Ambassador Shapiro’s mistake in being ‘correct’

The Israeli prime minister’s office was clearly irritated on Jan. 18, when it got the reports on what United States Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro had to say about the West Bank and Israeli settlement policies. The prime minister’s office tagged Shapiro’s remarks as “unacceptable and incorrect.” I’m not sure what this means: Shapiro’s remarks are clearly acceptable to some people, including the speaker himself, the U.S. administration and many Israeli citizens who agree with him. They are also in many ways “correct.” The ambassador highlighted the fact that “this government and previous Israeli governments have repeatedly expressed support for a negotiated settlement that would involve mutual recognition and separation,” but also the fact that “separation will become more and more difficult” if Israel builds or expands settlements. I detect no incorrect information in this statement of simple fact.

Israeli settlements have been back in the news this week. A woman, a mother of six, was brutally murdered in a settlement. The killer, a 15-year-old Palestinian, was detained. Another woman, pregnant, was stabbed and wounded in another settlement. Palestinian workers were banned from entering settlements after these attacks. Israel is naturally worried about the safety of its citizens and is moved — how can anyone not be moved? — by the stories of the brave women attacked by villains.

At the same time, Israel has to contend with growing outside pressure concerning the settlements: The EU just adopted a resolution clarifying that EU agreements with Israel apply only to the State of Israel within the pre-1967 border. The EU, the statement said, “must unequivocally and explicitly indicate” the agreements’ “inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. This does not constitute a boycott of Israel, which the EU strongly opposes.”

Enter Shapiro, the ambassador, and his remarks at an Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) conference in Tel Aviv. For him, usually a subtle and polite ambassador, these were relatively blunt remarks: “Too much Israeli vigilantism in the West Bank goes on unchecked,” Shapiro said. Again, that is not “incorrect.” At times, he said, “It seems Israel has two standards of adherence to rule of law in the West Bank — one for Jews and one for Palestinians.” Yes — sadly, if inevitable in a reality of occupation and settlement, this is also a fair description of the situation.

The prime minister’s office highlighted the fact that Shapiro spoke “on a day in which a murdered mother of six was buried and a pregnant woman was stabbed.” In the ambassador’s defense, we could say: Every day in Israel is a day in which something happens, yet ambassadors need to speak sometimes.

Still, the question remains: Why was it so important for Shapiro to say these things at this time, and what was he hoping to achieve by saying what he said? It is true that the prime minister’s office’s response to Shapiro’s remarks could not withstand factual scrutiny. But it is also true that the ambassador’s remarks were not the best way of getting his point across. If he wanted to upset the government — he succeeded. If he wanted to make himself less effective in his dealings with some Israelis — he also succeeded. If he wanted to convince many Israelis that the Obama administration is ready to smear Israel because it is frustrated with Israel’s policies — he also succeeded. Other than that, I don’t expect much good to emanate from this appearance.

Ambassadors need to speak. They need to speak for a reason. “We are concerned and perplexed by Israel’s strategy on settlements,” Shapiro said. I would argue that calling Israel’s policy a “strategy” is an undeserved compliment. Israel has no settlement strategy. It takes a wait-and-see approach, and a no-reason-to-rock-the-boat approach. And a why-have-an-internal-fight-over-nothing approach. The “strategy” is to be cautious: Benjamin Netanyahu’s government does not build much in the distant settlements. It also does not wish to annoy the settlers. Because negotiations with the Palestinians are not on the horizon — and even if negotiations were to take place, there is very little hope that they would succeed — the government focuses on other things.

It is also increasing its effort to tamp down some of the more extremist elements among the settlers, as ambassador Shapiro is well aware. He mentioned it in his remarks, but he seemed unconvinced that the effort is sufficient. His suspicion is well founded, as Israel was slow to react to acts of Jewish terrorism. Then again, what was he hoping to achieve by making these remarks? Here there might be an answer: Israel made this effort a priority when Jewish terrorism became a threat not only to the rule of law, but also to its image in the world. So maybe Shapiro is hinting that the image problem is not yet solved — catching the suspects of the Duma massacre was one step in the right direction. Yet Israel should not assume that this put all international observers at ease concerning Israel’s seriousness in battling settler extremism. It should double its efforts (as I also hope it will do).

So, yes, Israel has a settlement problem. As the ambassador said, it cannot claim that it wants a two-state solution and then build settlements and decrease its ability to dismantle some of these settlements in the future.

But with all due respect to the ambassador — whom I do like and respect very much — I’m not sure that the U.S. is currently in the best position to lecture Israel on Israeli-Palestinian conflict strategy.

Does the U.S. have a more viable strategic plan for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on which Israel can rely?

It tried — and failed — to prompt successful negotiations. It tried, and failed, to use settlement freezes to prompt success. It tried tough love with Israel, and this did not produce much. It tried ignoring the conflict, but it does not seem to be capable of doing that. It raised the hopes of Palestinians, just to later see them dashed. It managed to unify Israelis and Palestinians in thinking that this U.S. administration is incompetent. Very little to show off, for an administration that still feels the need to tell Israel what it ought and ought not to do about a conflict the U.S. has no way of helping to solve.

Thus, the ambassador’s remarks this week seemed like an outburst of frustration more than remarks aimed at achieving any worthy goal. They seemed like more proof that the U.S. and Israeli governments — in the last year of the Obama administration — find it easier to lecture one another than to converse with each other.