Obama in Cairo: “time for [Israeli] settlements to stop”

David Ignatius and Charles Krauthammer are two Washington Post columnists. Both have a deep interest in the Middle East; both are qualified commentators. While they view the area from different perspectives, both yesterday fixed on a single, small part of Obama’s Cairo speech—his call for Israel to cease growing West Bank settlements. Ignatius wrote:

By traveling to the heart of the Arab world[, Obama] is raising expectations that America can coax Israel and the Arabs toward a comprehensive peace that has eluded them for more than 40 years. But can Obama deliver [on] Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank[?]

And Krauthammer similarly noted:

Obama . . . came to Cairo to [issue] but one concrete declaration of new American policy: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."

Ignatius backs up with facts his sympathy for Obama’s concern about settlements:

More than 120 settlements have been constructed over the past 42 years, and the Israeli population in the West Bank now totals 190,000 in the Jerusalem area and 289,000 elsewhere.

Yet Krauthammer has a point when in defense of Israel’s settlement policy, he tells us:

Arabs and Jews can stay in their homes if the 1949 armistice line [see map; hit to enlarge] is shifted slightly into the Palestinian side to capture the major close-in Jewish settlements, and then shifted into Israeli territory to capture Israeli land to give to the Palestinians.

According to Krauthammer, Israel has already agreed to such a land swap.

Comment: I believe Obama is correct to push Israel to stop expanding settlements, a first step moderate Arabs can follow with recognition of Israel, paving the way for a more coordinated Israel-U.S.-Arab response to Iran’s effort to acquire nuclear weapons (see here).