Professor focuses on Israeli settlements

By Claire Groden

Published on Wednesday, October 27, 2010

• Print
• Report an Error
• Share

The U.S. government has been reluctant to pressure Israel to freeze settlements because of potential reactions from Jewish Americans and other pro-Israel groups in the United States, Jeremy Pressman, a political science professor from the University of Connecticut, said in a lecture on Tuesday. Pressman explained the history of Israeli settlements and the broader implications of these settlements on the American-Israeli relationship during the lecture, “Israel and the United States: A Special Relationship in the 21st Century,” held in the Haldeman Center.

The United States and Israel share a deeply supportive relationship that has resulted in a series of defense agreements and an increase in support from the United States, Pressman said.

“One way you can see it is the rapid increase over about a 15-year period of aid that the United State provided to Israel from the late 1960s,” he said.

Despite this strong relationship, Israeli settlements have become a point of contention between the two allies, according to Pressman. These settlements are civilian Jewish communities in territories that were captured by Israel in 1967.

Israel has vacated some settlements in places like the Gaza Strip, but retains others in the West Bank and Golan Heights, an action that the majority of the international community considers illegal under the Geneva Convention, Pressman said. These settlements present an “obstacle to peace” in the Middle East, he said.

“The United States early on considered them illegal, but then the United States shifted its rhetoric to a softer position,” he said.

Because the United States has such a close relationship with Israel, many Americans and members of the international community argue that the United States should use this leverage to pressure Israel to both withdraw from its current settlements as well as prevent new growth in those settlements. However, the United States tends to hold back from exercising its influence to avoid public backlash, Pressman said.

American politicians are often reluctant to be too harsh on Israel because they are fearful of losing the support of Jewish voters and other pro-Israel groups, Pressman said.

“There is a history of United States presidents talking explicitly about a settlement freeze, and some of those administrations even had follow-up,” he said.

But administrations have never followed through with their rhetoric, failing to have a lasting effect on Israeli settlement issues, according to Pressman. Although former President George H.W. Bush was willing to defer loan guarantees to Israel to encourage it to consider settlement compromises, the decision was met with much opposition and was later indirectly nullified by the Clinton administration, according to Pressman.

Pressman emphasized that the Obama administration is no less friendly to Israel than previous administrations. He cited quotes from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to prove that the government’s devotion to its relationship with Israel remains “rock-solid.”

What some perceive to be the United States’ soft stance on Israeli settlements has led to some in the international community to judge it harshly, according to Pressman.

“Settlements are an obstacle to peace,” Pressman said.