A freeze on settlements should not dictate a freeze on peace efforts

By: Abram Shanedling

This week, the major news from the Middle East peace talks is the expiration of the Israeli government’s 10-month, self-imposed ban on settlement construction in the West Bank. Many worry this could bring the past month of negotiations to an end, as the Palestinians are threatening to quit the direct talks over the Israeli government's decision not to extend the freeze.

However, if historical context is any indication, and regardless if one agrees or not with settlements, the real issue is Palestinian intransigence and the use of settlements merely as an excuse not to compromise.

Despite the fact that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said his cabinet will not support an extension on the full moratorium on Jewish settlement construction, the prime minister has still urged his Palestinian counterparts to “continue the good and honest talks that we have only just started, in order to reach a historic peace agreement between our two peoples.”

Yet, like so many of his Palestinian Authority predecessors, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has threatened to simply abandon the peace talks. By even considering walking away from these negotiations because of the end of the settlement freeze, Palestinian “negotiators” show that to this day, they adhere to the “all-or-nothing" approach of negotiation without compromise – one that has still left them without a state.

We must remember that the issue of settlements in the disputed territories is not legal, but political. Since the territories in the West Bank and Gaza were never a part of a sovereign Palestinian state (they were controlled by the Ottomans, then the British, then the Jordanians and Egyptians) and were acquired by Israel in a defensive war, international law actually permits the voluntary settlement of the land.

Ironically, the Palestinian Liberation Organization was founded in 1964 – three years before Israel had even entered the disputed territories! If, as Palestinian leaders have claimed, territory is the key issue for peace agreements, why then would they have needed a violent liberation organization before there were even settlements in the West Bank and Gaza?

Regardless, history has repeatedly shown that Israel has been more than willing to compromise on the territory issue, but that Palestinian leadership would rather take nothing than anything. Just look at the result of the 1994 Oslo Accords. Or consider when Arafat walked out of the Camp David summit after Ehud Barak had offered East Jerusalem, Gaza and nearly 97 percent of the West Bank. Maybe consider Israel’s 2005 unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Or most recently look back two years ago when then Abbas rebuffed then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Omert, who offered more than 90 percent of the West Bank, a capitol in East Jerusalem as well as recognition of the suffering of Palestinian refugees.

And today, what Abbas and President Obama have overlooked is that most Israeli settlement construction has taken place in areas close to Israel that both sides admit will likely stay on the Israeli side in any final deal.

Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad has even hinted that any building during the next year of planned negotiations would be irrelevant to the talks’ outcomes. And, Hosni Mubarak, the President of Egypt has also acknowledged that the pre-1967 “green line” should be adjusted to include the biggest Jewish settlement blocks, just as long as Palestinians receive equal land swaps in return.

The settlement freeze by Netanyahu and his conservative and religious coalition was thus clearly a symbolic gesture (and a concession to several Israelis) - one that the Palestinians and the Arab League decided not to act on. But if the Palestinian Authority needs more, shouldn’t there be some tangible demands of them?

A breakthrough in the peace will not come from dealing with territory concessions only by Israel. It will come when the focus is on securing a safe and better future for both Palestinians and Israelis. This means demanding Palestinians reform a culture and educational system that still condones hate and terrorism into one that emphasizes jobs, respect and mutual recognition. Israel has already shown it can compromise. But only when that other side can reciprocate will true peace be reachable.