The United States last week abstained vetoing a United Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements as illegal under international law. Our country has a duty and obligation to support a resilient peace in the Middle East even if it has a sincere disagreement with its close ally Israel. That peace continues to be threatened every time Israel builds more settlements. I applaud the Obama administration for abstaining on a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning the counterproductive Israeli settlements.

The settlements were always a contentious issue for American presidents. Since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, Presidential administrations viewed them has been provocative, and sometimes, illegal under international law. In fact, in 1979, a State Department Legal review found that the Israeli settlements were banned under international law. The Reagan administration was the first president to view the settlements as ill-advised, but not illegitimate under international law.

ADVERTISEMENT

The proceeding administrations took a similar tone. In 1992, Israel asked the United States for loans to assimilate hundreds of thousands of refugees. Originally ambivalent because of the settlements, President George H.W. Bush reluctantly agreed only if settlement expansion occurred under the auspices of “natural growth."

The Clinton administration attempted to address the settlements at the failed Camp David Summit. Israel and Palestine agreed to specific demarcation lines called the Clinton parameters. Though not specifically mentioned, the borders almost mirrored the 1967 lines (also called the 1949 armistice lines infamously reference by President George W. Bush), the geographic borders before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

There is even more contemporary criticism of the Israeli settlements. President George W. Bush harshly criticized the settlements routinely while in office as an impediment to peace. In 2009, President Barack Obama Barack Hussein ObamaThe Memo: Trump's strengths complicate election picture Obama shares phone number to find out how Americans are planning to vote Democrats' troubling adventure in a 'Wonderland' without 'rule of law' MORE continued to ramp up pressure specifically saying the Israeli settlement expansion should cease including natural growth.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and President Barack Obama had a frosty relationship in the past over the settlements. In 2010, while Vice President Joe Biden Joe BidenBiden on Trump's refusal to commit to peaceful transfer of power: 'What country are we in?' Democratic groups using Bloomberg money to launch M in Spanish language ads in Florida Harris faces pivotal moment with Supreme Court battle MORE was visiting Israel, the Israeli government announced the construction of new settlements. This incident led to President Obama snubbing Netanyahu at the White House.

While some critics may protest the specifics of the resolution, the fact remains that the Security Council resolution condemning the settlements recognizes a number of caveats. The resolution recognizes the “4 June 1967” lines with the specific exception of “those agreed by the parties through negotiations." Thus, while correctly condemning the settlements, there is some wiggle room.

Make no mistake, the settlements are detrimental to peace. With each settlement, the more complicated, and frankly, intractable the predicament becomes. In fact, because of the settlement construction and expansion, the Palestinians would have to forfeit almost twice the land the original called for in the Camp David Summit, a deal that was rejected by the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Some have speculated the settlements are more about creating a Jewish state encompassing all the West Bank and Gaza.

The current Israeli government opposes the 1967 lines as can be seen by the settlement expansion, and construction. It argues the 1967 borders would put them at a strategic disadvantage against other foes. Israel continues to argue it needs to expand its defensive posture through territory growth.

However, the Israeli government apparently already has a number of superior advantages. Israel is the only country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons; the most noteworthy advantage. Israel has more than an adequate protection through novel American defensive investments such as the Iron Dome (strategic shield). More importantly, Israel defeated almost the entire Arab world in all conventional wars, while fighting from this supposed disadvantaged territory. Some of these victories came without the generous American support Israel has today.

Absent a two-state solution which is increasingly impossible with the settlements, Israeli democracy is eroding. Some reports state Palestinian birthrate exponentially outpaces that of the Israeli birth rates, potentially jeopardizing the Jewish state's identity. In the future, Israel may have to make a stark choice, lacking a two-state solution, maintain a Jewish state and forfeit its democracy or become a democracy with an Arab majority – neither choice is appealing.

United States has critical leverage over Israel, and its settlements. The United States provides Israel almost $3 billion dollars yearly in military aid. The Obama administration has actually increased the aid to Israel in pact valued at $38 billion over the next decade, or about $3.8 billion annually (the largest in history). Yet, Israel continues to build settlements that make peaceful coexistence impossible, and hurting American interests in the region.

Because of its clout, the United States has an important role to play creating a sovereign Palestinian state co-existing next to a secure, and peaceful Israeli state. America needs to defuse tension in the Middle East by leading the way of a durable two-state solution. The settlements are simply adding fuel to the fire; this adversely impacts relations with other countries within the region, and feeds into our enemies’ hands for propaganda purposes.

A longtime coming, this abstention at the United Nations is consistent with United States policy efforts for generations. American administrations, specifically the Obama administration, has been generous to Israel in the past, but that generosity has its limits. The Obama administration made the right decision to abstain from vetoing a United Nations resolution condemning the settlements. The Cabinet knew this would be a controversial, but necessary move. These settlements are not conducive to a sustainable peace or American interests, and now, it is on international record.

Matt Fecteau (Matthew.Fecteau@gmail.com) of Pawtucket, Rhode Island was a Democratic congressional candidate in 2014. He is a former White House national security intern and Iraq war veteran.

The views expressed by authors are their own and not the views of The Hill.