Unsettled policy:
Bush's compliance on the West Bank and Gaza

Tuesday, August 24, 2004

The issue of Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza is at the center of a morass that needs to be worked through for a comprehensive resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It was at the core of the "road map" to two states, accepted by Israel, that President Bush presented to the parties concerned and the world last year, after lengthy discussions as part of the so-called quartet with the European Union, the United Nations and Russia.

Consistent with that approach, and with those of previous U.S. administrations, the removal of Israeli settlers from territories that would be put under Palestinian authority in a "land for peace" agreement has been considered by the United States to be a goal. On the road to achieving the accord, no expansion of the settlements has been a solid U.S. plank in its approach to the Middle East peace process.

The United States has never been prepared to use its considerable leverage with the Israelis, in the form of the some $3 billion in aid it gives Israel each year and the security guarantee it provides as well, to try to oblige the withdrawal of settlers from the West Bank or Gaza.

At the same time, there is no absence of Israeli understanding of the need to provide the Palestinians an area where their authority is secure, as part of the road to a settlement. Most recently, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon put forward the idea that most of the Israeli settlers in Gaza and some in the West Bank would be withdrawn as a positive step toward reaching an agreement. His own Likud party has so far rejected that step, most recently last week, and the settlers themselves have proved obdurate on the subject.

Last week Mr. Sharon's government put forward a plan to fund 1,001 new apartments at $15 million in four occupied territory settlements -- a step in the opposite direction from an agreement, one which the United States might have been expected to oppose.

Instead, the Bush administration has so far not condemned Mr. Sharon's proposal, and is suggesting that it wishes to support him at this time, to preserve his government and allegedly to strengthen his hand in trying to build support in his country for the withdrawal of settlers from Gaza.

Perhaps the Bush administration's real reason for taking the new position is to seek support in the upcoming American elections from Jewish voters and campaign contributors who support Mr. Sharon or the settlements.

It seems difficult to imagine that an American political party would sell off long-established policy, maintained by a succession of administrations, for money or votes. The reason for the previous, consistent U.S. approach to the issue of settlements is sound: A Palestine can't be negotiated if the presence of Israeli settlers in territory that would be Palestinian is continuing to expand.

The Bush administration needs to restate categorically the long-time U.S. position on settlers -- that their presence and especially the expansion of their presence in the West Bank and Gaza is a barrier to an agreement that would bring peace, stability and security to the region.

Any other approach indicates an administration that is prepared to trade an important piece of long-standing U.S. policy for short-term electoral advantage.