About those “settlements”

In an op-ed that is fully supportive of the administration, What a Freeze Can’t Do, David Ignatius lets a little inconvenient truth slip out.

That doesn’t mean any breakthroughs are imminent, however. The more the administration pressures Israel, the more concessions the Arabs seem to want.

Of course at the end of the article Ignatius writes something that requires a little expansion:

The settlements issue illustrates why the Arab-Israeli problem drives people crazy. Even if you achieve a breakthrough, there’s always another snag ahead. White House officials grumble about Israeli intransigence, but they’re also worried about “squishy” Arab promises and demands for preconditions. “Don’t keep faxing it in, saying I gave you a peace plan in 2002,” complains the senior White House official.

Let’s be clear about something: All the major concrete breakthroughs have come from Israel: recognizing the PLO, ceding control of seven cities to the Palestinians in 1995, completely withdrawing from southern Lebanon and Gaza. The responses have been the strengthening the likes of Al Aqsa Martryrs Brigades, Hamas and Hezbollah, not peace.

But of course the harping on “settlements” has given the Arab world an excuse for never moving beyond “squishy” words.

Jennifer Rubin adds:

You’ve got me. It is the triumph of ideology over reality. And it is evidence as to just how deceitful was Obama’s campaign rhetoric with regard to Israel and the Middle East. We know what he said then. It bears no resemblance to the current approach. Had he revealed his hand during the campaign certainly then-candidate Clinton, who professed to be a great friend of Israel, would have seized on the issue.

There’s more to that too. Those of us who questioned how someone with Barack Obama’s ideological background would be pro-Israel were regularly dismissed as misinformed, if not racist, cranks. Now President Obama’s hand has been revealed. Is anyone paying attention?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

About Soccerdad

I'm a government bureaucrat with delusions of literacy.
This entry was posted in Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to About those “settlements”

  1. David C. says:

    There’s a simple explanation. Politicians like success. Doesn’t matter if the success leads to a good or a bad end, only that they got what they asked for.

    They know that with enough pressure, Israel will cave in every time. The Arabs won’t. So they pressure Israel and ignore the Arabs. This way, they can go to bed secure in the knowledge that they had an impact on the world. The fact that thousands of peace-loving people end up dead as a result of that impact, however, doesn’t seem to matter at all.

  2. Alex Bensky says:

    The solution is obvious, Dad. If Israeli concessions primarily produce demands by the Arabs for more concessions, then the solution is to force the Israelis into more concessions.

Comments are closed.