MER - US Winks at still more Israeli 'settlements'

<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> Bush Won't Press End to Israeli Settlements <br>White House Stance Leaves Palestinians Cold <br><br>By Peter Slevin<br>Washington Post Staff Writer<br>Sunday, July 28, 2002; Page A23 <br><br>As President Bush develops his latest approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the administration does not intend to make a<br>significant effort to curb the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, one of the most troubling irritants to<br>Palestinians.<br><br>The White House routinely calls on the Israelis to stop settlement activity, but U.S. officials have concluded that there is nothing<br>to be gained in further pressing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, an impassioned promoter and defender of a settler population that<br>has grown by two-thirds during the past decade.<br><br>Yet, as Bush confronts criticism from European and Arab governments that consider him overly supportive of Sharon, some<br>Middle East specialists say a stronger stand on settlements would send a welcome signal to the Palestinians and improve the<br>administration's credibility.<br><br>"The symbolism of the settlements cannot be underestimated," said Judith Kipper, a Middle East specialist at the Council on<br>Foreign Relations. Many Palestinians interpret the ongoing construction as evidence that Israel intends to defy calls for the<br>return of land captured in the 1967 Middle East war.<br><br>In recent comments, however, the White House has said it views the settlement issue as a matter to be resolved only after<br>progress on other fronts. "It comes down importantly to a question of timing," a senior administration official said yesterday.<br><br>Former Senate majority leader George J. Mitchell, who helped draft the confidence-building measures Bush has endorsed, is<br>an advocate of a tougher line on settlements. In recent Washington appearances, Mitchell emphasized that demands cannot be<br>made of the Palestinians alone. He credited Bush's June 24 speech on the Middle East with requiring action from Sharon's<br>government but made clear the administration must follow through.<br><br>"The problem always is the first step," Mitchell told the Brookings Institution. "And it's clear in my view that they have to be<br>relatively simultaneous, that they have to be relatively reciprocal, that they must be of equal, relatively equal, weight. You can't<br>ask someone to take a step of 10 yards in response to a step of 10 inches."<br><br>The Palestinians' first step should be a halt in violence, Mitchell wrote in the 2001 report, before violence intensified and the<br>Israeli government clamped down in Palestinian areas. The Israelis' first step, he said, should be a settlement freeze. "A<br>cessation of Palestinian-Israeli violence will be particularly hard to sustain unless the government of Israel freezes all settlement<br>construction activity," the report said.<br><br>Opposition to settlements has been official U.S. policy for more than 20 years. But the Israeli population in the West Bank has<br>steadily increased, topping 200,000 in the most recent count, plus about 175,000 who live on territory annexed by the city of<br>Jerusalem. Israeli governments usually describe expansion as the "natural growth" of existing communities, but Sharon's<br>government appears to have made a priority of increasing the size and number of settlements.<br><br>Monitors from the Israeli group Peace Now, which opposes settlements, say more than 40 settlements have been created since<br>Sharon took office, many of them far from any land inhabited by Israelis. Old and new settlements tend to take up land for<br>roads and attract additional Israeli security, multiplying the Israeli presence and angering Palestinians.<br><br>The Israeli government pledged this month to dismantle some outposts, but Sharon has said Israel will never withdraw from<br>areas it considers part of the Jews' ancestral homeland. The difficulty of budging him is a factor in the administration's reluctance<br>to intervene, officials say.<br><br>Bush made headlines on April 4 by calling on Israel to take swift action to lift the pressure on Palestinians. He said the Sharon<br>government should halt its military occupation of urban areas and stop settlement activity. Bush has repeated the settlement<br>wording since, but the words have not been matched by anything like the action of his father, former president George H.W.<br>Bush, who withheld $400 million in loan guarantees to Israel.<br><br>Administration officials and policy analysts attribute the choice to several things. They say Bush views the Israeli-Palestinian<br>conflict largely through the prisms of terrorism and domestic politics, and thinks the United States should not pressure Sharon's<br>government while Palestinian violence continues.<br><br>According to this view, Israelis are suffering at the hands of a Palestinian leadership that has repeatedly angered the White<br>House by failing to live up to its promises. While Palestinian extremists continue to strike, the thinking goes, the Israeli<br>government should not face U.S. dictates, especially when Congress and politically active Christian conservatives think Sharon<br>deserves a free hand.<br><br>An exception is the State Department, where Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has argued that the administration should<br>make more substantial demands on Israel. Officials say Powell worked to ensure that Bush's speeches included references to<br>settlement activity, military withdrawal and other reciprocal actions by Israel.<br><br>Following Bush's speeches, Powell made a point of emphasizing Israeli responsibilities. He told reporters Thursday that the<br>problem of new and existing settlements must be solved "in order for there to be coherence to the Palestinian state." As for<br>timing, he said solutions would come "in due course."<br><br>If the administration chose, commentators say, it could increase its opposition to Israeli settlements while continuing to condemn<br>terrorism and the corruption of the Palestinian Authority. The idea would be to provide an incentive for Palestinians to end their<br>attacks.<br><br>"People in the State Department and elsewhere say we're looking at various steps that do not have a security downside, that<br>can show the Israelis are serious," said Edward Abington, a political consultant for the Palestinian Authority in Washington.<br>Abington thinks a vigorous response to Israeli settlements would fit such a goal, but he sees no sign the administration is<br>prepared to act.<br><br>"They could develop a two-prong policy" said Ehud Sprinzak, an Israeli visiting professor at Georgetown University. "It's not<br>enough to mention that settlements must stop. President Bush actually has to remind everyone of the American position that the<br>vast majority of settlements are illegal and should be removed."<br> </body>