Two months ago, the Israeli premier agreed that the largest Zionist settlement on the occupied West Bank at Maale Adumin with 28,000 inhabitants should be expanded by 600 homes. When news leaked out Monday, the US State Department was quick to condemn the plan. Officials said it went against Israel’s commitment to the road map for peace which specifically froze all new settlement activity. The Israeli government has been told of Washington’s concerns and discussions are in the offing.
How seriously should this US protest be taken? How much action can any US president on the eve of a second-term election be expected to take? Can he risk antagonizing the powerful US Zionist lobby, especially when in George Bush’s case much of that lobby seems prepared to throw aside its traditional Democratic allegiance and support the Republicans?
In any case, it is extremely odd for the Bush administration to be suddenly backing the road map again. In May the president effectively tore it up when he backed Sharon’s plan to withdraw all settlements from Gaza and accepted unilaterally that there would be no right of return for Palestinians to their former homes in what is now Israel. Equally as damaging, Bush approved the planned Israeli annexation of large parts of the occupied West Bank. By these actions, the White House effectively sold the pass, not simply for the Palestinians but for any future US diplomacy to exert serious influence upon a belligerent and acquisitive Israel. There was considerable despair among State Department insiders. They correctly predicted that Sharon knew perfectly well that he would have the greatest difficulty getting the Gaza settlers to pull out, to say nothing of getting the big compensation bill for them past the Israeli legislators. As a Zionist, Sharon is not interested in giving up one inch of occupied territory. His apparently bold and decisive move was never designed to succeed of itself. It did, however, win the extraordinary backing of George W. Bush whose crucial abandonment of the US mediation role represents a stunning diplomatic victory for the Israelis.
So what is the White House thinking of now when it suddenly begins talking again about the road map? Could this be yet another set up? It is not difficult to see how it could be. Washington will talk with furrowed brow to Sharon who will riposte that the settlement freeze was conditional upon the Palestinians cracking down on militant attacks against Israelis. What is the key to Israeli calculations is that growing political dissent among Palestinians is likely to make the Arafat administration seem even less capable of reining in extremists. The Israelis will thus argue that since the Palestinians have not honored their commitment on the control of violence, Israel can abandon its own commitment on a settlement freeze. Cynics will suppose that the White House will huff and puff at Israel and then demand a security commitment from the Palestinian government which it is powerless to make. Settlement expansion will then recommence and while shaking its head gravely, Washington will once again do precisely nothing.
