It is widely recognized that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and with it, the Arab-Israeli conflict itself, will be resolved with the creation of a viable Palestinians state with Jerusalem as its capital. Settlements are the central, existential impediment to reaching this goal. In 2003, Israel made a commitment to adhere to the obligations spelled out in the Performance Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the “Road Map.” Among the obligations that Israel committed to was to “immediately dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001” and “freeze all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).” These obligations were reaffirmed by Israel at the 2007 Annapolis Conference. The Road Map notes that “Non-compliance with obligations will impede progress.” There is another reason not stated in the Road Map that pertains specifically to the settlements and the settlement outposts: freezing the settlements will keep a bad situation from becoming more difficult to achieve the goal of ending the occupation and establishing an independent, contiguous and viable Palestinian state.

The settlements divide Palestine into separate, enclosed, uneconomical enclaves, and separate Palestinians from their land. This fragmentation not only causes individual hardship, it also has a detrimental impact on the Palestinian economy by increasing transportation costs, limiting the ability of Palestinians to achieve economies of scale, and reducing the land available for agricultural. The settlements are the foundation for the dual road system that Elisha Efrat, emeritus Professor of Geography at Tel Aviv University, characterized as “Apartheid Roads”. These roads, along with administrative procedures and hundreds of physical barriers that restrict the movement of persons and goods further fragments the West Bank into small and disconnected cantons. While Israel claims this “matrix of control” was implemented for security reasons, the World Bank reported that “it is often difficult to reconcile the use of movement and access restrictions for security purposes from their use to expand and protect settlement activity and the relatively unhindered movement of settlers and other Israelis in and out of the West Bank.”

In addition, the settlements have shaped the route of the separation barrier away from the 1949 Armistice Line, where it could have been legitimately placed to protect Israel, to deep into the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). This routing into the OPT, which was done to protect settlements, has resulted in the confiscation of additional Palestinian farm land, further reducing the available space for development. The route into the OPT has also created an additional barrier for Palestinians who work the land, travel to work, shop, attend schools, and receive medical services. Settlements, along with the check-points, the separation barrier, and administrative restrictions are severing the historic cultural and economic connection between Jerusalem and the West Bank. This will prevent Palestine from having its capital in East Jerusalem, weaken the economy of a Palestinian state, and deprive Palestinians of revenues from the Jerusalem’s tourist industry.

Israel’s continuing settlement activity combined with its refusal to dismantle settlement outposts, not only prevents the creation of an independent, viable and contiguous Palestinian state, it undermines the process to reach that goal in several ways.

First, continuing settlement activity poisons the atmosphere for conducting negotiations. Continued settlement growth forces Palestinians to negotiate with Israel while Israel is expropriating Palestinian land.

Second, settlement growth raises the political and economic costs to Israel of a resolution of the conflict by increasing the number of Israelis that will have to be resettled in a final agreement.

Third, continuing expansion of settlements demonstrate Israel’s lack of intent and commitment to a viable Palestinian state. It undermines the credibility of Israel's claim that it is for peace, that it adheres to previous agreements, that it is committed to a two-state solution, and that it accepts the formula of “land for peace”. While creating a Palestinian state means the end of the occupation, it is reasonable to conclude that continuing settlement construction consolidates the Israeli occupation and shows by its actions, that Israel intends to incorporate the OPT into a Greater Israel, prevent the creation of a viable Palestinian state, and make the Palestinians a stateless people. The failure to freeze settlement activity highlights Israel’s dysfunctional political system as a reason for Israel’s failure to adhere to its Road Map obligations. With governments formed within a system in which extreme single issue parties have undue influence, Israel has failed to even fulfill its "easy" Road Map obligations, i.e. reopen “the Palestinian Chamber of Commerce and other closed Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem”. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if Israel does not have the institutional capacity to fulfill its Road Map obligations, then the Palestinians do not have a negotiating partner that can make the difficult final status decisions regarding Jerusalem, water, refugees and borders.

Fourth, settlement construction weakens Palestinian moderates who are committed to meaningful negotiations. Continued settlement expansion strengthens opponents to the peace process who argue that the negotiations will not secure the legitimate Palestinian aspirations for a viable state and the end of the occupation.

Fifth, continued settlement construction weakens the United States ability to be an "honest broker." It undermines the United States’ credibility as a serious player in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By merely resorting to rhetorical objections to the continuing settlement activity, rather than employing its immense political and economic power to influence Israel to fulfill its Road Map obligations and commitments, the United States loses its credibility and capacity to guide resolution of the conflict. The failure of the United States to make politically difficult decisions, such as declaring that settlements are not just “illegitimate,” but “illegal,” and its failure to enlist the support of the UN Security Council by promoting resolutions condemning continuing settlement activity, undermines the credibility of the United States as an “honest broker.”

Finally, continued settlement expansion undermines America’s policy goal as stated by Special Envoy, George Mitchell: “our objective is [to] re-launch of negotiations, and the actions we requested were steps that would help create a context favorable to the successful completion of those negotiations.” A freeze to settlement expansion is not just another factor like ending incitement needed to create a favorable context to successfully completing negations. Rather, continued settlement growth is much more significant because it makes impossible the successful completion of the negotiations -- an independent, viable, and sovereign Palestinian state.