A guide to Israeli settlements

Since 1967, some Israelis have argued that keeping the West Bank creates an unbearable dilemma. If Israel maintains permanent rule over the Palestinians without giving them citizenship, it ceases to be a democracy. If it annexes the territory and grants them citizenship, it will no longer be a country with a Jewish majority -- contradicting the most basic goal of Zionism. Today, the only practical way out of this dilemma is a two-state solution, with the Palestinians receiving independence in the Gaza Strip and all or nearly all of the West Bank. To create a Palestinian state that is more than fragmented enclaves, most or all settlements must be evacuated. Continued construction only makes this more difficult.

Where has America been until now?

In principle, the U.S. has consistently opposed all settlements, including the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. However, most administrations have avoided confrontations over the issue, especially when peace negotiations were underway. In the meantime, settlements kept growing. Public diplomatic tussles during the Carter and George H.W. Bush administrations were exceptions.

Speaking of America, aren't most settlers from the U.S.?

Absolutely not. The misconception that settlements are heavily American may stem from foreign correspondents looking for English-speakers to interview when they visit.

Why the tension today?

Obama is insisting that Israel freeze further building in settlements, as called for in the road map. That position fits his goal of achieving a two-state solution. Netanyahu insists that building is needed to allow for "natural growth" of settlements. But settlements have been growing much more quickly than the rest of Israel. Decisions to build, as always, are political choices intended to "create facts." Obama doesn't want construction to preempt negotiations. Unlike most previous presidents, he is insisting that American opposition to settlements is more than mere words.