Compromise possible on settlements freeze?

I was heartened to hear on National Public Radio today that Secretary of State Clinton is trying to tie an agreement on borders to the contentious issue on whether Israel will continue a partial building suspension in the territories---although the borders issue was not mentioned in today's NY Times report. Personally, I support a full freeze until the status of East Jerusalem and all territories beyond Israel's 1948-'67 borders is decided in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. At the same time, the natural inclinations of Prime Minister Netanyahu will be to undo the partial freeze.

Ms. Clinton may be grasping an opportunity here. If at least a partial agreement can be reached on borders, salting away the long understanding that most of the heavily populated settlement blocs contiguous with Israel will be annexed in exchange for a transfer of an equivalent quantity of sovereign Israel to the Palestinians, then building may be resumed there but not in the wider expanse of settlements substantially beyond the current border. And my sense is that the settlement town of Ariel, 18 kilometers beyond the Green Line, is too far to be included within the area where construction may resume.

Do we dare hope that an agreement of this sort will soon emerge? This would be an unprecedented compromise for a right-wing prime minister of Israel and a politically weak president of the Palestinian Authority to arrive at. It would prevent a breakdown over this issue and be substantial evidence that this time, negotiations may actually work.

Still, this is only my hope; I would not bet the farm on this, nor can I predict that there will be any sort of agreement to get over the hump of the settlements freeze issue. Such an agreement is feasible---even obvious. Sadly, historical odds dictate that it would be wise to bet against such a positive development.