A deal, or at least a tacit understanding, on the outstanding issue of Israeli settlement activity is likely to be achieved in the coming days and weeks between the United States and Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu essentially dodged the issue in his major policy address on Sunday, affirming that there would be no "new" settlements, but sticking to his government’s position that "natural growth" would continue. On its face, this appears to be a position that is totally irreconcilable with the Obama administration’s firm stance that no new settlement activity, including "natural growth," is consistent with Israel’s Roadmap commitments or the requirements of the US administration. However, since a confrontation on this issue that could bring down the Israeli government over the question of settlements is in the interests of neither party, and would be a very costly diversion from the urgent need to move forward towards opening permanent status negotiations as outlined in the Annapolis agreement, some kind of accommodation has always been probable, as I explained in an earlier posting on Ibishblog.

The real question now is, will this American-Israeli understanding on what kind and degree of settlement activity is to be considered tolerable serve in effect as political cover for Netanyahu to essentially agree to American demands that settlement activity which changes the conditions of the occupation in meaningful ways is unacceptable, or will it be political cover for the Obama administration to essentially give way to Netanyahu’s attempts to secure a back door in the roadmap that will allow significant settlement activity to continue under the rubric of "natural growth?"

The problem is that "natural growth" is defined by many different people in many different ways, and has historically been used by both the settler movement and the relevant Israeli ministries in an extremely broad and expansive way that does not simply reflect internal demographic changes due to new births in the existing population of settlements, but has served as a means of significantly increasing the population and the size of the settlements. As with many other issues involving the occupation, when Israel speaks of "natural growth," it means one thing, when almost everyone else means something else. If there is to be an accommodation that allows for some measure of "natural growth" of existing Israeli settlements that is going to open rather than close diplomatic space, is going to have to severely restrict what constitutes "natural growth," and ensure that such activity does not expand the size of the settlements whatsoever territorially and simply accommodates minor demographic changes within the existing populations of the settlements.

Two days ago I was on a radio program (again) with the Israeli Consul General in Los Angeles Jacob Dayan, and he repeated the assertion that what was under dispute were essentially "babies" and "nursery schools." The truth is that neither the Obama administration nor the Palestinian Authority are concerned about babies and nursery schools in the existing Israeli settlements, but are extremely wary of the history of Israeli settlers and ministries using the rubric of "natural growth" to expand the territory and population of settlements in a significant way that threatens both the credibility and the viability of permanent status peace negotiations. However, accommodations for babies and nursery schools might actually be useful in providing the means for Netanyahu to argue that natural growth of settlements is carrying on, when in fact Israel actually undertakes what is, in effect, a real settlement freeze to all intents and purposes.

Signs of activity in securing an understanding are everywhere. Ha’aretz quotes the new Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, as saying that, “there has been some progress made on that front over the past few days. Both parties have expressed their determined will to put an end to this bone of contention, and some novel ideas have been proposed.” According to CNN, “Under discussion, this and another Israeli source said, was a proposal in which Israel would agree to no new settlements, no confiscation of new land and a limit on so-called ‘natural growth’ of existing settlements to allow access to vital services. One of the sources said a potential obstacle was Israel’s position that its laws and other administrative rules precluded it from blocking projects already approved and financed. But both sources voiced optimism some accommodation could be reached that created ‘no new facts on the ground.’"

Other potential aspects of a workable agreement on the issue might include limiting the very narrowly defined scope of allowable "natural growth" to areas within Israel’s unilaterally constructed separation barrier in the West Bank, or other limitations that narrow even further where extremely limited "natural growth" might be permitted. A timeframe limitation is also possible, as is the allowance of the completion of existing construction that is already underway or similar accommodations that would provide political cover to Netanyahu without significantly undermining the American position that settlement activity in effect must cease.

It is also possible that the United States might try to kick-start permanent status negotiations, especially to achieve an understanding on the eventual borders of a Palestinian state, in order to defuse the settlement issue in those areas which it is mutually agreed with the Palestinians that Israel will retain as part of a limited land swap. The Washington Post suggests that, “One option under consideration by the Obama administration would be to expedite Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over the borders of a future Palestinian state, the diplomat said. If a deal were to be reached on borders, construction could continue in those areas which would remain under Israeli control.”

This is more than a crucial litmus test of the Obama administration’s ability and willingness to be firm with Israel on the question of a settlement freeze, and to succeed in shifting Netanyahu’s position while possibly providing him some political cover with regard to his ultra-right-wing coalition partners and the settlement movement and its supporters. It is, in fact, the sine qua non for progress in any meaningful sense on peace, since without a settlement freeze Palestinians will have neither the basis nor the confidence for going forward with this Israeli government. This is a hurdle that the Obama administration must overcome, and I have argued strongly in many venues over recent weeks that Palestinians and the Arab states should move quickly to support his position in order to facilitate his efforts to shift Israel on this issue.

The terms of the accommodation, if it is reached, will be quite obvious. It will become clear whether Netanyahu is formulating a face-saving way of accepting American requirements, or whether the Obama administration has in effect retreated from its insistence on a settlement freeze. The signs are very promising that the administration is going to insist that it is Netanyahu and the Israeli government that will have to accommodate the American position, rather than the other way around.