Times Cheerleads for US Pressure on Israel; Israeli Consensus: Settlement Freeze Stupid

"Israeli Settlement Growth Must Stop, Clinton Says,"
A10, by Mark Landler & Isabel Kershner

Although nominally a neutral news article, one can sense the Times’ excitement over continuing U.S. rhetorical pressure on Israel to halt all settlement growth. Secretary of State Clinton said, “He [Obama] wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not ‘natural growth’ exceptions.” Reporters Landler and Kershner note that Clinton's remarks are "the administration's strongest to date on the matter."

In support of the White House’s position, the Times marches out the same old tired “facts” and experts.

• “Almost 300,000 Israelis now live in settlements in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem, among a Palestinian population of some 2.5 million. Much of the world considers the 120 or so settlements a violation of international law.”
  
  The great majority of settlers live adjacent to the 1949 Armistice Lines, within Israel’s security barrier. Regarding international law, the world may interpret it one way, but that doesn’t mean it’s correct. The Times ignores UN Security Council Resolution 242, which does not demand Israel withdraw from the entire West Bank, as it would imperil Israel’s basic security.

• “Expert” Aaron David Miller, leading (Jewish) proponent of US pressure on Israel: “She [Clinton] is stripping away whatever nuance, or whatever fig leaf, that would have allowed a deeply ideological government to make a settlement deal that is politically acceptable at home. They’ve concluded, ‘We’re going to force a change in behavior.’”
  
  The Times frequently use Miller for an expert quote, even though he simply repeats his same stance: more pressure on Israel will bring about peace. It’s troubling that the Times does not cite an analyst with an opposing view, leading to the clear deduction of NYT bias.

• “Mr. Abbas and other Palestinian leaders have said repeatedly that they see no point in resuming stalled peace negotiations without an absolute settlement freeze.”
  
  How exactly did this prevent the Palestinian leadership from accepting Israel’s Ehud Barak’s final status offer in 2000 at Camp David or Ehud Olmert’s offer in 2008?

Ultimately though, the idea of a US-pressured settlement freeze, focusing on the issue of natural growth (since Israel doesn’t build new settlements or expand the territory of existing settlements), doesn’t really make any sense. If the US is attempting to address Palestinian grievances, this will fail, since Palestinians continue to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish State and demand an implementation of the right of return. And what will happen when the Palestinian Authority continues to reject Israel’s peace overtures? The Israeli concern is that such a freeze will be indefinite since the PA is not rushing to make a peace agreement.

If the US intention is to induce Arab regimes to support American efforts against Iran, this will also fail as the last thing these weak regimes wish to do is to produce more internal discontent.

Secondly, there is the matter of practicality. To the Times' credit, they quote Defense Minister Ehud Barak in which he “gave a hypothetical example of a family of four that originally moved into a two-room home in a settlement: ‘Now there are six children. Should they be allowed to build another room or not? Ninety-five percent of people will tell you it cannot be that someone in the world honestly thinks an agreement with the Palestinians will stand or fall over this.’”

Main point being, it is a consensus issue in Israel that a settlement freeze is impractical, wrong, and will achieve very little to nothing in relation to the Palestinians. How about the Times reports on that?

Not when it stands by and acts as an active cheerleader of US pressure on Israel.