lead to semi-useful talks and that would eventually lead to useful talks once all the stars align. Of course even if the useless talks succeeded, the somewhat useless ones would likely have failed. And if those wouldn't fail, the semi-useful talks would fail. It seems to me that the "international community" wants to see talks for the sake of talks. Until there's a change in the situation on the ground, they will lead nowhere.

[Wraith]

This is kinda preventing a change on the ground though, no? I acknowledge that this probably wouldn't have led to peace anyways, but it'll happen eventually and their actions made it even more likely that it won't be this time.

[agamemnus]

Talks are useless and everyone privately knows it, but everyone needs to keep the pretense up...

[Loki]

This is kinda preventing a change on the ground though, no? I acknowledge that this probably wouldn't have led to peace anyways, but it'll happen eventually and their actions made it even more likely that it won't be this time.

Talks aren't going to change the situation on the ground until we get somewhere near the final settlement, which requires so many other things to happen first that it's highly unlikely we'll get to it in the immediate future (or distant future if you want to be a pessimist). You need to get some fundamental changes within Israeli and Palestinian society and/or fundamental changes in the relative power of the two groups (and their backers). You don't bring about changes through diplomacy that's about 4 rounds removed from discussing anything substantive.

[Dreadnaught]

Yeah, there are no real talks to speak of.

And the Israeli minister who dropped these new construction permits behind PM Netanyahu's back while Biden was visiting really mucked things up. But more generally, Israel's willingness to flout the US on a very clear and simple point is disturbing. I hope the US pushes this issue more forcefully, but I do hope it's done quietly. There really is an anti-Israel contingent in the Democratic party just waiting to be born.

Separately, Abraham Foxman should just stop commenting on 90% of the questions he gets about Israel issues.

[Loki]

Separately, Abraham Foxman should just stop commenting on 90% of the questions he gets about Israel issues.

I was going to mention that. The guy really needs to stick to talking about anti-Semitism if he doesn't want to discredit all of his organization's work.

[wiggin]

While I would certainly argue that Israeli politicians have absolutely horrid timing, I personally wasn't too upset about this particular bit of building. If anyone actually looked at a map, the neighborhood in question isn't really a big issue. Ramat Shlomo is just east of the old border, and is roughly contiguous with W. Jerusalem. The expansion isn't displacing anyone, is relieving some housing pressure for the Haredim in Jerusalem, and does not cut off any major Palestinian enclaves. Shuafat, the closest Palestinian neighborhood, is to the east of Ramat Shlomo. There's a 'close in' belt of Jewish neighborhoods around Jerusalem that are not particularly big problems - Ramot 1-6, Ramat Shlomo, Ramat Eshkol, Ma'alot Daphna, Talpiot, etc. Even Gilo, Har Choma, and French Hill aren't too bad, though they might cause some headaches in a potential division of Jerusalem. People should be much more concerned about the likes of Pisgat Ze'ev and Ma'alei Adumim, which would make a partition much more difficult.

Furthermore, realize that the background is that a right wing Israeli government has frozen all construction in the West Bank proper (not including Jerusalem), which has come despite significant domestic pressure and at great cost (both political and monetary). Netanyahu made no secret of the fact that construction would continue in Jerusalem, and Obama grudgingly took what he could get. If Abbas won't even come to the table when Netanyahu has committed to a WB freeze and an eventual Palestinian state - however grudgingly - I'm not sure what more the Americans can expect from a Likud government. It was exceptionally poor timing, but not fundamentally something to warrant a diplomatic row.

[Being]

I'm sure you guys think I'm nuts but eventually Muslims will run Israel. There just aren't enough Jews that want to live there.

[wiggin]

What about the ~5.4 million of them currently there? That's nearly 50% of the world Jewish population. The only other major population of Jews is the US, and it's no surprise that few people want to leave the US. Even with that, a few thousand Jews leave the US every year for Israel. Not much in relative numbers, but still an appreciable number. More importantly, Nefesh B'Nefesh (the organization that works with the Israeli government's Jewish Agency to promote immigration to Israel from rich Western countries) has been making significant inroads into sectors of the Jewish population in the US, making immigration to Israel not something everyone does, but an option many people now consider (not to mention that it's expensive to be an affiliated Jew in the US, and much less so in Israel). It's mostly a psychology thing, but I've seen the results firsthand. Life is comfortable and easy for Jews in the US, yes. Nevertheless, there is significant interest in moving to Israel among large chunks of the ~5-6 million Jews living there. Continued improvement in the economic and living conditions in Israel (especially their healthy showing in this recession and heavy investment in R&D) further makes it far more attractive than back in the 80s or earlier. If a final status agreement could be finalized with the Palestinians that included fully normalized relationships with much of the Arab world, this would result in a far more attractive draw.

Also figure that Jewish population growth is fairly high and fairly stable for a rich(ish) Western country, while Arab birthrates in Israel are dropping like a rock. In 1948, about 20% of Israeli citizens were not Jewish. Today, the number is roughly the same.

Israel is a complex country that is facing many problems, most still associated with the growing pains of a new state. Yet a remarkable amount has been achieved in a few short decades, and things continue to improve. I think demographic doomsayers are largely uninformed about the facts and ignoring current trends.

[Dreadnaught]

The demographic picture would look a lot better if they gave up on trying to surround Arab neighborhoods with Jewish settlements. It's frankly a bit of lunacy.

But Being is generally wrong -- there are plenty of Jews who want to live there. It's even on my short list of places I would live (at least for a while) if I could speak better Hebrew. Simply put, whatever the borders will be, Israeli Jews will not accept being in a minority. Though a lot of discomfort remains before they are faced with a set of clear choices on that issue.

[Wraith]

Sorry to derail my own thread, but Wiggin's US Jews comment thing brought to mind something else I've thought about in the past. Isn't the US being hurt by the emigration to Israel? It seems like it'd be in the national interest for it to try to lure Israelis to the US, and try to convince people not to move from here to Israel, but without actually forbidding it. That demographic generally outperforms other demographics for societal contributions.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

This is kinda preventing a change on the ground though, no? I acknowledge that this probably wouldn't have led to peace anyways, but it'll happen eventually and their actions made it even more likely that it won't be this time.

Seems to me as things are changing quite significantly on the ground....

[Dreadnaught]

Sorry to derail my own thread, but Wiggin's US Jews comment thing brought to mind something else I've thought about in the past. Isn't the US being hurt by the emigration to Israel? It seems like it'd be in the national interest for it to try to lure Israelis to the US, and try to convince people not to move from here to Israel, but without actually forbidding it. That demographic generally outperforms other demographics for societal contributions.

It's probably a bit of a stereotype that a high proporton of people who move to Israel are high economic performers over here. There's plenty of starry-eyed folks who are simply "lost" here in the US who think they'll find something there. On the flip side, Israelis who move out of the country are often viewed derisively as abandoning the country (at least in the nationalist Israeli narrative).

That said, there are plenty of economically successful people who do make the switch. I've heard plenty of stories of that and some organizations in Israel actively try to recruit economically successful people in the US. Actually, I used to work with someone outside of my company. She was just a contact I had found in the ether and we found some common ground to work together on a few projects. It took about six months before I found out that she was actually an American living in Israel, working from home and keeping US east coast hours. She was very talented though and had obviously built up a solid business of American clients while living there.

****

I haven't read Tom Friedman in a while, but he cut his teeth writing about Israel and I think he makes a lot of good points here:

March 14, 2010
Op-Ed Columnist
Driving Drunk in Jerusalem
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

I am a big Joe Biden fan. The vice president is an indefatigable defender of U.S. interests abroad. So it pains me to say that on his recent trip to Israel, when Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s government rubbed his nose in some new housing plans for contested East Jerusalem, the vice president missed a chance to send a powerful public signal: He should have snapped his notebook shut, gotten right back on Air Force Two, flown home and left the following scribbled note behind: “Message from America to the Israeli government: Friends don’t let friends drive drunk. And right now, you’re driving drunk. You think you can embarrass your only true ally in the world, to satisfy some domestic political need, with no consequences? You have lost total contact with reality. Call us when you’re serious. We need to focus on building our country.”

I think that — rather than fuming and making up — would have sent a very useful message for two reasons. First, what the Israelis did played right into a question a lot of people are asking about the Obama team: how tough are these guys? The last thing the president needs, at a time when he is facing down Iran and China — not to mention Congress — is to look like America’s most dependent ally can push him around.

And second, Israel needs a wake-up call. Continuing to build settlements in the West Bank, and even housing in disputed East Jerusalem, is sheer madness. Yasir Arafat accepted that Jewish suburbs there would be under Israeli sovereignty in any peace deal that would also make Arab parts of East Jerusalem the Palestinian capital. Israel’s planned housing expansion now raises questions about whether Israel will ever be willing to concede a Palestinian capital in Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem — a big problem.

Israel has already bitten off plenty of the West Bank. If it wants to remain a Jewish democracy, its only priority now should be striking a deal with the Palestinians that would allow it to swap those settlement blocs in the West Bank occupied by Jews for an equal amount of land from Israel for the Palestinians and then reap the benefits — economic and security — of ending the conflict.

Unfortunately, that is not what happened last week. For nine months now, America’s Middle East special envoy, George Mitchell, has been trying to find a way to get any kind of peace talks going between Israelis and Palestinians. The Palestinians don’t trust Netanyahu, and Netanyahu has serious doubts as to whether the divided Palestinian leadership can deliver.

Nevertheless, Mitchell was eventually able to persuade the two sides to agree on “proximity talks” — the Palestinians would sit in Ramallah and the Israelis in Jerusalem and Mitchell would shuttle 30 minutes between them. After a decade of direct talks, this is how far things have fallen.

Mitchell’s and Netanyahu’s aides struck an informal deal: If America got talks going, there would be no announcements of buildings in East Jerusalem, nothing to embarrass the Palestinians and force them to walk. Netanyahu agreed, U.S. officials say, but made clear he couldn’t commit to anything publicly.

So what happened? Biden arrived the day after the proximity talks started and out came an announcement from Israel’s Interior Ministry that Israel had just approved plans for 1,600 new housing units in Arab East Jerusalem.

Netanyahu said he was blindsided. It’s probably true in the narrow sense. The move seems to have been part of a competition between two of Netanyahu’s right-wing Sephardi ministers from the religious Shas Party over who can be the greater champion of building homes for Sephardi orthodox Jews in East Jerusalem. It is a measure of how much Israel takes our support for granted and how out of touch the Israeli religious right is with America’s strategic needs.

Biden — a real friend of Israel’s — was quoted as telling his Israeli interlocutors: “What you are doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and endangers regional peace.”

This whole fracas also distracts us from the potential of this moment: Only a right-wing prime minister, like Netanyahu, can make a deal over the West Bank; Netanyahu’s actual policies on the ground there have helped Palestinians grow their economy and put in place their own rebuilt security force, which is working with the Israeli Army to prevent terrorism; Palestinian leaders Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad are as genuine and serious about working toward a solution as any Israel can hope to find; Hamas has halted its attacks on Israel from Gaza; with the Sunni Arabs obsessed over the Iran threat, their willingness to work with Israel has never been higher, and the best way to isolate Iran is to take the Palestinian conflict card out of Tehran’s hand.

In sum, there may be a real opportunity here — if Netanyahu chooses to seize it. The Israeli leader needs to make up his mind whether he wants to make history or once again be a footnote to it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/op...4friedman.html

[wiggin]

The demographic picture would look a lot better if they gave up on trying to surround Arab neighborhoods with Jewish settlements. It's frankly a bit of lunacy.

Come on, you think a couple hundred thousand Arabs matters one way or another in the demographic picture? That's scaremongering and not true analysis. A wholesale annexation of the West Bank (without a transfer of the Palestinian population elsewhere, which I assume we all oppose) would be demographic disaster for Israel. Giving all Jerusalem residents full Israeli citizenship would not be.

Sorry to derail my own thread, but Wiggin's US Jews comment thing brought to mind something else I've thought about in the past. Isn't the US being hurt by the emigration to Israel? It seems like it'd be in the national interest for it to try to lure Israelis to the US, and try to convince people not to move from here to Israel, but without actually forbidding it. That demographic generally outperforms other demographics for societal contributions.

Maybe or maybe not, but the numbers are so small compared to the US population that it's largely irrelevant. The total Jewish population in the US is only ~2% of the US population, and less than 0.1% of those move to Israel every year. Furthermore, the movement of Americans to Israel (and Israelis to the US, where by far the majority of expats or students go) strengthens the economic ties between the two countries, which brings it own benefits. US exports to Israel are boosted by increased domestic demand, US citizens often pay a significant portion of taxes on their investments in the US (though the tax treaty can be complicated), etc. In fact, a number of high performing workers who move to Israel commute to the US for work, since they can work for a fraction of the year in the US to support a decent lifestyle in Israel (common among doctors and some other professionals). This continues a contribution to the US economy and coffers but largely eliminates their burden on the government.

The point is that it's a very complex picture, but it doesn't even come close to being significant given the raw numbers. Hell, since Israel has an enormous surplus of highly educated citizens (highest PhDs per capita), they end up exporting a lot of talent to the US and not the other way around. This 'brain drain' due to the relatively limited and competitive academic system in Israel is a major concern for Israelis, since literally thousands of Israeli academics work abroad, most in the US. Additionally, when Israeli startups are bought out by large American firms, they are often relocated to the US, bringing along much of the Israeli talent with them. In sum, there is a small but significant flow of highly creative and talented people both ways between the two countries, and generally everyone benefits.

It's probably a bit of a stereotype that a high proporton of people who move to Israel are high economic performers over here. There's plenty of starry-eyed folks who are simply "lost" here in the US who think they'll find something there. On the flip side, Israelis who move out of the country are often viewed derisively as abandoning the country (at least in the nationalist Israeli narrative).

I couldn't tell you the specifics, but they certainly beat the average in the US. I recently saw a survey done about income levels as a function of religious affiliation - 46% of Jews surveyed were in the top income bracket (not too high, to be fair - $100k and up), which was only rivaled by Hindus with 43%. Everyone else was in the 20s or lower. (To be honest, I was a bit embarrassed by the results - they looked awfully bad, though obviously didn't take into account the higher COL for many Jewish lifestyles and their concentration in expensive urban areas.)

Of those who move to Israel, though, I'm not really sure. They sometimes have trouble being as productive in Israel as they might have been in the US, largely due to integration issues and some longstanding inefficiencies in the Israeli economy. That being said, are the really high performers moving to Israel en masse? I doubt it. I also doubt that they're particularly low performers, though one could make an argument that the higher proportion of Haredi Jews who move to Israel due to cost concerns might shift the demographic a bit. Hard to tell.

That said, there are plenty of economically successful people who do make the switch. I've heard plenty of stories of that and some organizations in Israel actively try to recruit economically successful people in the US. Actually, I used to work with someone outside of my company. She was just a contact I had found in the ether and we found some common ground to work together on a few projects. It took about six months before I found out that she was actually an American living in Israel, working from home and keeping US east coast hours. She was very talented though and had obviously built up a solid business of American clients while living there.

*nods* Very common, as I mentioned above. I know some radiologists that do that as well, and a number of tech people who work 'American jobs' (and get American salaries) but work largely from Israel. Nefesh B'Nefesh (the current organization pushing N. American aliyah) generally tries to recruit highly motivated and successful people who are likely to do well upon immigrating. They have special incentive programs for doctors, scientists, high tech guys, engineers, etc. There are plenty of people who don't fit these criteria, of course, but by and large they are decently educated and likely to do at least better than average if they had stayed in the US.

I haven't read Tom Friedman in a while, but he cut his teeth writing about Israel and I think he makes a lot of good points here:

I've never been a big fan of his, but his point was okay. I think he (along with everyone else) actually missed the point about how much of a non-issue this particular expansion is to a final status agreement, probably because he didn't bother to look past the headlines. This issue is an issue just because it looks bad in headlines, not because it sets the peace process back one iota. I'm also incredibly skeptical about the last paragraph you highlighted. Really? Netanyahu has missed some golden opportunity? Give me a break. The conflict is being managed well by the Israelis, but relative quiet does not mean that peace is just around the corner. Abbas and Fayyad cannot speak for anyone other than themselves, and that simply isn't good enough.

[wiggin]

Now this is interesting. Looks like Fatah (Abbas' party) named a square in Ramallah after a particularly nasty terrorist this past Thursday - yup, during Joe Biden's visit. Where's the outrage there?

Source 1
Source 2

Of course, to be fair I would mention that they tried to play it down a little, but there was still official participation, and it's about as obstructionist as the Israeli move.

[LittleFuzzy]

Of course, to be fair I would mention that they tried to play it down a little, but there was still official participation, and it's about as obstructionist as the Israeli move.

Except of course that naming a square is a completely empty act which doesn't actually change anything, unlike the housing thing.

[Loki]

Except of course that naming a square is a completely empty act which doesn't actually change anything, unlike the housing thing.

The housing thing doesn't change anything either, as this area will become part of Israel under any agreement. It's pretty obvious that the US is doing this because the Palestinians are the ones playing hardball.

[wiggin]

Two points: First, this housing thing doesn't substantially change things on the ground. The neighborhood and its planned extension are directly abutting W. Jerusalem. There are no Arab neighborhoods involved, and it would undoubtedly be a minor point in negotiations over E. Jerusalem. Secondly, the road map explicitly links ending of incitement to violence by the PA with the freezing of settlement construction, giving them some level of equality vis-a-vis obstructions to negotiation. Honoring the slaughter of 38 civilians (ironically, done to derail Israeli negotiations with Egypt in the 70s) definitely qualifies as 'incitement'.

[Dreadnaught]

Come on, you think a couple hundred thousand Arabs matters one way or another in the demographic picture? That's scaremongering and not true analysis. A wholesale annexation of the West Bank (without a transfer of the Palestinian population elsewhere, which I assume we all oppose) would be demographic disaster for Israel. Giving all Jerusalem residents full Israeli citizenship would not be.

I beg to differ. When we're talking about ~7.3 million people, a few hundred thousand matters a ton. Especially when that few hundred thousand is concentrated in the capital and has a particularly high birth rate.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...397174,00.html

I've never been a big fan of his, but his point was okay. I think he (along with everyone else) actually missed the point about how much of a non-issue this particular expansion is to a final status agreement, probably because he didn't bother to look past the headlines. This issue is an issue just because it looks bad in headlines, not because it sets the peace process back one iota. I'm also incredibly skeptical about the last paragraph you highlighted. Really? Netanyahu has missed some golden opportunity? Give me a break. The conflict is being managed well by the Israelis, but relative quiet does not mean that peace is just around the corner. Abbas and Fayyad cannot speak for anyone other than themselves, and that simply isn't good enough.

The constant incremental "expansions" even within existing settlements are very unhelpful, as they are just a tamped-down land grab. It's just puts more people in areas that are likely to stay in Israel, but still are contested. It's also bad faith.

But the reason I highlighted that paragraph was the bit about how a right-wing Prime Minister like Netanyahu is more likely to be able to curtain settlement growth. Or "managing" the conflict, as you put it.

[wiggin]

I beg to differ. When we're talking about ~7.3 million people, a few hundred thousand matters a ton. Especially when that few hundred thousand is concentrated in the capital and has a particularly high birth rate.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...397174,00.html

Israel did just fine with tens of thousands of Syrian Druze when they annexed the Golan Heights, back when the population was several million smaller. Furthermore, those few hundred thousand people already have Israeli identity cards, they just don't have citizenship. It would right a silly wrong to give them citizenship, and would help their integration (not to mention give them much better protections in court).

The birthrate thing is a bogeyman, nothing more. Arab birthrates have been steadily dropping for decades due to development of their sector, and greatly accelerated due to cuts in child allowances. In much of the developed(ish) Arab world the birthrate is barely replacement level or lower; Israeli Arabs are so fertile precisely because extra children are subsidized by the government. Take away the subsidy, and the birthrate drops like a rock. Meanwhile, studies have shown that Jewish Israeli birthrates are less dependent on subsidies (though obviously there is a correlation for very big families), and has remained quite stable (and well above replacement) for some time. (Don't pay attention to doomsaying demographic projections - it suits both the left and the right in Israel to paint that picture, regardless of the realities.)

Israel accepted nearly a million immigrants from the former Soviet Union in roughly a decade, several hundred thousand of which were not considered Jewish, and nearly all of which had no significant Jewish education, practice, or knowledge. Many moved to Israel just because it was free citizenship in a prosperous Western country. Yet despite the huge shock to Israel's system, they have been integrated more or less into society. I fail to see how a few hundred thousand Arabs (if we're talking worst case scenario including every inch of East Jerusalem, that's about 200-250k) who already have strong cultural ties to Israel, know Hebrew, and are settled in their homes and jobs could be a big problem. Obviously, you'd have to deal with the history of enmity, but if done in the context of a final status agreement and the option to be resettled in a Palestinian state, you wouldn't have to worry much about that.

The point is that the demographic issue is not the real issue here - it's the issue of what the Palestinians will be willing to agree to, which is a wholly different can of worms. In reality, I imagine that many of the outlying Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would be annexed to the PA and provide their 'capital' in Jerusalem, neatly removing about 100k Palestinians from the equation. But that's a question of politics, not demographics.

The constant incremental "expansions" even within existing settlements are very unhelpful, as they are just a tamped-down land grab. It's just puts more people in areas that are likely to stay in Israel, but still are contested. It's also bad faith.

I have problems with expanding far-flung settlements on these grounds, since they will likely be ceded in a final status agreement and are just asking for trouble (not to mention invariably causing more friction with nearby Palestinians). But settlements nearly contiguous with Green Line Israel that are built on uncontested land (e.g. the municipality of Jerusalem owns the empty land Ramat Shlomo was being expanded onto, I believe)... I don't really have an issue with that. There's no 'bad faith' involved in that Israel is entirely open about the fact that they have no intention of freezing growth of these 'consensus' settlements, most especially in E. Jerusalem.

I think the issue here is that many people (presumably yourself included) take the 1949 armistice lines as some sort of holy border from which all negotiations must start. As such, any building beyond that line is morally wrong. In my view, the armistice was with Jordan and had nothing to do with Palestinians. The Palestinian problem is a more recent one, and focuses on finding a Palestinian state in areas in which their population is concentrated - Gaza and large chunks of the West Bank. But I see no reason why Gush Etzion, for example, should be considered by default Palestinian until some later negotiation. Land legitimately owned by Palestinians should of course be maintained in their possession (or, if repossessed by the state for security considerations, they should be reasonably compensated and the land shouldn't be used for settlement expansion). Yet the pseudosovereign entity of the PA has not particular claim to every inch of the West Bank any more than it does to the rest of Israel. As such - in my logic - settlement expansion is not by definition wrong or obstructive, but only by circumstance of the specific bit of construction.

But the reason I highlighted that paragraph was the bit about how a right-wing Prime Minister like Netanyahu is more likely to be able to curtain settlement growth. Or "managing" the conflict, as you put it.

I never understood that logic. A right wing PM can certainly make a peace agreement as it is seen in Israel as a position of strength rather than weakness as with leftist PMs, but that doesn't translate to settlement freezes. Netanyahu runs a serious chance of a coalition revolt (and losing the party chairmanship) if he pushes an anti-settlement agenda too far. A center-left government (something like a strong Kadima-Labor, if they ever got enough votes) could easily push it through politically. (BTW, my comments on managing the conflict had nothing to do with settlements and everything to do with security.)


There is no doubt in my mind that the reasons why the US has gotten so pissed has nothing to do with the actual significance of the decision. It's based on two things and two things only:

1) Politics. An obstructive looking act plays very poorly on the world stage right when the US is trying to restart negotiations, and so Israel has to be reprimanded. Otherwise the Palestinians will raise a big stink (nonwithstanding their own obstructive act on the same day).

2) Pride. The Obama administration would have ended up looking inept and powerless if they just let the Israelis pass with a convoluted explanation to reporters about how this expansion doesn't really change any facts on the ground. They need to look tough on this, so they're acting tough. So what if their relationship with the current Israeli administration is permanently damaged? The Palestinians can always wait another few years until another government comes around. The statements I've seen out of the State Department seem like what really bothered them was the embarrassment, not the building.