An email from a reader, posted with permission:
I am afraid I think you are wrong about the settlement freeze issue. This is not about what is reasonable but about what works. Such a freeze has never been a precondition for holding talks - not under Rabin, Barak, Sharon or Netanyahu. The route to peace requires Israeli public opinion to back a peace agreement which will leave the settlers isolated, making it possible to deal with them. In the absence of an actual agreement it is not possible to really confront the settlement issue. This is particularly true for Netanyahu who cannot be expected to negotiate a peace agreement while at the same time having to wage a war against the right wing of his own government. Furthermore part of the negotiation is about where the border should be - it is not something that can be assumed prior to an agreement. Nobody suggests that the Palestinians should halt building in (say) Jericho because perhaps the Israelis will claim it in negotiations. The basic problem here is that Obama created this expectation of a settlement freeze as part of his grandstanding in Cairo. It was aimed at showing the Arab and Islamic world that he is prepared to get tough with Israel. It turns out to have been a tactical, if not a strategic, blunder because the Palestinians cannot settle for less than what Obama then demanded - a complete freeze in all disputed territories. Netanyahu has said he is ready for talks without preconditions and instead of testing what these talks might lead to the Palestinians insist on totally fulfilling the precondition which Obama put in their heads. This is convenient for them - because they can demonstrate their steadfastness in their propaganda war against Hamas - and it is also convenient for Netanyahu as he is not pressed to make real concessions in a real peace process. Hilary Clinton understands this mistake but it seems Obama is less ready to concede that he made a mistake, which in any case he probably cannot now correct.
