Sometimes a settlement is just a settlement - analysis

Few, it appears, bought Pompeo's statement at his press conference that “the timing of this was not tied to anything that had to do with domestic politics anywhere.”

By HERB KEINON
Revava - An Orthodox Jewish Israeli settlement in the West Bank, Located between Barkan and Karnei Shomron. Revava, Oct 23, 2018 (photo credit: HILLEL MAEIR/TPS)
Revava - An Orthodox Jewish Israeli settlement in the West Bank, Located between Barkan and Karnei Shomron. Revava, Oct 23, 2018
(photo credit: HILLEL MAEIR/TPS)
Just as one axiom – that Israeli settlements are illegal – was put to rest by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday, another one was born on Tuesday: that this was yet another example of US President Donald Trump going to bat for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“The move is a boon for Netanyahu who is fighting for his political survival as he waits to see if his opponent, Benny Gantz, can assemble a coalition government,” wrote The Guardian.
“The announcement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was the latest political gift from the Trump administration to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has vowed in two elections this year to push for the annexation of the West Bank,” declared The New York Times.
And The Washington Post said, “Softening the US stance on settlements comes as a late-breaking boost to Netanyahu as he clings to power at a dicey political moment.”
Few, it appears, bought Pompeo’s statement at his news conference that “the timing of this was not tied to anything that had to do with domestic politics anywhere.”
According to the punditry, it was all about domestic politics.
But whose?
Had the Trump administration made this declaration on September 3, two weeks before the last election – just as Trump made his proclamation recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights two weeks before the first election this year in April – then a strong argument could have been made that this was yet another example of Trump stumping for Netanyahu.
As it was, that Trump did not do anything overly dramatic on Netanyahu’s behalf before the September 17 vote was widely interpreted as a sign that he was souring on the prime minister because of Netanyahu’s inability to form a government after winning the April election.
Moreover, had the Trump administration waited a few weeks to see if Israel would be going to a third election and then issued its bombshell declaration just two weeks before that round, then a strong argument could be made that the motivation was to help Netanyahu win.
But on Monday, with Blue and White Party leader Gantz left with two days to form a coalition before the whole mess is thrown to the Knesset for 21 days, it is hard to see how this move helps Netanyahu politically. With the decision on whether there is a government now resting with party heads – and not the general public – the impact of this move wanes.
For instance, is Yisrael Beytenu’s Avigdor Liberman going to credit this change of policy to Netanyahu, suddenly slap himself on the forehead and say, “I am now going to go with Bibi” as a result of this decision? Probably not.
Some voters wavering between the Likud and parties to its right might conceivably attribute this to Netanyahu and vote for Likud as a result, but not the politicians who are locked into coalition negotiations.
No, the immediate Israeli domestic political impact from this move seems minimal. The domestic political impact in America for Trump, however, may have been a more significant factor.
For instance, this move will be appreciated by some of Trump’s Evangelical backers, many of whom support Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria as a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Some of these supporters recently expressed displeasure at the president’s withdrawal from northern Syria and abandonment of the Kurds, and Trump might feel that something is needed to bolster that important base.
Also, it could conceivably be intended to please hefty campaign contributor Sheldon Adelson on the eve of what will be an extremely expensive presidential campaign. Adelson is a well-known supporter of the settlement enterprise, having recently donated a reported $20 million for the establishment of a medical school at Ariel University.
All those factors may have played into the White House’s decision to approve such a dramatic declaration. But, of course, there may be another reason as well: that after a year-long review, the Trump Administration genuinely came to the conclusion that the settlements are simply not illegal.
What did Freud purportedly once say? “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”