Following up on coverage of the international political debate between the United States and Israel, the two countries, historically allies in all things politics in the Middle East, are faced with stalling disagreement on what to do about settlements in the West Bank. At issue is the approval of Jewish settlements to be constructed in the West Bank by the Israeli government.

The U.S. is currently trying to do some serious diplomacy between Israeli and Palestinian officials around this issue. One of my favorite words to see politicians use is inconsistent- when someone does something that doesn’t fit with whatever else they have said in the past, it isn’t hypocritical or an outright shock worthy of that reprimand, it is inconsistent, allowing room to fix the issue or space for an apology and a diplomatic move forward from the situation.

Just that kind of talk is going on here. Reuters reports:
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs called the activity [approval of West Bank settlement building] inconsistent with Israel's commitment under a long-standing peace "road map."

"We regret the reports of Israel's plans to approve additional settlement construction," he said.

Regret? Inconsistent? I suppose these work for public diplomacy, but what is Gibbs saying to the Israeli government in private? And what kind of reaction would there be if a group of Palestinian construction firms started building settlements there, or in Gaza and said that they were approved by some other government. I can imagine major military responses from Israel and strong rebukes from the U.S. government and diplomats, a la North Korea or Afghanistan.

Why so soft on this one, U.S.?

The U.S. government is requiring a freeze on construction before they resume negotiations, but what will really be done beyond regret and dismay- why not a rebuke or a line drawn in the sand?

"As the president has said before, the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement expansion and we urge that it stop. We are working to create a climate in which negotiations can take place, and such actions make it harder to create such a climate," said Gibbs.

Why urge? Why not demand? Where are the sanctions?

Reuters reports that an unnamed Netanyahu aide said that after this construction is finished Israel will consider a few-month moratorium on building settlements.

Um… I think the message is being lost on Israel here. The request is to stop building now and in the future, not finish what you’re doing and take a little break. There is talk of creating a Palestinian state, here, not of cooling off for a little bit and then continuing with business as usual.

Diplomacy is a strange beast, and I understand that dealing with Israel on this issue is touchy, not only because the settlements are half-completed but because of a general feeling of instability in the region- they literally can’t give any ground without feeling/being threatened. But…

The bottom line is that the West Bank is occupied territory, not part of Israel. It’s not part of the country, and diplomacy has to respect that and act accordingly.