Settlements: Are they really THE problem?

Washington Post to Obama: Back Down on ‘Settlements'

by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

(IsraelNN.com)

The liberal-leaning Washington Post, often noted as reflecting U.S. policy, editorialized Sunday that U.S. President Barack Obama’s demand that Israel stop all building for Jews in Judea and Samaria may leave him without Israel as an ally and without Arab support. The daily traditionally has taken a harsh view of Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria.

“The problem is that no Israeli government -- not Mr. Netanyahu's, not even one led by the current opposition -- is likely to agree to a total construction ban,” The Washington newspaper stated in its editorial. “By insisting on one, the administration risks bogging it down in a major dispute with its ally, while giving Arab governments and Palestinians a ready excuse not to make their own concessions.”


The paper also declared that Palestinian Authority negotiators have already conceded that large Jewish population centers in the PA will become part of Israel if and when a new PA state is created. No PA leader has made this statement in public, and President Obama’s declaration that “settlements are illegitimate” has strengthened confidence in the Arab world that all of the territorial demands in the 2002 Saudi Arabia Peace Plan will be met.

The Washington Post pointed out that former President Bill Clinton as well George W. Bush recognized the “facts on the ground” of a permanent Jewish presence in such cities as Maaleh Adumim. However, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton specifically said earlier this week that the Obama government does not recognize the personal promise by Bush on Israeli retention of the city as well as other areas.


She called Bush’s letter to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon “unofficial.” Most analysts said the letter may be morally binding on the U.S. but not legally binding.

The Washington Post backed President Obama’s recent statements as “medicine” that had its effect in forcing the Netanyahu government to discuss choosing between good relations with the U.S. or a policy of isolating itself from Washington on behalf of a Jewish presence throughout Judea and Samaria.


However, it agreed that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will not abandon the policy of previous governments for accommodating “natural growth” in existing towns in Judea and Samaria.


The newspaper suggested a compromise by which Prime Minister Netanyahu would accept the idea that the aim of negotiations with the PA is to create a new Arab state. The Israeli government at the same time “should quickly dismantle those [communities] deemed illegal, end all government subsidies, prohibit the territorial expansion of all settlements, stop new construction in those outside Israel's West Bank fence and agree to a monitoring mechanism that will prevent cheating.


“Mr. Obama can reasonably accept that as a freeze, while not requiring that not a single brick be laid in any of the more than 120 West Bank communities,” it reasoned.

The editorial said that following the Israeli actions, President Obama could insist that the PA and Arab states take actions to match Israelis. It did not spell out what actions it meant.


The newspaper also did not note that following President Obama’s Cairo speech, virtually all Arab reaction called on him to pressure Israel to abandon all of Judea and Samaria. The Saudi Arabia foreign minister suggested that the U.S. cut off economic and military aid to Israel if it does not comply with the demands of the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan.

Sign up to receive the Daily Israel Report by email (Free)

© IsraelNN Syndications - This article may not be republished freely. Review what you can publish free of charge and what requires a syndication payment on the Syndications Page.
Post Comment Send to Friend Print Version

Post Comment
Thank you for sending your comments to our news forum.

Comments which include incitement, slander or foul language will not be published.

Elections in Lebanon: Will Hizbullah Take Over? Netanyahu May Favor Andorra-Like Solution for PA


Talkback 62 Comments

1. But G_d strengthened Pharaoh's heart
Prophet Wally, (08/06/09)
1. But G_d strengthened Pharaoh's heart
Pharaoh Hussein will not back down, his demands will get ever more infantile and petulant, and right-hand witch Hitlery Clinton will shriek in tune with him.
Prophet Wally, (08/06/09)
Close Reply
2. Leading US Liberal Daily to Obama: Back Down on ‘Settlements'
Netzr, UK (08/06/09)
2. Leading US Liberal Daily to Obama: Back Down on ‘Settlements'
If President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton continues to put pressure on Israel to give up Jerusalem, and to give up parts of Israel for peace, land for peace, I believe that America's going to go on the skids, and I believe that our land is going to be divided, and I believe it could be the financial end, and it could be the end of America as we know it.
Netzr, UK (08/06/09)
Close Reply
3. THE FACTS ON THE GROUND
LEN, USA (08/06/09)
3. THE FACTS ON THE GROUND
INCLUDE NATURAL GROWTH,ANY HOSTILE ARAB VILLAGE NOT COMPLYING WITH ISRAELI LAW MUST BE TRANSFERRED OUT.
THE ONLY ARAB VILLAGES DEEMED TO BE FRIENDLY CAN STAY.ALL EXISTING ISRAAELI CITIES AND TOWNS CAN EXPAND FOR NATURAL GROWTH.THE SAUDI PLAN IS DEAD IN THE WATER,THE BETTER PLAN HAS JUST BEEN LAID OUT.THIS PLAN REFERS ONLY TO YESHA.OBAMA AND HILLARY HAVE GOT TO GET THEIR ACT TOGETHER AND MEET THE REALITY.
LEN, USA (08/06/09)
Close Reply
4. DID ISRAEL EVER POST THEIR OWN UNILATERAL PLAN TO DEMAND ON THE ARABS AND OBAMA?
DACON9, (08/06/09)
4. DID ISRAEL EVER POST THEIR OWN UNILATERAL PLAN TO DEMAND ON THE ARABS AND OBAMA?
WHY NOT?

IF NOT NOW...

WHEN?

IS ISRAEL PREPARING FOR SELF SUFFENCIENCY?

IF NOT NOW, WHEN?

DID ISRAEL LOOK TO GD LIKE ITS KING DAVID DID?

IF NOT NOW WHEN?

DACON9
jewswithviews@gmail.com
DACON9, (08/06/09)
Close Reply
5. This government is focusing on the settlements while missing the main point
Michelle, Vancouver (08/06/09)
5. This government is focusing on the settlements while missing the main point
The issue should not be the settlements but the right of Jews to be sovereign over all of Yesha.

This may be a deliberate bargaining tactic by Obama to get more in the end.

It is quite pathetic to watch the government arguing for the right of Jews to build one more addition to a house, while neglecting the fact that YESHA IS ISRAELI LAND.

Isn't this being used by the US so that if they concede on this small point, the Jews will feel Oh, so grateful if they can keep those communities but then give up a whole lot more in exchange?

I suspect the same motivation from the Arabs who demand the right of return knowing full well that Israel will never allow it. But that's their bargaining chip. Maybe they'll say give us half of Jerusalem and we won't demand the right of return. And the Jews, the secular Jews mostly, will say, Oh, OK, what can we do. We'll have to compromise.
Michelle, Vancouver (08/06/09)
Close Reply
6. America Breaks U.S Law FORBIDDING Discrimination on the grounds of Race/Religion
Linda Rivera , New York (08/06/09)
6. America Breaks U.S Law FORBIDDING Discrimination on the grounds of Race/Religion
Has this law been eliminated or does the law apply to everyone except Jews?

WHERE ARE THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYERS? Jews must be ethnically cleansed for the SOLE, UNJUST REASON THEY ARE NOT MUSLIM!

Pharaoh America: Destroy outposts. No new settlements. Stop natural growth. Will U.S. DEMAND Jews have abortions? Jew-haters would kill every last Jew if they could.

And the U.S. relentless demand for a Muslim TERROR State in vulnerable, global jihad-embattled little Israel-David against the Goliath of the HUGE, hostile Jew-hater genocidal Arab Muslim world. DECEITFULLY called the Arab/Israeli conflict, it's Global Jihad against Israel and the Free World.
Linda Rivera , New York (08/06/09)
Close Reply
7. Irrelevant Arguments
Brod, USA (08/06/09)
7. Irrelevant Arguments
They are all irrelevant. Obama and Clinton are wrong. The Islamist-Jihadists are marauders trying to usurp Israel's historic homeland of Judea and Samaria. The fact is Judea and Samaria belong to Israel since ancient time.
Brod, USA (08/06/09)
Close Reply
8. Obama keep your hands off JEWISH LAND
Uzitiger, Ramat Gan (08/06/09)
8. Obama keep your hands off JEWISH LAND
You are an Arab and are acting like an Arab. It's OUR LAND not yours.
Uzitiger, Ramat Gan (08/06/09)
Close Reply
9. If Obama can cancel Bush, Netanyahu can cancel Oslo
Hayes, New York (08/06/09)
9. If Obama can cancel Bush, Netanyahu can cancel Oslo
How dare natural growth of Jews be challenged as we remember Holocaust and extermination of 6,000,000 Jewish infants, women, children, men, grandparents, the wise,the loving, the scientist and humanitarian. How dare Obama who was elected as statement against discrimination without experience force Saudi discrimination against Jews who suffered slavery. How dare this student of Ed Said, a fraudulant palestinian Egyptian demand Israel cease to grow as Pan Jihad infiltrates its borders in un-apartheid Israel: 90% more Arabs in Jerualem Alyn hospital than Jews as well as on the Agon St welfare lines just down the street from US onsulate. Oslo was a Big Lie modeled on Mein Kampf; its statements and conclusions are insulting to Israel already only 22% its original mandate with absorbed Arabs.Obama forcing a Jewrid state of pan-jihad is hurting PA tortured Arabs,is anti-US, helping jihasd.
Hayes, New York (08/06/09)
Close Reply
10. JEWS OF ISRAEL AND OF THE WORLD,
HENRY STALONE, CANADA (08/06/09)
10. JEWS OF ISRAEL AND OF THE WORLD,
Wake up!!!!! Fend and defend with all your might and that of 'G' make a stand and retake all of Judea and Samaria all of the Jewish historic sites of Israel, OBAMA is known as a muslim? what do you expect? this unworthy President came to power by sweet talking the people of America just as if he was acting in a movie, Obama is not good for democracy and is not good for the west, no mater how you slice the cake it will never be even, OBAMA is nothing but a manipulative person on a power trip, that may bring America on its knees, I said it in the past and I am repeating it. If the Jewish state lose it's ally USA it will not be for long, because USA the people of America will wake up to see their democracy in the hands of a tyrant OBAMA, Obama was named PHARAO that he is, now OBAMA WANT TO BE THE RULLER OF ALL THE MUSLIM WORLD what next? the enslavement of all Americans, kiss democracy by
HENRY STALONE, CANADA (08/06/09)
Close Reply
11. Obama should take up Saudi's suggestion
Asher, Jerusalem (08/06/09)
11. Obama should take up Saudi's suggestion
of cutting off aid to israel. Then Israel may wake up & realize that Uncle Sam is turning their back on them & hopefully Israel will return to their Father in heaven. But looking at the root of the issue, chances of that happening are slim, because Israel gave up on their Father more than 61 years ago.
Asher, Jerusalem (08/06/09)
Close Reply
12. WIll Obama be the first President to downgrade relations with Israel?
rick, ny (08/06/09)
12. WIll Obama be the first President to downgrade relations with Israel?
The fact that he was a Muslim and quotes the koran while not saying that the quote he used is actually a Jewish one, leads one to suspect bias against Jews and Israel. Saying that not even natural growth is acceptable is a very hard line that mirrors Arab demands. However, if he cuts funding it may be the best thing for Israel. US aid cannot be conditioned on relinquishing Jewish lands. Better no aid and land than aid with no land.
rick, ny (08/06/09)
Close Reply
13. Jewish strength
rob, toronto (08/06/09)
13. Jewish strength
Find strength at the Zionist Centre every Tuesday @ 7:00 PM!!!

Come and protest the one state solution at York University every Friday at the main gate. Be there at 12:00 noon.

Jews get active!!!!!
rob, toronto (08/06/09)
Close Reply
14. us gov.
meir, (08/06/09)
14. us gov.
the idea of a foreign govt. DICTATING to the sovergein country is WRONG .
wake up american yidden.
meir, (08/06/09)
Close Reply
15. DON't do it, Netanyahu, the Obama US will NEVER be our ally or friend
g, k4 (08/06/09)
15. DON't do it, Netanyahu, the Obama US will NEVER be our ally or friend
You can shoot yourself in the head
or shoot all the Israelis, the US of Obama has NO INTENTION of seaking justice for Jews. He does not want a homeland for Jews.
If Jews have a safe home we will be strong and mighty, though we will remain small. The anti-semites of the world, that includes Obama, want Jews to be homeless.
g, k4 (08/06/09)
Close Reply
16. committment
lisa morrison, troy, new york (08/06/09)
16. committment
BSD If Mrs. Clinton doesnt feel that the obama government should keep prior committments/agreements with the Israeli government. Why should the Israeli government keep its prior committments? It takes TWO to make an agreement in any government situation- --unless of course you have no intention of keeping your agreements/ committments!
lisa morrison, troy, new york (08/06/09)
Close Reply
17. Who started the WARS?
by, ussa (08/06/09)
17. Who started the WARS?
Who lost?
Who won?
How many died?
WHO CARES???
Just thought I would ask.
by, ussa (08/06/09)
Close Reply
18. Even Honest Muslims Know It's OUR LAND!
ytba, Tampa (08/06/09)
18. Even Honest Muslims Know It's OUR LAND!
B"H -- From MEMRI: "Iraqi Author 'Aref 'Alwan: The Jews Have an Historic Right to Palestine"
www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD189708

And it is not "occupied" land, but "disputed" according to even international law, and if we want to keep it, as we should since it is the heart of the heart of Biblical Israel, we have every right to do so. Only the nations' hatred of us, which will not be appeased by giving in to it, demands that we rip out our heart to satisfy their evil designs.

When the nations accuse us of stealing the Land, Rashi tells us what to say to them, essentially that the Creator of the universe gave it to us, and that His will is final.
ytba, Tampa (08/06/09)
Close Reply
19. Ashamed of Obama
Wendy , CS, Colorado (08/06/09)
19. Ashamed of Obama
I am a U.S. Citizen and want you to know that a large percentage of Americans support Israel and we are shocked and dismayed at Obama's policies. We are sorry he is president. I hope Israel does what it needs to do to protect itself. I am embarrassed to call Obama our president and ask for Israel's forgiveness on behalf of our country.
Wendy , CS, Colorado (08/06/09)
Close Reply
20. the washington post and the saudi plan
Dr Moshe Israel, (08/06/09)
20. the washington post and the saudi plan
Israel does NOT have to accept any suicidal plan pushed by the united states, especially not the saudi '2-state final solution'!
Dr Moshe Israel, (08/06/09)
Close Reply
21. #9 Hayes, that's exactly what I wanted to say.
Shalom, (08/06/09)
21. #9 Hayes, that's exactly what I wanted to say.
"However, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton specifically said earlier this week that the Obama government does not recognize the personal promise by Bush on Israeli retention of the city as well as other areas."

If Obama does not recognize the promise Bush has made, there's absolutely no logical reason that Israel recognize the Oslo accord and the 2-state-solution for Israel's destruction.
Shalom, (08/06/09)
Close Reply
22. Obama leave Israel alone
Lee, USA (08/06/09)
22. Obama leave Israel alone
As a Chrisitan in USA, I KNOW beyond any doubt that if we allow Obama to take these actions against Israel, USA will see it's end of protection from God Almighty. Wake up American this is a TEST. USA and all Christians must protect Jerusalem..at any COSt. Jerusalem belongs to the God' Children the Jews. If we think we have problems now, you wait if we allow Obama to go thru with his threats. Obama is a ONE TERM president, be patient Israel, We are praying.
Lee, USA (08/06/09)
Close Reply
23. If Bush's promises are not kept, there's no reason Bibi has to keep the Road Map (N"C)
Shalom, (08/06/09)
23. If Bush's promises are not kept, there's no reason Bibi has to keep the Road Map (N"C)
Shalom, (08/06/09)
Close Reply
24. Settlement "beyond borders"
AVRAHAM, VIENNA (08/06/09)
24. Settlement "beyond borders"
To remeber that the "borders" form before Six Days War June 1967 were never "accepted" by other Countries or neighbours or agreed as Israels "Borders" They were marked as cease-fire-lines, as a result of fighting, not of contracts. So any settelment beyond such lines after 1967 were and are never illegal. Tell the reasons why the are attributed now as illegal. Also Arabs "WITHIN" THE 1967 Lines build and refurbisc houses. That would as "illegal" as beyond the lines.

PA-Capital Jerusalem.
How many states refused before 1967 to settle their Embassies in Jerusalem, and did not so up today, by which arguments. Now they push a PA-Capital in Jerusalem.

PA-State: Would it be block-free, neutral, alied to Nato ?

AVRAHAM, VIENNA (08/06/09)
Close Reply
25. Obama's Administration
Sandy, Springfield, MO (08/06/09)
25. Obama's Administration
I'm an American--and I appolgize to the Isreali people for the way our current administration is treating Israel. Not all of us agree with our president. I pray for the peace in Israel.
Sandy, Springfield, MO (08/06/09)
Close Reply
26. HIGHLY FAVORED Muslims Allowed to Break Law because they follow Islam
Linda Rivera , New York (08/06/09)
26. HIGHLY FAVORED Muslims Allowed to Break Law because they follow Islam
Muslims have built tens of thousands of ILLEGAL buildings and settlements in Jerusalem and other locations!

The vicious ethnic cleansing of 10,000 Gaza Jews violated Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, broke Israel's Basic Human Rights Law and Clause 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Serving US/EU/Totalitarian Colonizing Islam, Israeli leaders Destroyed Jewish Human Rights-patriotic Jews, including children, have been evicted, brutally beaten and jailed.
Linda Rivera , New York (08/06/09)
Close Reply
27. An idea for the residents and Yesha leaders
Boris, Canada (08/06/09)
27. An idea for the residents and Yesha leaders
If at all possible, get as many residents of these 120 communities, preferably all, to lay a few bricks or equivalent, no matter how small the addition is. Put some furniture in this addition, even if it is only a chair from inside the house. Then take pictures, and mail or e-mail them to Bibi, to Obama, and the world media. The A7 and its website, radio, and TV can remind people to do so and show the pictures. Let's see if either Barak or Barack will send anyone to dismantle tens of thousands of these additions. It's a virtually cost-free way of defending the right to expansion. Tamar Yonah, I'm counting on you to help advertise this to Yesha leadership and as many residents as possible.
Boris, Canada (08/06/09)
Close Reply
28. Tzvi's last two articles re: Clinton
Shmuel, Chicago (08/06/09)
28. Tzvi's last two articles re: Clinton
Hi, Tzvi. In this article, as well as in the last one, you report that Hillary Clinton has ruled out retention of major Jewish population centers in Judea and Samaria. I have researched this online and as far as can be determined, Clinton was talking only about growth. She didn't mention retention of these cities.
Shmuel, Chicago (08/06/09)
Close Reply
29. In 1918 John Adams said of the Hebrews:
ameneyman, Calif. U.S.A. (08/06/09)
29. In 1918 John Adams said of the Hebrews:
In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams said: "I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civillize man than any other group in history." In a letter to Mordecai Manuel Noah, he stated: "Farther I could find it in my heartto wish that you had been at the head of a hundred thousand Israelites...& marching with them into Judea & making a conquest of that country & restoring your nation to the dominion of it. For I really wish the Jews in Judea an independent nation."
ameneyman, Calif. U.S.A. (08/06/09)
Close Reply
30. How Dare Obama!
Shakar, Boston (08/06/09)
30. How Dare Obama!
How dare Obama tell Israel to give away their land and their capital? That's like telling him to give Washington DC to N. Korea. And for Hillary Clinton to say that Obama's government doesn't President Bush's promise to them.. excuse me, Hillary, but it isn't OBAMA's government, it's the U.S. people's. Shame on you and your administration Obama!
Shakar, Boston (08/06/09)
Close Reply
31. So be it
Nola Ferraro, Redondo Beach, (08/06/09)
31. So be it
Amen and Amen
Nola Ferraro, Redondo Beach, (08/06/09)
Close Reply
32. What is "Facts on the ground" ?
jos, Boston (08/06/09)
32. What is "Facts on the ground" ?
The euphemism " Facts on the ground" is not convincing to illegally confiscate land against U.N resolutions.
I would say " Settlements on the ground", that makes sense.
jos, Boston (08/06/09)
Close Reply
33. Washington Post to Obama: Back Down on ‘Settlements'
wgonzalez49, hamburg (08/06/09)
33. Washington Post to Obama: Back Down on ‘Settlements'
To the Washington Post all we have to say is "Obama is not going to listen to any advise but his, and at the end he is going to get USA in the biggest mess ever. An d I we what also to remind the Washington Post that they will also be responsables of whatever happen in America, they help get the most ignorant person in the White House, now that they see their mistake, is to late.
wgonzalez49, hamburg (08/06/09)
Close Reply
34. #27 Boris - Good idea :-)
Michelle, Vancouver (08/06/09)
34. #27 Boris - Good idea :-)
Jews have tried everything. Now why not try to ridicule their enemies?

It makes me smile already to picture the police busy dismantling additions only to have people rebuild them, and on and on...

And as a contrast, they ought to show the thousands of illegal Arab buildings being constructed without even a whimper on the part of the Israeli authorities.
Michelle, Vancouver (08/06/09)
Close Reply
35. president obama
el, hp (08/06/09)
35. president obama
president obama was elected to be the president of the usa. NOT israel or the world. who is he to be treating another independent country as if it was a state in the usa. mind your own business.i am devistated that i voted for you. you are extremelly brilliant. but it is becomming evident that you cannot be trusted.
el, hp (08/06/09)
Close Reply
36. Obama will backdown as did...
shloim, (08/06/09)
36. Obama will backdown as did...
LBJ, Nixon, Carter, The two Bushes, Reagan the cowboy. The new amateur Prez wil do the same. It is not in their hand to oppose G-d. All the tsunamis befalling on the US are a result of road map and the US attitude towards and against Israel. Oil is of the essence one might say. For 5,000 years all the civilizations attacking Israel have disappeared. The US is doomed unless it repents and stops considering its $$$ as a mighty force. Mitchell and Clinton are on the wrong path and should mend home before inposing irrational actions.
shloim, (08/06/09)
Close Reply
37. SHEIKH ABDUL HADI PALAZZI: "A US Administration,
Norway, (08/06/09)
37. SHEIKH ABDUL HADI PALAZZI: "A US Administration,
which pays lip service to asupposed
"war on terror," is ready to bow
to Saudi-funded Islamist terror -

- and to accept the Saudi diktat compelling Jews to
withdraw from the Land of Israel."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7634

Obama Bows to Saudi King, SUPPORTS SAUDI INITIATIVE COMMENTS # 8,10-13

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/130746

DEMAND MORE OF ISRAEL: Norways Jonas Gahr Stרre, George Mitchell, Tony Blair and Salam Fayyed gathered in Oslo. The pal-Arab PM says the world must demand much more of Israel to save a fragile peace-process.

http://www.abcnyheter.no/node/90161

ZECHARIAH 12:9 "...I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. (Is. 60:12, Zep. 2:10-11)

Finally, at the end of the days the yoke of the HEATHEN NATIONS (Jer. 30:7-11, Dan. 12:1) will be removed from Israel.
Norway, (08/06/09)
Close Reply
38. Religious Discrimination
John Knoefler, San Diego (08/06/09)
38. Religious Discrimination
Once again Jews are being discriminated against. Now not just in the rest of the world but in thier own nation. Totally amazing how mentally twisted people are.
John Knoefler, San Diego (08/06/09)
Close Reply
39. First sane comment from the media!
Eliyahu, Skokie (08/06/09)
39. First sane comment from the media!
This is the first sane comment from the media that I have seen that did not parrot the Obama administration. It is a step in the right direction. In order to be any agreement it takes give and take by both sides. The arabs, to date, have been willing to take but not give and as long as that continues nothing will be accomplished. The sooner that the Obama administration gets real and is willing to take a middle ground the sooner some agreements can be made. Let us be honest the Saudi plan is totally unrealistic and would lead to the destruction of Israel.
Eliyahu, Skokie (08/06/09)
Close Reply
40. Looking To David's God
Jan, Vero Beach (08/06/09)
40. Looking To David's God
The Lord is on my side; I will not fear. What can man do to me? The LORD is for me among those who hate me; therefore I shall see my desire on those who hate me. It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes. All nations surrounded me, but in the name of the LORD, I will destroy them. (Psalm 118:6)
Jan, Vero Beach (08/06/09)
Close Reply
41. #19
Shemirah, (08/06/09)
41. #19
I feel the same way 100%.

Am Yisrael Chai (life to the people of Israel)
Shemirah, (08/06/09)
Close Reply
42. Yankee dogs: no such thing as "illegal settlements"...
Peter, Napier, NZ (08/06/09)
42. Yankee dogs: no such thing as "illegal settlements"...
At least not when Jews build in Israel, anyway. However, I note that you imperialist dogs have a number of "illegal settlements" of your own: Denver, Houston, Grand Rapids - in fact, pretty much every US city after you confiscated the lands of the native American Indians and impoverished them and forced them in to Ghettos ("reserves"). I truly hope there is an "intifada" with the late great un-nited states of America by the Indians: you Yanks stiffed them something rotten. They should have scalped the lot of you... (remembering of course that scalping was first introduced by those villainous white trash who wanted to sell ghastly curios back in England and Europe...)
Peter, Napier, NZ (08/06/09)
Close Reply
43. Bibi you work for Israel not Obama
Rivkah, Miami, Fl. (08/06/09)
43. Bibi you work for Israel not Obama
Israel is a country like any other with land and borders. All of Israel's land is hers. No one has a right to Israel's land. If Israel is victorious in battle and wins more land or land that is really hers to begin with she keeps it. The Road Map is the dumb idea of Goyim. It was never practicle or in the best interest of Israel. These politicians grab onto a flowery word and can't let go. Well, say goodby to the Road Map and any other name for hurting Israel. Bibi, stand firm like NK and Iran do with their desires. Israel needs a real leader. This is your chance, Bibi. Lead to protect your people and their G-d given holyland. Thank you.
Rivkah, Miami, Fl. (08/06/09)
Close Reply
44. Obamas Irrational settlement demand
ben, chicago,USA (09/06/09)
44. Obamas Irrational settlement demand
Obama has sold out Israel.If nothing else,"settlements" constitute one of Israel's most important negotiating cards. To deprive Israel of that card is tantamount to saying to the arab world "I plan to force Israel to give you anything you want." The arabs start from the position "forget about what you've given up already.What more are you giving up for anything we give you?"Moreover, an egregious sin of Obamas was the failure to shoot down the notion that one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.He should have forcefully declared that murdering women,children and innocent civilians
doesnot a freedom fighter make.But,then , would the arabs have cheered him wildly? He curried favor with the arab world by trampling on the security and future of an intact Israel.But,it must be admitted,he surely must have gotten mountains of praise from his Chicago progressive pals!
ben, chicago,USA (09/06/09)
Close Reply
45. Anti-Israel Government/ Pro-"Beast"
Kevin, S.A., Texas (09/06/09)
45. Anti-Israel Government/ Pro-"Beast"
The U.S. government is ran by the Illuminati society, which is "New Age", an "Anti-Christ", Pro-"Beast", government, set with their eyes on Jerusalem, and drawing in the weak minded like the Muslims and other weak religions that can supply power by numbers. As an angel of light shall he appear, There he is "Obama", the "King of Liars".
Kevin, S.A., Texas (09/06/09)
Close Reply
46. direction
patty, n.c. usa (09/06/09)
46. direction
obama should not just back down, he should back out and back off.
patty, n.c. usa (09/06/09)
Close Reply
47. obama
linda, usa (09/06/09)
47. obama
I'm a u.s. born american.My parent's would turn over in their graves if they knew what our country has turned to.I never voted for obama and wish he had never been voted in as president. I have often heard Satan can come in the form of light,look what we have in the white house.
linda, usa (09/06/09)
Close Reply
48. #29 amen:1918 typo? Umm, I think both Jefferson 'n Adams died on July 4th, 1826! (N"C)
Fedupwidit, UsedSA (09/06/09)
48. #29 amen:1918 typo? Umm, I think both Jefferson 'n Adams died on July 4th, 1826! (N"C)
Fedupwidit, UsedSA (09/06/09)
Close Reply
49. #27 Boris - loved your idea
Annie, Adelaide (09/06/09)
49. #27 Boris - loved your idea
but lets take it a step forward.

How about thousands of photos taken of illegal Arab buildings and home extensions - each photo is then attached to a form and sent to the appropriate authorities and to the court system.

Inundate them so much it will clog their systems perhaps even shutting them down for awhile - giving the bureaucrats time to actually thin on what has caused the situation.

Come on - lets have some really good non violent - legal actions that will cause havoc in the governmental offices.
Annie, Adelaide (09/06/09)
Close Reply
50. Maybe the Rabbis for Obama will save Israel??
Hymie Zooltsveis, NYC (09/06/09)
50. Maybe the Rabbis for Obama will save Israel??
The Rabbis for Obama help put this swine into power, and they continue to protect him.

Will these so-called Rabbis (many of whom are leftist gay & lesbian activists)defend, support and protec Israel, OR will they show as little concern over Israel, as they have shown for Torah.

I SPIT ON THESE SO-CALLED "RABBIS!"
Hymie Zooltsveis, NYC (09/06/09)
Close Reply
51. Obama needs to be humbled
Dan, Texas, usa (09/06/09)
51. Obama needs to be humbled
This man who's the u.s. president thinks he's above all and call the shots for every country. Don't let obama fool you with his smile and charismatic ways, he's a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Dan, Texas, usa (09/06/09)
Close Reply
52. THE EGYPTIAN THREAT: The Egyptian Minister,
Norway, (09/06/09)
52. THE EGYPTIAN THREAT: The Egyptian Minister,
alluding to Israeli suggestions that the Iranian nuclear program
is the region's major problem,

said he and Clinton discussed Iran but that the Palestinian
question is the core issue -

and that continued inaction on it would pose dangers
beyond the Middle East.

FM ABOUL GHEIT: "In the absence of such negotiations, and success
of the negotiations and seeing the emergence of Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel,

then I think situation will worsen in this part of the world and we will be, all of us, not only people in the region but countries in the region

but also the United States and the Western world as well as the world
at large-we will be all witnessing
a very difficult situation," he said.

http://www.voanews.com:80/english/2009-05-27-voa50.cfm
Norway, (09/06/09)
Close Reply
53. thank you no. 48 from no. 29 ameneyman
ameneyman, Calif. U.S.A. (09/06/09)
53. thank you no. 48 from no. 29 ameneyman
I didn't know I had dyslexia until just now! I meant to write 1819 instead of 1918.
Thank you
for pointing that out.
ameneyman, Calif. U.S.A. (09/06/09)
Close Reply
54. Obama`s speeches!
Peter Sammut, Southampton UK (09/06/09)
54. Obama`s speeches!
Obama, keep up your speeches. They might seem palatable but like pie-crust they have no substance.
Obama supposes, but G-D disposes.
OBAMA DELENDA EST.
Peter Sammut, Southampton UK (09/06/09)
Close Reply
55. What action to block these profane policies?
Deborah, Midwest, USA (09/06/09)
55. What action to block these profane policies?
So, best case is that we have the Obamination in the White House for 3 1/2 more years. He is trying to take our right to bear arms away, so we have responded by arming ourselves and obtaining licenses to "conceal & carry". He has sent our tax dollars overseas to support abortion, so we have stepped up our anti-abortion rhetoric. NOW, Obama is attempting to bully, weaken, and endanger our ally and friend, and our God's people. How can we Americans thwart his evil schemes NOW instead of waiting and hoping for the next election? Israel will survive without us, but we will not survive without her.
Deborah, Midwest, USA (09/06/09)
Close Reply
56. Obama can throw a hissy fit. It changes nothing. This land is OURS!
Chaim, (09/06/09)
56. Obama can throw a hissy fit. It changes nothing. This land is OURS!
We shouldn't give a hoot what Obama says. Who is he to rule Israel? He can't even govern his own nation effectively. Obama is already plaguing America with multi-trillion dollar deficites, the destruction of free enterprise (which made America great) and cozying up to the world's terrorists and tyrants. Israel spoke loud and clear at the election. We REJECTED the Two State Final Solution. Obama can throw a hissy fit anytime. It changes nothing. This land is OURS!
Chaim, (09/06/09)
Close Reply
57. Why put restriction on Israel and ignore violations by Arabs
Jack Stratton, Orofino, Idaho (09/06/09)
57. Why put restriction on Israel and ignore violations by Arabs
Clinton recently told Israel to stop building, and encouraged Arab building. A few years ago it was reported that 20,000 Arab homes had been built without building permits an on Israeli lands. Seems as though the US government is in need of education and apologize for their unfair stance.
Jack Stratton, Orofino, Idaho (09/06/09)
Close Reply
58. Locust time
Mary, USA (09/06/09)
58. Locust time
No matter, they will be dealt with by one greater than us.
Mary, USA (09/06/09)
Close Reply
59. obummer
me, U.S.QA (09/06/09)
59. obummer
obummer does not have honorable intentions for ANY group, state or people...watch!! complaining now will get no one anywhere. The die has been cast by the blind.
me, U.S.QA (09/06/09)
Close Reply
60. Prayers for the US and Israel
V, (10/06/09)
60. Prayers for the US and Israel
Liberal Jews have been working to destroy the influence of Conservative Christians in the US..

They backed the very person for president who now places Israeli Jews and the Jewish State of Israel in peril..


You Jews in Israel could have stopped it with just a few words from your Rabbis and Politicians..

Instead you thought.. "how funny".

No one is laughing now..

Those who were your strongest supporters in the US sidelined hard pressed to defend Israel..

We will still try.. but it is on your heads not ours as you could have helped us to help you in the first place.... And Should have.

V
V, (10/06/09)
Close Reply
61. The Settlements
Peggy W., Exeter, NH (10/06/09)
61. The Settlements
Mr Netanyahu should not give up building settlemets, or give away land. Israel has a GOD-GIVEN right to the land. The settlement homes are needed to provide for the Jewish people God is bringing back, as the Bible. predicts, to their homeland.
Peggy W., Exeter, NH (10/06/09)
Close Reply
62. Boris, look at the Peace Now website
, (10/06/09)
62. Boris, look at the Peace Now website
Peace Now regularly takes aerial photographs of Judea and Samaria in order to report on Jews building.
, (10/06/09)
Close Reply

//////////////////////////
by Dore Gold
Published June 2009



Vol. 9, No. 2 9 June 2009

U.S. Policy on Israeli Settlements

Dore Gold

* The Obama administration's tough, confrontational rhetoric on Israeli settlements raises a number of specific questions: Were Israeli settlements a violation of international law? Were Israeli settlements a violation of agreements and an obstacle to further progress in any future peace talks? Did the administration envision Israel withdrawing completely to the 1967 lines or did it accept the idea that Israel would retain part of the territories for defensible borders?
* Many observers are surprised to learn that settlement activity was not defined as a violation of the 1993 Oslo Accords or their subsequent implementation agreements. If the U.S. is now seeking to constrain Israeli settlement activity, it is essentially trying to obtain additional Israeli concessions that were not formally required according to Israel's legal obligations under the Oslo Accords.
* President Bush's deputy national security advisor, Elliot Abrams, wrote in the Washington Post on April 8, 2009, that the U.S. and Israel negotiated specific guidelines for settlement activity, whereby "settlement activity is not diminishing the territory of a future Palestinian entity." If the U.S. is concerned that Israel might diminish the territory that the Palestinians will receive in the future, then the Obama team could continue with the quiet guidelines followed by the Bush administration and the Sharon government.
* Given the fact that the amount of territory taken up by the built-up areas of all the settlements in the West Bank is estimated to be 1.7 percent of the territory, the marginal increase in territory that might be affected by natural growth is infinitesimal. Moreover, since Israel unilaterally withdrew 9,000 Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005, the argument that a settler presence will undermine a future territorial compromise has lost much of its previous force.
* The U.S. and Israel need to reach a new understanding on the settlements question. Legally and diplomatically, settlements do not represent a problem that can possibly justify putting at risk the U.S.-Israel relationship. It might be that the present tension in U.S.-Israeli relations is not over settlements, but rather over the extent of an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank that the Obama administration envisions.
* Disturbingly, on June 1, 2009, the State Department spokesman, Robert Wood, refused to answer repeated questions about whether the Obama administration viewed itself as legally bound by the April 2004 Bush letter to Sharon on defensible borders and settlement blocs. It would be better to obtain earlier clarification of that point, rather than having both countries expend their energies over an issue that may not be the real underlying source of their dispute.



In his June 4, 2009, Cairo speech, President Barack Obama continued to focus U.S. policy on Israel's construction practices in the West Bank, which he forcefully criticized: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop." His secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, was no less forceful when speaking on May 27, 2009, about Obama's stand on this issue: "He wants to see a stop to settlements - not some settlements, not outposts, not ‘natural growth' exceptions."


The Obama administration's tough, confrontational rhetoric on Israeli settlements raises the question of whether it represents a sharp break from the policies of past administrations. Moreover, Obama's assertion that current Israeli construction represents a violation of past agreements raises the question of which agreement he had in mind.


Israeli settlements in the territories captured in the 1967 Six-Day War date back more than forty years. They began as military and agricultural outposts that were located for the most part in strategically significant areas of the West Bank which Israel planned to eventually claim. These settlements were also situated in areas from which Jews had been evicted during the 1948 War. While the U.S. did not support the settlement enterprise, its response to the settlements has varied in intensity, depending on the overall relationship between the two countries.


For example, the Carter administration abstained in the UN Security Council repeatedly in 1979 when draft resolutions came up for a vote that condemned Israeli settlement activity. Yet suddenly in March 1980, the administration initially decided to support Resolution 465 that called for "dismantling" all settlements, although later it reversed its position.

This varying response to the settlement issue also stemmed from U.S. policy on a number of specific questions raised by the establishment of Israeli settlements:

* Were Israeli settlements a violation of international law?
* Were Israeli settlements a violation of specific bilateral agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors and an obstacle to further progress in any future peace talks?
* To what extent did the administration envision Israel withdrawing completely to the 1967 lines or did it accept the idea that Israel would retain part of the territories for defensible borders and its security needs?

There were also two other conflicting considerations. For years Washington opposed settlements because it was felt that they were unilateral actions that pre-judged the outcome of future negotiations. But at the same time there was the view that constrained U.S. statements or activities against the settlements: while all administrations opposed settlement activity on policy grounds, the U.S. felt that using the UN to press Israel was inappropriate, since it was argued that Arab-Israeli differences of this nature should be resolved bilaterally between the parties themselves.



The Settlements and International Law

Before turning to the specific issue of the settlements, it is instructive to recall that Israel's entry into the West Bank, in particular, created a number of legal dilemmas that would ultimately impinge on how the legal question of settlements was examined. Israel entered the West Bank in a war of self-defense, so that the UN Security Council did not call on Israel to withdraw from all the territory that it captured, when it adopted UN Security Council Resolution 242 in November 1967. The previous occupant in the West Bank from 1949 to 1967 had been the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, whose sovereignty in the territory the entire international community refused to recognize - except for Britain and Pakistan. Prior to 1949, the governing document for legal rights in the West Bank was the 1922 Palestine Mandate, which gave international recognition to Jewish legal rights.

U.S. officials were cognizant of these considerations. Eugene Rostow, a former dean of Yale Law School who was also Undersecretary of State in the Johnson years, would write years later that "Israel has an unassailable legal right to establish settlements in the West Bank." He argued that Israel's claims to the territory were "at least as good as those of Jordan." Prof. Stephen Schwebel, who would become the State Department legal advisor and subsequently the President of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, went a step further when he wrote in 1970 that "Israel has better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt." On July 29, 1977, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance stated that "it is an open question as to who has legal right to the West Bank."


In the late 1960s, the Johnson administration was critical of Israeli settlement activity, but did not characterize the settlements as illegal. It was not until the Carter administration that the State Department Legal Advisor, Herbert Hansell, expressed the view that the settlements violated international law. The Carter policy was reversed by all of his sucssessors. Thus, President Ronald Reagan declared on February 2, 1981, that the settlements were "not illegal." He criticized them on policy grounds, calling them "ill-advised" and "proactive."


The question about the legality of settlements came from how various legal authorities interpret the applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to civilian persons in times of war. Article 49 of the convention clearly prohibits "mass forcible transfers" of protected persons from occupied territories. Later in the article, it states that "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." American interpretations of this article maintained that it referred to forcible deportations that were practiced by the Nazis and not to Israeli settlement activity. During the Bush (41) administration, the U.S. ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Morris Abram, explained that he had been on the U.S. staff during the Nuremberg trials and was hence familiar with the "legislative intent" behind the Fourth Geneva Convention. He stated on February 1, 1990, that it applied to forcible transfers and not to the case of Israeli settlements.


It should be added that in the Israeli legal community, charging that settlement activity could be comparable to the forcible evictions by the Nazis during the Second World War was regarded as extremely offensive. When Israel had to vote on whether it accepted the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court, the head of its delegation, Judge Eli Natan, explained that while it gave him great pain to vote against the creation of the court, Israel could not vote for a politicized statute that defined settlement activity among the "most heinous and serious war crimes." For Natan, who was himself a Holocaust survivor, as well as for his team, this was a vulgar charge. The U.S. stood with Israel against these abuses in the founding document of the International Criminal Court, which implied that the State of Israel, a country made up partly by survivors of the Holocaust, was guilty of crimes on the same order of magnitude as what its perpetrators had committed.



The Settlements and Past International Agreements


Many observers are surprised to learn that settlement activity was not defined as a violation of the 1993 Oslo Accords or their subsequent implementation agreements. During the secret negotiations leading up to the signing of Oslo, Yasser Arafat instructed his negotiators to seek a "settlement freeze," but Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres refused to agree to Arafat's demand. Nonetheless, Arafat agreed to the Oslo Accords despite the lack of a settlement freeze. The Oslo Accords were essentially an interim arrangement; they stipulated that the issue of settlements would be addressed in permanent status negotiations. If the U.S. is subsequently seeking to constrain Israeli settlement activity, it is essentially trying to obtain additional Israeli concessions that were not formally required according to Israel's legal obligations under the Oslo Accords.


Settlements became a far more salient issue with the release on May 4, 2001, of the report of a commission headed by Senator George Mitchell that sought to address the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000 and to propose a return to negotiations. The Mitchell Report recommended that as a part of confidence-building measures between the parties, "Israel should freeze all settlement activity, including the 'natural growth' of existing settlements." The Bush (43) administration adopted the Mitchell Report, putting the settlement issue right in the center of U.S.-Israeli discussions.

It appeared at the time that the U.S. felt itself to be in an awkward position as an honest broker in peacemaking if Israel were to expropriate more land for settlement growth during the course of future negotiations. To address this concern, the Sharon government proposed a formula whereby Israel could continue to build within existing settlements, but only from the outer ring of construction inward in each settlement. That way, Israel could address the need for natural growth without taking more land for Israelis living in the settlements. These idea came up in discussions between Secretary of State Colin Powell and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres.

As the Bush administration drafted its 2003 Roadmap for Peace, it decided to include the Mitchell Report's settlement freeze - that included natural growth. Dov Weisglass, who headed Sharon's negotiating team on the settlement issue, has explained that Sharon had serious reservations about the proposed freeze. According to Weisglass' account in Yediot Ahronot on June 2, 2009, in order to facilitate the Israeli government's acceptance of the Roadmap, Israel reached an understanding with the U.S. about what exactly a settlement freeze entailed. The two sides concluded:

1. No new settlements would be built.
2. No Palestinian land would be expropriated or otherwise seized for the purpose of settlement.
3. Construction within the settlements would be confined to "the existing line of construction."
4. Public funds would not be earmarked for encouraging settlements.

Weisglass wrote a letter to U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on April 18, 2004, in which he reconfirmed what he described as the "agreed principles of settlement activity," indicating that it was his understanding at the time that such an understanding indeed existed. He also wrote that his government undertook to remove what were known as "unauthorized outposts" - small settlement extensions that were constructed at local initiative without formal Israeli government approval.

However, the Bush administration and the Sharon government never put these understandings in writing, which has allowed the Obama administration to question their existence and validity, even if such commitments were made. Thus, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told George Stephanopoulos on June 7, 2009, during a broadcast of ABC's This Week: "Well, that was an understanding that was entered into, so far as we are told, orally. That was never made a part of the official record of the negotiations as it was passed on to our administration. No one in the Bush administration said to anyone that we can find in our administration...."

President Bush's deputy national security advisor, Elliot Abrams, has been partially supportive of Weisglass' claim. He wrote in the Washington Post on April 8, 2009, that the U.S. and Israel negotiated specific guidelines for settlement activity, but they were never "formally adopted." On its part, Israel nonetheless felt that it had committed itself, despite the lack of any signed agreement, so that it largely adhered to those guidelines for over five years. According to Abrams, the formula succeeded in creating a situation whereby "settlement activity is not diminishing the territory of a future Palestinian entity."



The Settlements and Israel's Ultimate Borders

Prior to 1977, U.S. criticism of Israeli settlement activity was largely muted. During that period, much of this activity seemed to be confined to areas like the Jordan Valley, where there were compelling strategic arguments for Israel to retain them. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had been sympathetic with Israel's claim for defensible borders during the first Rabin government.


The escalation in strong U.S. statements against Israeli settlements after 1977 was not only due to the Carter administration's determination that settlements were illegal, but also due to its demand that there be a full Israeli withdrawal from the territories it captured in the Six-Day War. At the same time, as Israeli settlement activity moved beyond the initial parameters that existed prior to 1977, U.S.-Israeli disagreements over this issue intensified.


When the U.S. again became more flexible over Israel's eventual retention of certain West Bank territories, settlement activity did not prove to be a major cause for bilateral tensions. Thus, when President George W. Bush sent Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a letter on April 14, 2004, acknowledging that, at the end of the day, Israel would obtain defensible borders as well as the large West Bank settlement blocs, Washington and Jerusalem were able to conduct a quiet but useful dialogue, as noted earlier, over the parameters Israel should follow in any settlement activity it undertakes.


The Obama administration's current focus on Israeli settlement activity - including natural growth - raises a number of questions. If the U.S. is concerned that Israel might diminish the territory that the Palestinians will receive in the future, then the Obama team could continue with the quiet guidelines followed by the Bush administration and the Sharon government.


Given the fact that the amount of territory taken up by the built-up areas of all the settlements in the West Bank is estimated to be 1.7 percent of the territory, the marginal increase in territory that might be affected by natural growth is infinitesimal. Moreover, since Israel unilaterally withdrew 9,000 Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005, the argument that a settler presence will undermine a future territorial compromise has lost much of its previous force.


The U.S. and Israel need to reach a new understanding on the settlements question. It is clearly an overstated issue in the peace process. Legally and diplomatically, settlements do not represent a problem that can possibly justify putting at risk the U.S.-Israel relationship. It might be that the present tension in U.S.-Israeli relations is not over settlements, but rather over the extent of an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank that the Obama administration envisions.


For example, it still needs to be clarified whether the Obama administration feels bound by the April 14, 2004, Bush letter to Sharon on defensible borders and settlement blocs, which was subsequently ratified by large bipartisan majorities in both the U.S. Senate (95-3) and the House of Representatives (407-9) on June 23-24, 2004. Disturbingly, on June 1, 2009, the State Department spokesman, Robert Wood, refused to answer repeated questions about whether the Obama administration viewed itself as legally bound by the Bush letter. It would be better to obtain earlier clarification of that point, rather than having both countries expend their energies over an issue that may not be the real underlying source of their dispute.

/////////////////////////////////////////////

Obama, Israel and the Settlements

Posted: 08 Jun 2009 07:29 PM PDT BY SULTAN
Since Obama has made Settlements the central issue in his attack campaign against Israel, let us take a look at what they are, and what they are there for.


The Settlements occupy the high ground, creating defensible communities surrounding Israel's capital and moving outward. They vary from major cities such as Maaleh Adumim (Red Mountain) that hold populations as large as 50,000 people, to small outposts that are nothing more than a handful of families living in a handful of caravans, with only some firearms, a fence and a few dogs for protection.

The term settlement is used for any Jewish towns, villages or outposts in territory that Israel liberated during the 1967 war, even if those towns and villages had existed before 1948 and were captured by the Egyptians or Jordanians then.

That is the first part of the double standard. So for example, Jordan's armed capture of East Jerusalem in 1948, after a prolonged siege and expulsion of its Jewish residents, was recognized as legal. Israel's recapture of East Jerusalem and reunification of the city in 1967, is treated as illegitimate.

Then there is Kfar Darom (South Village) whose Jewish presence dated back nearly 2000 years. The residents of Kfar Darom lived on land they had bought and paid for, survived Arab attacks over the years, and finally during Israel's War of Independence in 1948, the village's militia managed to hold the Egyptian Army at bay for several months.

The Egyptian forces using armor, artillery and even air attacks were unable to break through a defensive line held by 30 young men and women. Similar defenses of other villages such as Nirim, Yad Mordechai and Negba managed to thwart the Egyptian advance further into Israel. When the residents of Kfar Darom, running out of food and water, were finally evacuated, they had demonstrated the powerful defensibility that individual communities contributed to the country as a whole.

And when the area was liberated from Egypt in 1967, Kfar Darom was once again rebuilt and turned into a thriving community that exported agricultural products around the world. Nevertheless despite the fact that it was actually a rebuilt community, international diplomats insisted on calling it an illegal settlement.

To demonstrate Israel's willingness to make peace, Israel forcibly expelled the residents of Kfar Darom, as part of the Disengagement Plan, which handed over all of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority. Gleeful mobs promptly torched the synagogue. Gaza was taken over by the Islamic terrorist group Hamas and the former Jewish towns of Gaza, built in strategic locations, became prime launching pads for rockets and missiles shot deep into Israeli territory, hitting as far as the city of Ashkelon.

Gaza served as the ultimate lab test for demonstrating why Israel could not afford to hand over any more territory to Islamic terrorists. The handover of Gaza led to Hamas gaining power and to the bombardment of towns and cities well within internationally recognized parts of Israel. Yet now Obama expects Israel to ethnically cleanse as many as 250,000 Jews in order to turn over vital territory to terrorists. There can be no real surprise that Israel isn't interested.

Furthermore Obama expects the Palestinian Authority to be given control over parts of Jerusalem. When Jordan seized East Jerusalem, snipers used it to take potshots into Israeli apartment buildings inside West Jerusalem. Prices for apartment buildings within range of Jordanian positions dropped sharply as a family might be sitting down to dinner, not knowing whether there was a sniper drawing a bead on them while they ate. That was the situation under the fairly stable and moderate Hashemite kingdom. The situation would be unimaginably worse with those Jordanian snipers replaced by Fatah and Hamas terrorists, and the rifles replaced by missile tubes.

What Obama really wants is for Israel to put its own center of government in shelling range from a terrorist group ensconced in its own capital. No rational person should need an explanation for why Netanyahu has said, no.

Obama has presented no serious plan to dismantle and disarm terrorist groups such as Hamas. Instead he is pressuring Israel to make unilateral concessions, to ethnically cleanse its own population and turn over the strategic high ground to the terrorists-- in exchange for nothing.

While Obama presses his demands, using a concentration camp that was part of the Nazi final solution, as part of his PR campaign against Israel, a new outpost has gone up named mockingly after Obama. Like the other "illegal" outposts, it is an attempt by patriotic Israelis to hold the high ground against the terrorists who would otherwise use it to wreak havoc even deeper inside Israel. Their message is that Obama may push for the destruction of their homes, but they intend to keep building long after he is gone.


Obama may have the power, but they are determined to hold the high ground. And the high ground they hold forms a chain, a chain of hilltops that protects the larger cities and towns, which in turn protect major cities such as Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. After all it is only 37 kilometers/22 miles from Tel Aviv to one of the larger settlements. A drive of only 35 minutes is what separates Israel's second largest city from the imminent danger that the settlements are there to prevent. And like the handful of young men and women who daringly fought the Egyptian Army to a standstill, the hilltop youth are prepared to serve that function again, living on the front line in the war against terrorism.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The Settlements Myth

Charles Krauthammer - Jun 05, 2009


The Washington Post


President Obama repeatedly insists that American foreign policy be conducted with modesty and humility. Above all, there will be no more "dictating" to other countries. We should "forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions," he told the G-20 summit. In Middle East negotiations, he told al-Arabiya, America will henceforth "start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating."

An admirable sentiment. It applies to everyone -- Iran, Russia, Cuba, Syria, even Venezuela. Except Israel. Israel is ordered to freeze all settlement activity. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton imperiously explained the diktat: "a stop to settlements -- not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions."

What`s the issue? No "natural growth" means strangling to death the thriving towns close to the 1949 armistice line, many of them suburbs of Jerusalem, that every negotiation over the past decade has envisioned Israel retaining. It means no increase in population. Which means no babies. Or if you have babies, no housing for them -- not even within the existing town boundaries. Which means for every child born, someone has to move out. No community can survive like that. The obvious objective is to undermine and destroy these towns -- even before negotiations.

To what end? Over the past decade, the U.S. government has understood that any final peace treaty would involve Israel retaining some of the close-in settlements -- and compensating the Palestinians accordingly with land from within Israel itself.

That was envisioned in the Clinton plan in the Camp David negotiations in 2000, and again at Taba in 2001. After all, why expel people from their homes and turn their towns to rubble when, instead, Arabs and Jews can stay in their homes if the 1949 armistice line 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?

This idea is not only logical, not only accepted by both Democratic and Republican administrations for the past decade, but was agreed to in writing in the letters of understanding exchanged between Israel and the United States in 2004 -- and subsequently overwhelmingly endorsed by a concurrent resolution of Congress.

Yet the Obama State Department has repeatedly refused to endorse these agreements or even say it will honor them. This from a president who piously insists that all parties to the conflict honor previous obligations. And who now expects Israel to accept new American assurances in return for concrete and irreversible Israeli concessions, when he himself has just cynically discarded past American assurances.

The entire "natural growth" issue is a concoction. Is the peace process moribund because a teacher in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem is making an addition to her house to accommodate new grandchildren? It is perverse to make this the center point of the peace process at a time when Gaza is run by Hamas terrorists dedicated to permanent war with Israel and when Mahmoud Abbas, having turned down every one of Ehud Olmert`s peace offers, brazenly declares that he is in a waiting mode -- waiting for Hamas to become moderate and for Israel to cave -- before he`ll do anything to advance peace.

In his much-heralded "Muslim world" address in Cairo yesterday, Obama declared that the Palestinian people`s "situation" is "intolerable." Indeed it is, the result of 60 years of Palestinian leadership that gave its people corruption, tyranny, religious intolerance and forced militarization; leadership that for three generations rejected every offer of independence and dignity, choosing destitution and despair rather than accept any settlement not accompanied by the extinction of Israel.

That`s why Haj Amin al-Husseini chose war rather than a two-state solution in 1947. Why Yasser Arafat turned down a Palestinian state in 2000. And why Abbas rejected Olmert`s even more generous December 2008 offer.

In the 16 years since the Oslo accords turned the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians, their leaders built no roads, no courthouses, no hospitals, none of the fundamental state institutions that would relieve their people`s suffering. Instead they poured everything into an infrastructure of war and terror, all the while depositing billions (from gullible Western donors) into their Swiss bank accounts.

Obama says he came to Cairo to tell the truth. But he uttered not a word of that. Instead, among all the bromides and lofty sentiments, he issued but one concrete declaration of new American policy: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," thus reinforcing the myth that Palestinian misery and statelessness are the fault of Israel and the settlements.

Blaming Israel and picking a fight over "natural growth" may curry favor with the Muslim "street." But it will only induce the Arab states to do like Abbas: sit and wait for America to deliver Israel on a platter. Which makes the Obama strategy not just dishonorable but self-defeating.
/////////////////////////////
Talkbacks for this article: 29
Article's topics: Barack Obama, Settlements, Palestinians, Hillary Clinton

Obama the Humble declares there will be no more "dictating" to other countries. We should "forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions," he told the G-20 summit. In Middle East negotiations, he told Al-Arabiya, America will henceforth "start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating." An admirable sentiment. It applies to everyone - Iran, Russia, Cuba, Syria, even Venezuela. Except Israel. Israel is ordered to freeze all settlement activity.
Ma'aleh Adumim

Ma'aleh Adumim


Photo: Ariel Jerozolimksi


As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton imperiously explained the diktat: "a stop to settlements - not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions." What's the issue? No "natural growth" means strangling to death the thriving towns close to the 1949 armistice line, many of them suburbs of Jerusalem, that every negotiation over the past decade has envisioned Israel retaining. It means no increase in population. Which means no babies. Or if you have babies, no housing for them - not even within the existing town boundaries. Which means for every child born, someone has to move out. No community can survive like that.


The obvious objective is to undermine and destroy these towns - even before negotiations.

To what end? Over the last decade, the US government has understood that any final peace treaty would involve Israel retaining some of the close-in settlements - and compensating the Palestinians accordingly with land from within Israel itself.
RELATED

* Editorial: Why Obama is wrong on Israel and the Shoah

That was envisioned in the Clinton plan in the Camp David negotiations in 2000, and again at Taba in 2001. After all, why turn towns to rubble when, instead, Arabs and Jews can stay in their homes if the 1949 armistice line 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?


This idea is not only logical, not only accepted by both Democratic and Republican administrations for the last decade, but was agreed to in writing in the letters of understanding exchanged between Israel and the United States in 2004 - and subsequently overwhelmingly endorsed by a concurrent resolution of Congress.


Yet the Obama State Department has repeatedly refused to endorse these agreements or even say it will honor them. This from a president who piously insists that all parties to the conflict honor previous obligations.


The entire "natural growth" issue is a concoction. It's farcical to suggest that the peace process is moribund because a teacher in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem is making an addition to her house to accommodate new grandchildren - when Gaza is run by Hamas terrorists dedicated to permanent war with Israel and when Mahmoud Abbas, having turned down every one of Ehud Olmert's peace offers, brazenly declares that he is in a waiting mode - waiting for Hamas to become moderate and for Israel to cave - before he'll do anything to advance peace.


IN HIS MUCH-HERALDED "Muslim world" address in Cairo Thursday, Obama declared that the Palestinian people's "situation" is "intolerable." Indeed it is, the result of 60 years of Palestinian leadership that gave its people corruption, tyranny, religious intolerance and forced militarization; leadership that for three generations - Haj Amin al-Husseini in 1947, Yasser Arafat in 2000, Abbas in December 2008 - rejected every offer of independence and dignity, choosing destitution and despair rather than accept any settlement not accompanied by the extinction of Israel.


In the 16 years since the Oslo Accords turned the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians, their leaders - Fatah and Hamas alike - built no schools, no roads, no courthouses, no hospitals, no institutions that would relieve their people's suffering. Instead they poured everything into an infrastructure of war and terror, all the while depositing billions (from gullible Western donors) into their Swiss bank accounts.


Obama says he came to Cairo to tell the truth. But he uttered not a word of that. Instead, among all the bromides and lofty sentiments, he issued but one concrete declaration of new American policy: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," thus reinforcing the myth that Palestinian misery and statelessness are the fault of Israel and the settlements.


Blaming Israel and picking a fight over "natural growth" may curry favor with the Muslim "street." But it will only induce the Arab states to do like Abbas: sit and wait for America to deliver Israel on a platter.


Which makes the Obama strategy not just dishonorable but self-defeating.

- The Washington Post Writers Group
RATE THIS ARTICLE






| Avg. rating 4.67 out of 5rated 4.67 by 121 people [?] | Top Rated Articles [?]

You might like:

* US-Israel relations: A looming crisis? Posted by Isi Leibler (@JPost.com - BlogCentral)
* Major terror attack averted near Karni Crossing; no soldiers hurt (@this site)
* Diplomacy: Out of Egypt (@this site)
* What's best for the Jews (@this site)



Print Subscribe
E-mail Toolbar

+ Recommend:
facebook del.icio.us reddit newsvine fark
What's this?
more specials
JUDAICA MALL

*
Georgian Wedding - 1990
Only: $1,490
*
Star of David Necklace
Only: $118


Post comment | Terms | Report Abuse
29. Illegal settlements have to go, no matter what.
jens - denmark (06/08/2009 12:25)
28. Israel you must stand aginst US aggression - politically if not militarily!
Chris - USA (06/08/2009 12:22)
27. The arabs are truly a unproductive lot! They have yet to build modern, functional, world-leading,world-class societies! NET DRAIN on the world!
ed - USA (06/08/2009 11:43)
26. settlements are illegal and illigitimate
Oklahoman - (06/08/2009 11:42)
25. Obama: Manifest Destiny for Muslims, Trail of Tears for Jews
Eitan - Israel (06/08/2009 11:41)
24. The settlements are illegal and a result of a Mussolinization and a hyper-superiority-complex cultivated 42 years in euphopric, unrealistic Israel ..
Ruben Siedner - Germany (06/08/2009 10:55)
23. Truths and Consequences
Hofikoman - USA (06/08/2009 10:48)
22. Use of Force
Gerard - France (06/08/2009 10:38)
21. The "settlements" sole objective is to preventr a Pali state.
Mike - Germany (06/08/2009 10:27)
20. exagerration
Jacov - Israel (06/08/2009 10:09)
19. the "no babies" canard
C. Sofer - (06/08/2009 10:04)
18. Illegal Settlements
Husam - (06/08/2009 10:03)
17. Krauthammer has no idea
David Birnbaum, TA - (06/08/2009 10:01)
16. Thank you Charles Krauthammer!!
Chanya - Israel (06/08/2009 09:58)
15. Brilliant as usual
Gordon Papert - Israel (06/08/2009 09:45)
14. Setttlement Canard but not by Pres. Obama.
Michael in Ireland - Ireland (06/08/2009 09:38)
13. Obama's credibility gone
John Reilly - USA (06/08/2009 09:25)
12. Mr Krauthammers Surprised look
bannister - USA (06/08/2009 09:09)
11. Peace
Fred - USA (06/08/2009 08:43)
10. The big miss
karnak - USA (06/08/2009 08:13)
9. If Jews were black, what would Obam do?
Remy - Germany (06/08/2009 08:05)
8. Another state in the Middle East
Bill - Israel & USA (06/08/2009 08:04)
7. Peace will come
shlomo - Israel (06/08/2009 07:56)
6. No trade of land
howiej - (06/08/2009 07:43)
5. demands
JadedSage - USA (06/08/2009 07:29)
4. Not once does anybody state: If the land is disputed then each side can equally make use of the land
dov epstein - israel (06/08/2009 06:46)
3. fantastic point: Obama keen to dialogue with baddies but dictate to a democracy & US ally.
Josh - mid bar (06/08/2009 06:43)
2. Israel has to control its own destiny other wise betrayal of Chehozlovacia will occur.
Anton - (06/08/2009 05:39)
1. It would be an excellent column except that the author is stuck in "old thinking", still presenting arguments as if this conflict was about land.
Marcella - (06/08/2009 03:14)
More...
OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS [ more » ]

* What's best for the Jews
* The trouble with 'tribal'
* Boycotting universities is not the same as anti-Semitism
* Right of Reply: Many narratives, not one
* Hillary Clinton's troubling transformation on Israel

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Last update - 21:07 08/06/2009
Did the U.S. agree to Israeli construction in West Bank settlements?
By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: Israel News, U.S., West Bank


West Bank settlements have long been a bone of contention between Israel and the United States, which views them as an obstacle to peace. Over the past few years, however, Israel tried to reach a tacit understanding with Washington on settlement expansion, which is now put to the test: President Barack Obama demands a complete and utter construction freeze, whereas Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists on building in settlement blocs, as his predecessors Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert during George W. Bush's term in office.

The settlement controversy reached its zenith at the twilight of Yitzhak Shamir's government in 1992. Israel had asked for loan guarantees to help fund the absorption of hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the recently collapsed Soviet Union. Then U.S. President George H.W. Bush conditioned the aid on a complete settlement freeze. Shamir was defiant, and Bush remained firm.
Advertisement


Yitzhak Rabin, who succeeded Shamir as prime minister, reached an oral agreement with Bush on the loan guarantees. Rabin promised that Israel would complete the housing units that were under construction and limit future construction in all settlements in the Jordan Valley and the Jerusalem area, which Rabin dubbed "security areas." The New York Times reported that the construction would be for "natural growth" purposes, and would amount to building additional rooms in existing houses and infrastructure. In practice, Israel went far beyond that.

Rabin made a distinction between "security settlements" - those bordering the Green Line - and "political settlements" in the hinterland. These two categories were later renamed "settlement blocs" and "remote settlements," respectively. The exact location of the settlement blocs has never been determined, but it is broadly accepted that Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, Ariel and the settlements around Jerusalem, in which most settlers live, will be annexed to Israel in a future peace agreement.

When Bill Clinton replaced Bush in office in 1993 he adhered to the understandings reached with Rabin over the 'natural growth' of the settlements, and to the Oslo accord, which was signed earlier that year, in which both sides agreed to refrain from unilateral moves that would affect a permanent agreement.

At the beginning of the Intifada, Clinton consented to Yasser Arafat's request and appointed an international committee headed by former senator George Mitchell to probe the roots of the crisis. The Mitchell report, which came out in May 2001, recommended that the Palestinians relinquish violence against Israel and that Israel freeze settlement expansion. The recommendation was unequivocal: Israel must cease all construction in the settlements, including 'natural growth.'

The new prime minister, Ariel Sharon, accepted the report's recommendations and strove toward an understanding with the Bush administration that would enable Israel to continue building in the settlements.

Then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres presented a new formula to his U.S. counterpart, Colin Powel, replacing the concept of 'natural growth,' which Mitchell rejected, with an Israeli promise to build only within the limits of the settlements existing boundaries.

In June 2001, Sharon presented the Israeli position to the American team: no new settlements; no further expropriation of land for building (with the exception of roads); no building in settlements for the purpose of expansion; Israel's adherence to the initiative depends upon the Palestinians' fulfillment of their side of the agreement.

Sharon told the Americans that any new building in the settlements would be done for the purpose of meeting the settlements' "basic needs."

Israel called the formula the "Peres-Powell understanding." The Americans denied ever accepting the Israeli position.

In 2003 the U.S. formulated the road map for the establishment of a Palestinian state, according to which Israel was required to cease all construction in the settlements, including 'natural growth,' and evacuate all of the outposts established under Sharon (since March 2001). Israel refused to agree to a complete freeze on settlement construction.

In April 2003, White House officials Stephen Hadley and Elliot Abrams arrived in Jerusalem on a secret visit, and on May 1, in Sharon's Jerusalem residence, were he was told by the prime minister and his senior adviser Dov Weisglass that from that point onward there would be no 'natural growth,' only 'construction within the existing borders of the settlements,' the argument being that such construction would not further infringe on Palestinian land.

In May 2003 Weisglass met with Bush's National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in Washington and presented her with Israel's commitments: No new settlements; no expropriation of Palestinian land for the purpose of construction; no government funding of settlement construction; no expansion of settlements beyond their existing boundaries.

In the summer of 2003 the Americans attempted, unsuccessfully, to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process on the basis of the road map. Sharon chose an alternate path: He evacuated all the Gaza Strip settlements and, in accordance with American demands, four West Bank settlements.

In return, Sharon requested and, in April 2004, received a letter from Bush stating that it would be unrealistic to ask Israel to withdraw to behind the Green Line in any future agreement "in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion." The interpretation was that Bush accepted the future annexation of settlement blocs to Israel. But the American's wording was cautious, and spoke of "existing centers" ? not future construction.

Alongside his letter to Bush, Weisglass also dispatched a letter to Rice, the first section of which spoke of "the restrictions on the expansion of the settlements" and stated that within the agreed-upon principles of the settlement enterprise, an effort would be made to better define the limits of construction within the West Bank settlements. According to Weisglass' interpretation, this letter proves the there was U.S. consent to further construction within the existing boundaries of the settlements.

Weisglass and Rice decided to form a joint committee charged with mapping the settlements and marking their construction lines ? "Blue Line" ? of each one, but could not agree on the exact outlines. The Americans wanted only the large settlement blocs mapped, under the assumption that the isolated settlements would be evacuated; Israel sought to mark only the isolated settlements. In the fall of 2004 the Americans relinquished their demand.

Prior to the disengagement, carried out in the summer of 2005, Weisglass informed Rice that Israel would expand the settlements beyond their construction lines ? expand the settlement blocs ? but with two constraints: any new construction would be adjacent to existing structures, and according to the balance of supply and demand in the free market. Construction in isolated settlements would be done only within their existing boundaries. For Israel, this was an official understanding. The Obama administration denies this. Either way, there was no written agreement.

Bush convened the Annapolis conference at the end of 2007 in a final attempt to revive the peace process. Ahead of the conference the Americans sought to rearticulate the understandings on construction in the settlements with then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Olmert informed the Americans that any Israeli construction beyond the Green Line would be restricted to four zones: Jerusalem, in which Israel never agreed to any restrictions; the settlement blocs, in which construction would be adjacent, but not confined, to existing construction boundaries; isolated settlements, in which construction would be confined to existing boundaries; and unauthorized outposts, which would be evacuated.

Following the Annapolis conference, in November 2007 Olmert authorized building permits for hundreds of new housing units beyond the Green Line. The American opposition to this was feeble: Rice said that "it was not helpful" to the diplomatic process. Israel interpreted this as a silent nod of consent. Olmert's made sure his plans for building in the settlements were in line with his promises to the Americans.

Now Netanyahu seeks to continue building in the settlement bloc according with the understandings formulated by Sharon and Olmert. But Sharon evacuated 25 settlements, Olmert proposed withdrawing from most the West Bank, and Netanyahu, who is still unwilling to give anything in return, will have to deal with Obama's envoy, the same Mitchell who issued the report is at the root of the demand to freeze construction in the settlements.

Related articles:
Bush: A bold and historic initiative
Sharon: Disengagement will enhance Israel's security
Mideast Road Map
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's four-stage disengagement plan
Saudis tell Obama: Impose Mideast solution if needed
Will Obama envoy push Israel for final border talks?
WATCH: Anti-Israel protestors rally outside Washington embassy

Get Haaretz news headlines delivered daily to your inbox!