The Trump administration has broken with longstanding US policy by saying Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory are not “an impediment to peace” but cautioned that a further expansion “may not be helpful” to ending the conflict.
The comments came after the new US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, spoke to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Donald Trump is due to meet Netanyahu on 15 February.
The White House said in a statement: “The American desire for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians has remained unchanged for 50 years. While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal.”
Although the statement laid down what appeared to be a new approach, outlining what was and was not acceptable to Washington, it also went on to insist that the “Trump administration has not taken an official position on settlement activity”.
Its precise intent has split observers, with some in Israel and the US seeing it as accepting all building within existing settlement boundaries. Others believed it was aimed at reining in Netanyahu’s government, which in January announced plans for the first new settlement in two decades. Settlement construction since 1991 has been within existing blocs.
Israeli MP and former Shin Bet head, Avi Dichter, welcomed what he called a “significant” statement. “The official White House position and statement was that the settlements are not an obstacle to peace. But it also said that building new settlements or expanding them was unhelpful to achieving peace,” he told Israel Radio.
“You can understand from this that this is very optimistic and good for us. It will be possible to enable a normal life for people living in [the occupied Territories], just like for Jews living inside the State of Israel.”
The deputy Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Hotovely, who is known for her support of settlements, instead criticised the White House. “The current Israeli government was elected to act on the Jewish People’s right to build in all parts of our land and we must respect the will of the people who elected us for this purpose.
“The White House itself holds that the settlements are not an obstacle to peace and they never have been. It must be concluded therefore that expansion of construction is not the problem.”
The statement could suit Netanyahu by removing some pressure from the Israeli far-right, which has been pushing him hard over settlements. Dan Shapiro, until January the US ambassador to Israel, suggested Netanyahu might have “wanted pressure from Trump to help him restrain parties to his right”.
Despite recent announcements on settlements, the issue is seen as less important to Netanyahu than Iran, which he will also discuss with Trump when they meet.
Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, discounted suggestions that the White House statement represented a U-turn by Trump on his pledges to Israel. “It’s still too early to tell … I would not categorise this as a U-turn by the US administration but the issue is clearly on their agenda … the issue will be discussed when the prime minister meets the president in Washington,” he told Israel Radio.
“We are a sovereign state. We will not be in full agreement with the United States on everything over the next four years, but there is communication and messages are being passed.”
Oded Revivi, the chief foreign envoy of the Yesha Council, an umbrella group for settlers in the occupied West Bank, echoed Danon in comments to the Times of Israel.
“We need to understand that the US has interests of its own, which don’t always go along with our interests. If you look at the vice-president and some of the cabinet members, they all are strong supporters, some of whom have even reached deep into their pockets and donated to institutions in Judea and Samaria,” he told the paper, using the name Israelis use for the occupied territories.
“But between that and the complete adoption of the position of the [settlement movement] or the Israeli government is still a big difference.”
Previous US administrations, both Republican and Democratic, dating back 40 years, as well as western European allies, have opposed settlement construction as an obstacle to a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.
Aaron David Miller, a veteran US negotiator on the Middle East, and now vice-president for new initiatives at the Wilson Centre thinktank, said: “While it has watered down the positions of four administrations on how tough the US would be on settlement building, this is one issue that Trump seems to be risk-averse on.
“Instead of the green light during the campaign and Obama’s red light, Trump is now flashing a blinking yellow light.”
He noted that the new administration was also “slow-rolling” a campaign pledge to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
The incoming Trump team was highly critical when the Obama administration abstained in December on a UN security council resolution condemning settlement-building. The president’s son-in-law and close adviser, Jared Kushner, was reported to be furious, refusing to meet ambassadors from European countries who had voted for the resolution. Kushner’s family foundation has a history of providing financial support for West Bank settlements.
The administration’s more nuanced position voiced on Thursday night may reflect the arrival of new, more moderate voices. Thursday was Tillerson’s first day at work as secretary of state.
Analysts have noted that the emerging Trump administration policy appears – for now at least – closer to the policy pursued by George W Bush, as articulated in his 2004 letter to the then Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, saying it was “unrealistic” to expect a return of all Israeli occupied territory in final status negotiations for a Palestinian state.
