Some 'straight talk' about Israeli settlements?

Washington Post:

On the eve of his trip to the Middle East, President Obama promised today a dose of tough love for a new Israeli government that has signaled significant disagreement with his administration's policy for the region.

Obama described the U.S.-Israeli relationship as a special one in which Americans are "deeply sympathetic" toward what he called a "stalwart ally," but he made it clear that he will continue to push the country's new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, toward acceptance of a Palestinian state.

"Part of being a good friend is being honest," Obama told National Public Radio in an interview taped this afternoon. "And I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory, in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also U.S. interests. And that's part of a new dialogue that I'd like to see encouraged in the region."

Obama called the status quo "unsustainable when it comes to Israeli security," and he promised to use his trip to make clear that the United States will follow through on its commitment to peace in the region.

...

This does not sound particularly honest to me. By backing the Palestinian apartheid position on Israelis living in the West Bank, Obama is trying to force concessions prior to negotiations. It begs the question of why can't the settlements be part of a comprehensive negotiation? Other than the fact that the Arabs and the Palestinians don't like them, there is no good reason not to allow them to exist until a final status agreement can be reached. It has the added benefit of forcing the Palestinian side to come to an early agreement rather than reject all agreements as they have for over 60 years.

The real obstacle to peace is that too many Palestinians do not want to recognize the state of Israel. That would be the case if there were no settlements.

The NY Times report on the settlements gives some of the potential growth stats.

...

If Israel built all the housing units already approved in the nation’s overall master plan for settlements, it would almost double the number of settler homes in the West Bank, according to unpublished official data provided to The New York Times.

The decision of whether to build, and how much, goes to the heart of the tensions between the administrations of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and President Obama, an unaccustomed and no-budge conflict between Israel and the United States. Washington is standing firm against all increased settlement activity in the West Bank, including what Israel argues is necessary to accommodate what it terms “natural growth.”

...

What Obama is doing is allowing the Palestinians to take a passive aggressive to reaching an agreement with Israel. The Palestinians give up nothing to stop the expansion of the settlements. If they were part of an overall agreement this might make sense, but the forcing of Israel to make concessions as precondition to talks gives no incentive tho Palestinians to reach a final agreement.