Israel-Palestine Analysis: How Long Can Ramallah Demand a Freeze on Settlements?

At the end of the second round of direct Israel-Palestine talks, we have been bombarded with statements from various actors.

Beyond the rather anodyne declarations is this looming date: on 26 September, Israel's 10-month moratorium on construction in the West Bank expires.

Earlier this month, Haaretz reported, from sources “close to the Obama Administration”, that Washington would urge the Palestinians to soften their stance, accepting an Israeli proposal for continued construction in large settlement blocs but not in isolated settlements. In return for this “concession”, land from Area C, which is both governed and controlled by Israel, will be transferred to Area B which is controlled by Israelis but governed by Palestinians.

Haaretz also reported in July that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was thinking of some confidence-building measures such as enabling the Palestinian police to broaden its activities beyond Area A (under the Palestinian Authority's security control), setting up six new police stations in Area B (where the PA is currently responsible only for civilian affairs), and possibly having some authority over civilian matters in Area C (Israeli security control).

Yet, if Israel was trying to bring the US on-side for its proposal, so was the Palestinian Authority. Last week, the head of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas, said that he has asked the U.S. "to intervene in the settlement issue". Abbas did  not see West Jerusalem's gestures --- such as transferring an important piece of land from Israeli to Palestinian control, releasing hundreds of prisoners, and removing dozens of checkpoints --- as substitutes for Palestine's concession on settlements. 

Just before the most recent talks, Netanyahu’s negotiating team urged Washington once more to endorse an understanding between former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former President G. W. Bush. This accepted construction in built-up areas in isolated settlements and expansion of large settlements blocs such as Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion and Ariel, which comprise 90% of the building.

However, the top Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat closed the door on Monday by saying that the peace talks would fail if Israel continued its construction in the West Bank. This reinforced Abbas' threat to “take his bags and leave” if Ramallah is pressured on key issues such as borders and the status of Palestinian refugees.  

This was the political setting as Netanyahu and Abbas met in Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh on Tuesday, with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mediating. What occurred over the settlements? Afterwards, US evnoy George Mitchell gave the most significant clue: "We think it makes sense to extend the moratorium.”

Really? Will the US actually press that demand in the next 10 days, given that the Israeli Government hopes that the end of the moratorium will slip by with little notice? Or is the Obama Administration merely put out the required words to keep the Palestinians at the table past 26 September, with little prospect that their demand for a full halt to construction will be met?

On 7 October 7, the Jerusalem District Planning and Construction Committee will discuss plans for 1,362 new homes in Givat Hamatos in East Jerusalem. Although the disputed part of the city is currently not included in discussions, despite some attempts by the Palestinians to put it on the agenda, endorsement of the construction will have a negative political effect, unless the PA has moved its position to accept the Israeli proposal for construction in large settlements.

It is unlikely, however, that Damocles' sword will be held over West Jerusalem. Instead, as we pass 26 September without resolution, the Palestinians are likely to face this choice: compromise on the settlements or be labelled as "rejectionists", if not by Obama's representatives then by the Israelis with whom they are supposed to find an agreement.