Read on Twitter
Today’s Israel Hayom has an article validating my concerns about settlement-related recs in recent reports from CNAS https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.cnas.org/CNAS+Report-Israel-Palestine-final+for+release.pdf – p5) & WINEP https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/4212 (p2)
Time for a (long) thread on normalization of Trump settlement policy!
1/
Time for a (long) thread on normalization of Trump settlement policy!
1/
From 1967-Trump, US policy consistently opposed all settlement construction in territories occupied by Israel since 1967.
This policy pre-dated the peace process and held firm regardless of the state of that process or party in the White House.
2/
This policy pre-dated the peace process and held firm regardless of the state of that process or party in the White House.
2/
Of course, this opposition was 100% rhetorical (eg statements, UNSCRs). At no time did US impose/threaten – real consequences for Israel ignoring US policy (except for totally ineffective conditions on a set of loan guarantees in the 1990s).
3/
3/
Not only did the US not impose consequences, it worked energetically to launder Israeli violations, constantly re-defining the Oslo paradigm to accommodate Israeli settlement expansion post-facto (land swaps! Realities on the ground! Build-up-not-out!).
4/
4/
Such laundering reflects view very concepts of peace process/2SS are infinitely malleable, so real challenge is not settlements undermining future Palestinian state, but how to placate Israel by re-framing 2-state paradigm to accommodate Israeli settlement faits accompli.
5/
5/
As a result, US for all intents & purposes spent entire peace process enabling/incentivizing Israel going ahead with settlements, except those that it simply couldn’t find a way to launder w/in 2SS paradigm (E1, Givat Hamatos)
6/
6/
And for this entire period, the US constantly clashed with Israel over construction *that both Israeli & US officials* KNEW the US would accommodate/normalize as faits accompli after the fact.
7/
7/
In this context, back during Obama era, Dennis Ross & others began arguing for flipping the script – ie, making the case for the US shifting to accommodate settlement expansion before the fact, rather than after.
Eg: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/03/opinion/sunday/opinion-israel-palestine-mideast-peace.html
8/
Eg: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/03/opinion/sunday/opinion-israel-palestine-mideast-peace.html
8/
(I laid out detailed arguments against this approach numerous times during the Obama era, for example here: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bibi-israel-solution_b_8473744)
9/
9/
In effect, their arguments for such a shift boiled down to:
- “everybody knows” Israel will keep these areas under any peace agreement, so why waste political capital fighting about settlements there? &
10/
- “everybody knows” Israel will keep these areas under any peace agreement, so why waste political capital fighting about settlements there? &
10/
- the argument that by ceasing opposition to settlements in these “non-controversial" areas, the US can stop wasting political capital pointlessly clashing with Israel and can instead use that capital to advance the peace process. So everybody wins!
11/
11/
Or more succinctly: shifting policy to green light settlement in “non-controversial” areas just recognizes reality (so should understood as pragmatic & non-controversial), and will promote peace.
12/
12/
Does that sound familiar? It should. It is almost exactly the framing used by the Trump Admin to justify the Trump Plan.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/kushner-our-plan-is-bid-to-save-2-state-solution-israel-was-eating-up-the-land/
13/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/kushner-our-plan-is-bid-to-save-2-state-solution-israel-was-eating-up-the-land/
13/
The Trump plan was likewise grounded on logic of flipping the script! It was Trump & Friedman saying: let’s cut the BS & give Israel advance permission to build what it’s going to build anyway - & we’ll call that shift in policy recognition of reality & a step toward peace!
14/
14/
Today a version of this same logic – stillborn during the Obama era, resurrected and officially embraced during the Trump era – is now being normalized by “moderate” “pragmatic” forces giving advice to Biden.
15/
15/
The two recent reports (from CNAS & WINEP) both make the case for Biden to drop US objections to some settlement construction in the West Bank & East Jerusalem, in the name of promoting peace.
16/
16/
Like Trump Plan, these approaches would have the US normalizing Israeli settlements (& de facto annexation) as a general proposition, w/ opposition henceforth defined not by any principle (int’l law, Oslo, etc) but by US-defined political & geographic expediency…
17/
17/
… and this normalizing of settlements/annexation would be framed as... supportive of/consonant with the objective of Isr-Pal peace and a two-state solution!
18/
18/
This is not to suggest that the Trump Plan & the WINEP and CNAS recs are motivated by the same things.
The Trump Plan was explicitly motivated by a desire to support/hasten the realization of Greater Israel.
19/
The Trump Plan was explicitly motivated by a desire to support/hasten the realization of Greater Israel.
19/
The WINEP and CNAS plans, in contrast, appear to be animated first & foremost by the objective of conflict avoidance/minimization between the Biden Admin & Israel.
20/
20/
But in concrete terms, when it comes to settlements and the associated issues of land/annexation – the very core of the Palestine-Israel conflict – this is a distinction with little or no difference.
21/
21/
And in both cases -- implicit in this logic is the argument that the US lacks the political will to take the kinds of actions necessary to compel Israel to cease settlement construction or to punish it for construction after the fact.
22/
22/
So the pragmatic way forward is to accept “non-controversial” construction and focus opposition on the really bad stuff, right?
23/
23/
Except like Trump, neither CNAS nor WINEP even hint at how US will oppose more “problematic” construction more effectively that in the past. Which makes sense given that core objective is NOT to curb settlements, but to avoid clashing with Israel!
24/
24/
In Obama era, advocates of this approach pointed to stopping of E1 & Givat Hamatos as proof that focused opposition works. History says otherwise.:
- drawing red lines around these 2 settlements gave Israel political room to expand settlement EVERYWHERE ELSE in EJ & WB. &
25/
- drawing red lines around these 2 settlements gave Israel political room to expand settlement EVERYWHERE ELSE in EJ & WB. &
25/
- in parallel, Israel STILL forged ahead with Givat Hamatos (tenders awarded Jan 20, 2021) & E1 (massive infrastructure implemented, all-but-final approvals granted).
So result has been worst of all worlds in terms of curbing settlements.
26/
So result has been worst of all worlds in terms of curbing settlements.
26/
