Deadline Approaches for Settlements: What Are the Options for Palestinians?

On Friday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a meeting with the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas to keep peace talks alive on the eve of Sunday's deadline on the settlement construction freeze in the West Bank. Both leaders will meet again today.

The two questions in the minds of millions are: Will Israel extend the moratorium and will Palestinians leave if West Jerusalem does not do so? As the deadline approaches, statements are coming from each side. 

"A total freeze must be maintained on settlement activity in the Palestinian territories, including in Jerusalem. We reject any partial solution," the Palestinian Authority advisor Nabil Abu Rudeina told AFP news agency.

This is a view which does not win many fans for the Palestinian side. So the demand on settlements in East Jerusalem has been dropped since the tension over the 26 September deadline erupted. 

On the other side, an Israeli government official told AFP that Israel was prepared to "reach a compromise acceptable to all parties". The official added that "there cannot be zero construction" in West Bank settlements.

Then, two days ago, two senior Palestinian officials told the AP that Palestinians were ready to show some "flexibility" The Jerusalem Post reports:

They said one proposal being considered was that Israel would resume building new projects only in some areas, probably in communities close to the Israeli border and likely to be retained by Israel in a future deal as part of a land swap. That idea has been floated by Israel's relatively moderate deputy premier, Dan Meridor.

But the officials added that at least two other scenarios were also under discussion, including a three-month extension of the moratorium or a conditional extension in which the Palestinians would agree to the "exceptions," in effect legitimizing the building of several hundred new homes beyond those that were under construction 10 months ago.

It seems that extension for an extra three months is more favourable to Palestinians. The least desirable is Dan Meridor's option.

Meanwhile, Palestinians want an extension of the moratorium for several months linked to a deadline for agreement on the borders of a Palestinian state, ending the debate over settlements. However, this is not favourable to Israelis since an extra pressure on concluding the borders in a limited time will be binding. They will have two problems instead of getting rid of one.

So, why can't Mahmoud Abbas leave the talks and go home if he cannot guarantee another full freeze? The Washington Post gives the answer to this question:

In the end the Palestinian president would be foolish to end the talks. In so doing, he would leave Israel free to proceed with unchecked settlement construction while postponing Palestinian statehood indefinitely. He would also place himself at greater domestic political risk, since the end of negotiations would empower Palestinian militants.

If he stays in the talks, Mr. Abbas can oblige Mr. Netanyahu to spell out his specific terms for Palestinian statehood, something he has yet to do. If they resemble those offered by previous Israeli governments, it might be possible to move relatively quickly toward an accord on borders and security. 

In other words, sitting at the table for Abbas is better than nothing. Let's see what Israelis are going to bring to it.