Question from IMRA: When you write: The Israeli government should therefore
make a concerted effort in the existing circumstances to reach
understandings with the Obama administration on questions involving the
peace process and the settlements. "
are you referring to "the peace process and the settlements" for remaining 5
months of the Obama administration or an understanding regarding "the peace
process and the settlements" that would also apply beyond the period of the
Obama Administration?

Reply: Dear Dr. Lerner
Thanks for the mail here is my response:
A. The basic demands of the Obama administration regarding the settlements
and peace process are known and have been specified in the article.
B. However certain factors are still unknown. Among them - the duration of
the understandings that would be achieved, hopefully. As you know in 2009
the Obama administration demanded a total freeze of settlement construction
unlimited in time. Eventually the it agreed to a freeze of 10 months only.
C. As of now nobody knows who will be the next president of the United
States and whether he or she will be committed by understandings, most
probably informal, that had been achieved by the previous administration.
The Obama administration did not acknowledged understandings that, according
to Israeli spokesmen, have been achieved between prime minister Sharon and
president Bush regarding the settlements.
D. I am not sure the efforts will eventually lead to understandings between
Israel and the Obama administration. Nevertheless Israel should make the
effort to reach such understandings, because the risks are very high.
Thanks
Prof. Z. Shalom
==============
The Obama Administration: Toward a Security Council Resolution on an
Israeli-Palestinian Agreement?
INSS Insight No. 848, August 23, 2016
Zaki Shalom
http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538&articleid=12244

SUMMARY: The Obama administration nears the end of its tenure frustrated by
its failure to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and it appears
that by the end of its term, it seeks to have laid the groundwork for a new
framework regarding the process. The Israeli government should therefore
make a concerted effort in the existing circumstances to reach
understandings with the Obama administration on questions involving the
peace process and the settlements. This would likely assist Netanyahu's
efforts to persuade the American administration to block movement toward a
UN Security Council resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian political process.
Indeed, the Israeli government must understand the far-reaching consequences
that can result from a new Security Council resolution, which would create a
new political-strategic situation that is almost certainly irreversible and
very troublesome for Israel.

Following the increase in Palestinian terrorism and heavy pressure from
groups on the Israeli political right, the Israeli government has
accelerated construction in Jewish settlements in Jerusalem and the West
Bank. The cabinet approved plans for construction of 560 housing units in Ma’ale
Adumim and 240 housing units in the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Ramot, Gilo,
and Har Homa. The construction of about 600 housing units for Palestinians
in Givat HaMatos in East Jerusalem was also approved. Earlier, the cabinet
approved the transfer of NIS 82 million to Jewish settlements in Judea and
Samaria, and the unfreezing of construction of 42 housing units in Kiryat
Arba.

In response, US State Department spokesman John Kirby published a detailed
and unusually sharp response on July 5, 2016, saying, “We’re aware of
reports that the Government of Israel intends to advance plans for hundreds
of housing units in Israeli settlements in the West Bank as well as East
Jerusalem. If it’s true, this report would be the latest step in what seems
to be a systematic process of land seizures, settlement expansions, and
legalizations of outposts that is fundamentally undermining the prospects
for a two-state solution.” Emphasizing that the administration opposed these
measures, which ran counter to the peace process, Kirby noted the “deep
concern” about the allocation of land on the West Bank for “exclusive
Israeli use.”

Kirby also mentioned the Quartet’s announcement published on July 1, 2016,
which noted that the Jewish population over the Green Line had more than
doubled since the Oslo Accords, and had even tripled in Area C: at least
570,000 Israelis currently reside in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Furthermore, some 100 outposts have been built in Area C without official
approval from the Israeli government, “making them illegal even according to
Israeli law.” These measures, according to Kirby, “risk entrenching a
one-state reality and raise serious questions about Israel’s long-term
intentions.” Kirby said that the administration’s approach included engaging
in “tough discussions” with Israeli leaders, and considering ways of working
with the Quartet and other members of the international community to advance
the two-state solution.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu generally ignores recurring protests by
the US administration regarding approval of building permits in the Jewish
communities in the territories; such objections have been routine over the
years, particularly during President Obama’s term in office. This time,
however, he responded with defiance: “We know the US position, it is not
new, and [it is also] not acceptable to us. Building in Jerusalem and Ma’ale
Adumim is not, in all due respect, distancing peace. What is preventing
peace is the continuous incitement against the existence of Israel within
any borders, and it is time for the nations of the world to recognize that
truth.”

On July 27, 2016, the State Department published another, even more severe,
criticism of Israel’s settlement activity. After listing a series of
building permit approvals in Judea and Samaria, Kirby stated that the
administration was “deeply concerned…We strongly oppose settlement activity,
which is corrosive to the cause of peace. These steps by Israeli authorities
are the latest examples of what appears to be a steady acceleration of
settlement activity that is systematically undermining the prospects for a
two-state solution.” He also noted “recent increased demolitions of
Palestinian structures in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which reportedly
have left dozens of Palestinians homeless, including children.” Mentioning
the Quartet report, Kirby charged this was “part of an ongoing process of
land seizures, settlement expansion, legalizations of outposts, and denial
of Palestinian development that risk entrenching a one-state reality of
perpetual occupation and conflict.” Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, who
presumably coordinated his remarks with Netanyahu, rejected the claims that
the measure was a provocation, and said that the Jerusalem municipality
operated on an objective basis for the benefit of members of all religions
in the city and protected the rights of its residents, as does the United
States.

On August 10, 2016, Elizabeth Trudeau, director of the Press Office at the
State Department, severely criticized the Israeli government’s intention of
destroying Palestinian buildings in Sussia. She stressed the administration’s
concern that these measures would cause great harm to Palestinians living in
the area. The following day, she protested reports that the Israeli
government planned to find a solution for the outpost of Amona by moving it
to another location, while expropriating private land owned by Palestinians.
According to Trudeau, what was involved was in effect the founding of a new
community, after the Israeli government had legalized 32 illegal outposts
over the past year, in violation of its commitment to a two-state solution.

These statements are designed to deliver an unequivocal message: the
question of Jewish settlements in the territories is an extremely
troublesome issue for the administration, and would continue to occupy it
until its legal term ended. Secretary of State John Kerry spoke to the same
effect following his meeting with Abu Mazen on July 29, 2016. Furthermore,
in practice, the administration’s condemnatory announcements put
construction in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the West Bank and the question of
outposts under one category. This clearly implies that the administration
does not recognize Israel’s claim concerning “understandings” on the extent
and location of construction in the settlements.

Furthermore, the administration’s messages on the issue of the settlements
seek to make it clear that it opposes not only Israeli government policy but
also measures by Israel’s judicial branch, which usually enjoys high
international regard. Finally, the timing of the administration statements –
in the midst of a stormy presidential campaign – has special significance.
The administration is certainly aware that Republican candidate Donald Trump
might take advantage of these statements to accuse the Obama administration
of an unfriendly attitude towards Israel in the hope of attracting voters,
mainly among Jews. However, in the current circumstances, given the high
priority attached to this issue by the administration; the tradition of many
years of support by a majority of Jews for the Democratic Party; and the
criticism in the American Jewish community of the Israeli government’s
policy on Jewish communities in the territories, the administration
presumably believes that most votes in the Jewish community will in any case
go to Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton – who is supported by
President Obama.

These statements may signal a trend in the administration to prepare the
ground, including with a diplomatic-ideological justification, for an
American refusal to veto a UN Security Council resolution establishing new
foundations, less comfortable for Israel, on restarting the peace process.
The Obama administration nears the end of its tenure frustrated by its
failure to advance the peace process, which was a supreme priority during
its term. Statements by President Obama and other administration officials
clearly indicate that they put the main responsibility for this failure on
the Israeli government and Prime Minister Netanyahu, although the
Palestinian Authority too is not absolved of responsibility. It appears that
the administration is seeking to end its term with the achievement of having
laid the groundwork for a new framework regarding the Israeli-Palestinian
peace process. Discussions in the administration are focusing on a
resolution to be brought to the Security Council sometime between November
2016 and January 2017, after the elections and before the swearing in of a
new president – when there is no need to take electoral considerations into
account.

The Israeli government must understand the critical significance of these
developments and the far-reaching consequences that can result from a new
Security Council resolution. It would create a new political-strategic
situation that is almost certainly irreversible and very troublesome for
Israel.

The Israeli government should therefore make a concerted effort in the
existing circumstances to reach understandings with the Obama administration
on questions involving the peace process and the settlements. A threat of
retaliatory measures, such as annexation of territories in Judea and
Samaria, cancellation of the commitment to the Oslo Accords or the Bar Ilan
speech, and depiction of the administration’s position on these issues as a
bone of contention in the presidential election campaign will not serve
Israel’s interests at this time.

Netanyahu’s stable and powerful standing enables him to undertake bold
measures to cope with this challenge. He might thus choose to create a
different balance of power than the one prevailing now in his cabinet,
thereby signaling his serious willingness to take measures that would meet
the expectations of the administration. The fact that the Iranian issue is
no longer a major concrete cause for disagreement between Israel and the
United States; the fact that remaining questions about US military aid to
Israel are likely on the verge of resolution; and the fact that in contrast
to the past, the Netanyahu government has conveyed a sense of
non-intervention in the presidential campaign, would likely assist
Netanyahu's efforts to persuade the American administration to block
movement toward a UN Security Council resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian
political process.