Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union of Reform Judaism, makes too much of the Israeli government's decision to include outlying Israeli settlements in its priority funding proposal ("Settlement Funding Vote Sparks New Debate," Dec. 18). He goes so far as to suggest that this decision will undermine the peace process, divide the American Jewish community, and lead to conflict with the Obama administration.

Rabbi Yoffie misses the forest for the trees. The Israeli government decision may well have been a sop to the settlers for the freeze, but it shouldn't have great impact on any of the players to whom the rabbi refers. The peace process has been stalled by the refusal of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate, finding one excuse after another to stay away from the table. The truth is negotiations went on between former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Abu Mazen without any settlement freeze. Now that there is a freeze, to suggest that funding outlying settlements would be an obstacle to talks, as does Rabbi Yoffie, is to buy into Abbas' excuses.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration understands how difficult it was for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to take on his coalition over the freeze and it is unlikely to make too much of this latest decision.

Instead, there are other important trends at work regarding settlements.

First, the Netanyahu government's move to freeze settlements at all is a significant development, reflecting not only its desire to avoid a major clash with the Obama administration, but also demonstrating a certain consensus that has evolved in successive Israeli governments about the eventual outcome of Israel's settlement policy.

Whether it was Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Olmert or now Netanyahu, with the acceptance of a two-state solution comes the understanding that outlying settlements will not be part of Israel if and when a final peace deal is achieved with the Palestinians. Barak's offers at Camp David and Taba involved ceding all but the settlement blocs. Sharon's establishment and placement of the security fence sent a clear signal that all settlements east of the fence would eventually not be part of Israel. Olmert's offer went even further than Barak's. And Netanyahu's declaring that peace required a Palestinian state and the moratorium on settlement building speaks to a new reality on the Israeli right.

This growing consensus, however, is one that is dependent on real change from the Palestinian side. That is why various Israeli governments in recent years have not dealt with the illegal settlements despite commitments to the U.S. to do so. The political price of dismantling settlements is too great for prime ministers unless the public sees real gains coming to Israel from the other side. Sharon had support for his dismantling of Gaza settlements because the public wanted out of Gaza and because they thought Palestinians could take it as a step toward peaceful building of a state. That thinking is gone, destroyed by Hamas.

The Obama Administration is not wrong and not far from Israel in seeing the need for Israel to deal with the settlement issue. Where they were mistaken — and it was a costly mistake — is in not understanding that the timing and circumstances of any Israeli decision to abandon certain settlements is critical.The growing consensus in Israel on settlements only comes into play when the public sees real change on the part of the Palestinians. That is why the major U.S. effort now should be to get the Palestinians back to the negotiating table to test whether they are finally serious about making a real peace agreement with Israel.

In the long run, the true struggle that Israel will face is to ensure that the U.S. supports the settlement blocs — Gush Etzion, Maale Adumim, Ariel — where the largest percentage of Israeli settlers live and which the Bush administration committed to support. Contrary to Rabbi Yoffie's concern, the fate of the outlying settlements seems to have been determined by different Israeli governments even as the recent financing proposal was being promulgated.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.