Obama takes tough and risky stance on Israeli settlements

[Pirate Smile]

Source: McClatchy

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama Thursday ratcheted up what might be America's toughest bargaining position with Israel in a generation, demanding anew that Israel stop expanding its settlements in the disputed West Bank as a key step toward making peace with its Arab neighbors.
Obama made the demand after a White House meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, building on unusually blunt language the day before from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
"Each party has obligations," Obama said of the so-called Road Map to Peace, to which Israel is a party. "On the Israeli side, those obligations include stopping settlements."

-snip-
"What we're seeing from the Obama administration is an uncharacteristically tough policy on settlements without a corresponding detailed strategy to justify it. It looks like a significant fight with the Israelis," said Aaron David Miller, a veteran of Arab-Israeli peace efforts in administrations of both parties and now a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington.
"They've essentially issued an ultimatum to Israel. It's a game of chicken, an Obama-Netanyahu game of chicken."

Clinton signaled the raised stakes when she said Wednesday that Obama wanted new construction in the settlements stopped and rejected Israel's insistence that it needed to allow for such things as "natural growth."
"He wants to see a stop to settlements," Clinton said. "Not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly."
"Her comments," Miller said, "were about as tough and as shrill as I've heard from any senior American official on this issue since Baker told Congress, 'When the Israelis are serious, have them call me.''' In 1991, former Secretary of State James Baker and President George H.W. Bush tried to press Israel to stop building settlements by urging Congress to suspend loan guarantees to Israel, but then they backed down.

-snip-
A key question heading into next week is whether Obama can get Arab states to offer some concession that might prompt Netanyahu to agree to freeze the West Bank settlements. He could, for example, get them to offer travel visas to Israelis, or to allow the use of their airspace by commercial Israeli flights.
It's noteworthy that Obama this week announced that he'd go to Saudi Arabia early next week for a private dinner with King Abdullah, en route to Cairo.
"If what Obama is trying to do is get states like the Saudis to actually do things now, not only will he have achieved something pretty significant, he'll make it almost impossible for the Israelis to say no," Miller said. "No Israeli prime minister can afford to mismanage Israel's most important relationship, especially at a time when the Iranians are closer to nuclear power."



Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/69037.html

[bemildred]

1. Nothing risky about it, anything less will fail. nt

[Pirate Smile]

3. He isn't planning on failing which seems to shock the hell out people and freak them out.

:)

[Martin Eden]

66. Fail at what?

Achieving a Palestinian state?

Dream on.

The West Bank is already riddled with Israeli settlements and roads exclusive to Israeilis -- in land that would comprise the Palestinian state. The Israelis living there would have 2 options:

1) Pack up and leave.
2) Stay and become residents of the Palestinian state, subject to their authority.

Can you envision either of those things happening within the next 8 years?

What about the Gaza Strip, non-contiguous to the West Bank ... will that be part of the Palestinian State?

Don't get me wrong. I think the Israelis should withdraw to their pre-1967 borders and we should cut off aid to them if they don't get that ball rolling. But realistically, we are much much much farther from the "2-state solution" and peace than our leaders are publicly willing to admit.

[bemildred]

68. Spread your gloom somewheres else.

You are interfering with my rich fantasy life.

[Martin Eden]

72. Happiness is a warm ...

... fuzzy feeling you get when you don't let reality intrude upon the hope that change is coming.

Meanwhile, the unfortunate people who live there can look forward to endless vicious cycles of ...

... bang bang, shoot shoot

[Zhade]

2. Well, yeah. We can't exactly have peace when the Israeli government KEEPS STEALING LAND.

This isn't an extreme position -- it's basic common sense.

[Captain Hilts]

4. It's risky for Bibi Nutsandyahoos. nt

[Pirate Smile]

5. The key is that Obama has Congress supporting him so Bibi can't do the run around on him

that he did on Clinton. The key is to keep it that way.

Netanyahu Clashed With Obama, Congress On Trip

-snip-
President Barack Obama made it clear that the U.S. backs creation of a Palestinian state, but Netanyahu has not endorsed the concept.

During his trip to Washington, Netanyahu constantly tried to shift emphasis from Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking toward the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. He and Obama publicly disagreed about the relative weight of the two issues. Netanyahu argued that reining in Iran would spur peace efforts, while Obama felt that progress toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians would undermine extremist elements, including Iran.

In a brief statement at Israel's airport on his return, Netanyahu again began with Iran, mentioning the Palestinian issue as third on his list.

Israel's Yedioth Achronoth reported that Netanyahu was similarly at odds with legislators.

"A senior Israeli official who was present at the meetings defined them as 'a fight' and 'mutual arm-wrestling,' with Netanyahu trying to put an emphasis on the Iranian issue, and the members of Congress insisting on returning to the issue of the settlements. The senior official emphasized that there was full coordination between President Obama and the members of the Democratic majority in Congress. Netanyahu discovered yesterday how much Congress had changed, the senior official said. In 1996, Netanyahu recruited the Republican majority that existed in Congress against Clinton, the Democratic president. Today, this is impossible."

M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum wrote that it was "the first time in memory" that "an Israeli prime minister went up to the Hill only to be bombarded with criticism."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/netanyahu-clashed-with-ob_n_205863.html

[Captain Hilts]

6. Yep. We're getting tired of this crap. Cut off the financial aid. nt

[Pirate Smile]

73. Here is another good article on this: "Netanyahu: "What the hell do they want from me?" '

Netanyahu: "What the hell do they want from me?"

Last night, shortly after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told journalists that the Obama administration "wants to see a stop to settlements -- not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called a confidante. Referring to Clinton's call for a settlement freeze, Netanyahu groused, "What the hell do they want from me?" according to his associate, who added, "I gathered that he heard some bad vibes in his meetings with congressional delegations this week."

In the 10 days since Netanyahu and President Barack Obama held a meeting at the White House, the Obama administration has made clear in public and private meetings with Israeli officials that it intends to hold a firm line on Obama's call to stop Israeli settlements. According to many observers in Washington and Israel, the Israeli prime minister, looking for loopholes and hidden agreements that have often existed in the past with Washington, has been flummoxed by an unusually united line that has come not just from Obama White House and the secretary of state, but also from pro-Israel congressmen and women who have come through Israel for meetings with him over Memorial Day recess. To Netanyahu's dismay, Obama doesn't appear to have a hidden policy. It is what he said it was.

"This is a sea change for Netanyahu," a former senior Clinton administration official who worked on Middle East issues said. The official said that the basis of the Obama White House's resolve is the conviction that it is in the United States' as well as Israel's interest to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "We have significant, existential threats that Israel faces from Iran and that the U.S. faces from this region. It is in our mutual interest to end this conflict, and to begin to build new regional alliances."

Netanyahu needed to engage Obama directly, the former official said. "Now that he has done so, and also sent a team of advisors to meet (special envoy to the Middle East George) Mitchell, he has very clearly received a message: ‘I meant what I said on settlements. No natural growth. No elasticity. There will be a clear settlement freeze.'" (Netanyahu sent a team of advisors including minister for intelligence Dan Meridor for meetings with Mitchell in London Monday.)

"Over the past 15 years, settlements have gone from being seen in Washington as an irritant, to the dominant issue," says Georgetown Univeristy Middle East expert Daniel Byman. He pointed out that key figures in the Obama administration -- Mitchell, who headed the Mitchell Commission, which recommended a halt to settlements; national security advisor Gen. Jim Jones -- see the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, home to some 290,000 people, as a key obstacle to getting a peace settlement. "I don't think the logic is hidden," Byman said.

It's not just the administration that's delivering Netanyahu that message, however. Whereas in the past Israeli leaders have sometimes eased pressure from Washington on the settlements issue by going to members of Congress, this time, observers in Washington and Israel say, key pro-Israel allies in Congress have been largely reinforcing the Obama team's message to Netanyahu. What changed? "Members of Congress have more willing to follow the leadership of the administration ... because believe it is in our national security interest to move toward ending the conflict and that it is not a zero sum for Israel," the former senior Clinton administration official said.
"Netanyahu and Lieberman are probing, looking for areas they can get space gratis from the United States," says Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force for Palestine. "And they are not finding it."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/28/netanyahu_what_the_hell_do_they_want_with_me

[InfiniteThoughts]

24. folks might disagree with me ..

this is how i see the situation in Israel-Palestine:

Israel:
* Won Gaza, Sinai & West bank in the 1967 war. Won these territories on defensive strategy (they weren't the aggressors). According to UN rules, they can keep these territories.
* Has given away control of Gaza Strip & West Bank
* Is open to having Palestine declared as a nation, if it recognizes the sovereignty of Israel
* Removed settlers from all Gaza & West bank settlements; has taken over East Jerusalem.

To Do:
* Stop settlements

Palestine:
* No action on infrastructure. I don't know what happens to the hundreds of millions of aid that Palestine receives

To Do:
* Agree that they will recognize Israel as a legitimate state. Amalgamate West bank & Gaza into a country for it's citizens or get themselves attached to either Jordan or Egypt.

Remaining Conflict: Control of Jerusalem. That can be addressed as the next step.

As i see the current situation, while i don't agree to new settlements, i understand why Israel is doing it. Settlement construction is the only ace that Israel holds now to get Palestine to accept Israel as a nation. If they stop settlements, what else can they use as bargaining chips with the Palestine authorities? What else is left? They have already ceded a lot of land that will make Palestine nation.

I don't understand the delay and the "timelines". The time for action on this conflict is now and i don't see any of the parties accepting the realities of today ...

[Fedja]

35. erm?

"Is open to having Palestine declared as a nation, if it recognizes the sovereignty of Israel"

... as is clearly illustrated by their starvation of the Palestinian people, occasional bombing of civilians, and blatant war crimes over the Gaza population.

[InfiniteThoughts]

39. and vice versa?

Fedja - As much as Israel as damaged Palestinian people, Palestinians have responded with suicide bombers, siphoning off relief cash to buy arms rather than distribute amongst it's people apart from a host of other issues.

The bottomline is this - Both parties have done wrong. Both parties cannot claim to the victim of other's oppression. The need of the hour is to bring a quick & equitable close to the conflict.

I would say, Israel should cease all settlements, apart from east Jerusalem, return the rest of west bank and gaza to the Palestine NATION. Why, allow them to retain east Jerusalem? That's the punishment to the nations for the 1967 war. Israel has won the right to keep a lot of land & is exercising the right to retain some.

[Fedja]

51. It's not comparable.

A people besieged and starved commit aggressive suicide in desperation. Suicide is NOT an act of opportunism or a lame political statement, it's suicide.

I'm baffled that you dare compare these actions by persons who have grown up knowing nothing but war, abuse, starvation, and discrimination with Apache helicopters pounding the streets with banned incendiary munitions. I can't believe that you see the tank shooting at kids and the kids throwing rocks at the tank as an equal issue that needs to be dealt with, especially considering that the tank is on foreign soil.

You see, I've lived under occupation for 10 days. 10 days of air raid sirens and tanks on my streets. 10 days of fear, and a feeling of complete uncertainty staring down the barrel of a foreign soldier.

I don't expect you to possess enough empathy or experience to be able to understand that level of psychological torture, but at least make an effort.

[InfiniteThoughts]

59. You are right ..

In a way, i understand the aspect that you are highlighting. However, isn't this a chicken & egg story? The people are poor because their leaders are corrupt, spend all the aid money on arms and sometimes force the people to live in poverty to attract more aid.

I am not absolving Israel of all responsibilities. I am just stating that Palestine leaders should take the same (or even more) amount of blame for the current situation of the folks in WB & Gaza. It is in the best interest of the Palestinians to ensure that they come to the discussion table, get an agreement and get on with life else both sides will be stuck as they are today ...

Not only on Israel Palestine, but other conflicts like Ind-Pak Kashmir issue, why can't the 2 nations agree to sit across the table, set a timeline and negotiate a solution. At least 90% of the solution will be solved. The remaining 10% can be pushed out to a later date and both sides can get on with their lives.

[Fedja]

61. If only I wasn't married.

I winced seeing a reply to what I wrote, and I just want to hug you for what you wrote. I haven't seen a mind truly open to different opinions on the interwebs in a long time.

Either way, I see this as more of a David/Goliath issue. The suicide bombs cost about as much as a loaf of bread, the reason the Palestinian people are starved is because they live under embargo. Their borders are controlled by Israel (Egypt doesn't dare open the one crossing because of the massive immigration potential at this point). Israel rations their border to "just enouugh for a few to live", and they even crushed the tunnel network that was the lifeline of the Gaza region. Terrorists will find other ways to smuggle arms, the food supply was the hardest hit once the tunnels were out of commission.

In a way, the most inhumane rape of the Palestinian people, the thing that brings them to suicidal retribution, is the fact that they've been completely robbed of a future. None of them believe things will get better, most of the young have known nothing but war and occupation since birth. This is what fuels the extremist actions of the Hamas (and let's not forget, Hamas has done lots of good for their people as well).

I say if Israel wants to make Palestinian people moderate, civil, and friendly, all they need to do is allow them to live a worthy life. Nothing brings political and religious indifference like prosperity does. People with careers and cars don't blow themselves up, people with a future for their kids don't hate the world.

This ties into your comment about other places in the world. The problem is in politics. Leaders are elected on the basis of fear and chaos. They're elected on the basis of internal and outside enemies. The bigger the crisis, the more militant the elected leader. And they've learned to fuel the crises in order to get reelected.

[Usrename]

54. This is an absurd comparison.

Your argument is like saying that a rapist has every right to break his victim's nose, because she kicked him in the groin while she was resisting.

It's totally absurd. Do you really think that the opressors should recieve the same considerations as the people that they are opressing? The rapist should be treated equally with the victim? Or, do you think that Israel is not the oppressor in this occupation, and that the Palestinians are really the ones that are oppressing the Israelis? No one is that irrational, are they?

[No Elephants]

44. So Israel makes no concessions whatever, other than halting new

settlements. In other words, Israel will return to the same position it had the second before it signs a peace treaty. How very fair and balanced of you.


Palestine is to recognize Israel's right to exist, and then Israel will be "open to" recognizing Palestine's right to exist. Wow. Committing to be "open to" the one thing the other sides is ever likely to get t only after the other side concedes all it has to concede.


As usual, total bad faith from the jump.


See also Reply # 26 and the subthread it began.

[InfiniteThoughts]

50. nope ... that's not what i meant ..

Israel SHOULD withdraw from ALL WB settlements just like they did in Gaza settlements if Palestine is open to ceasing terrorist operations against Israel and will sign a peace agreement. If Israel wants to retain some portion of the WB settlements, that is subject to negotiations with the Palestinians. Thus, there is action for both sides.

Hope, i clarified my position.

[kenfrequed]

56. I only partially agree

The idea of illegal settlement construction being an ace in the hole is folly. It actually only aggrivates the conflict over a continual basis and it really doesn't make any sense diplomatically speaking. Psychologically it serves as a continuous reminder of whatever inital dispossession took place in regards to the Palestinian movement. If this is the Israeli governments idea of diplomacy, strategy, or negotiating tactics it is no wonder this conflict seems endless.

Other than this bit I agree on most counts.

[Douglas Carpenter]

76. according to U.N. Rules? Where on earth do you get that idea?

The entire premise of U.N. Resolution 242 is founded on the principle of the inadmisability of the aquirement of land by force. That is why all territory occupied by Israel after June 1967 has been deemed by all international legal bodies and all credible and independent human rights orgainizations without any exceptions whatsoever as Occupied Territory. This is not debatable among sane and rational people and never has been.


ALL settlers anywhere in Occupied Territories are illegal under international law This is also not even debatable among sane and rational people - and never has been.

Theodore Meron, the Israeli Foreign Ministry legal adviser notified the Israeli government of these fact way back in September of 1967:

"The declaration by Theodor Meron, the Israeli Foreign Ministry's legal adviser at the time and today one of the world's leading international jurists, is a serious blow to Israel's persistent argument that the settlements do not violate international law, particularly as Israel prepares to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the war in June 1967.

The legal opinion, a copy of which has been obtained by The Independent, was marked "Top Secret" and "Extremely Urgent" and reached the unequivocal conclusion, in the words of its author's summary, "that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

Judge Meron, president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia until 2005, said that, after 40 years of Jewish settlement growth in the West Bank - one of the main problems to be solved in any peace deal: " I believe that I would have given the same opinion today."

Judge Meron, a holocaust survivor, also sheds new light on the aftermath of the 1967 war by disclosing that the Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, was " sympathetic" to his view that civilian settlement would directly conflict with the Hague and Geneva conventions governing the conduct of occupying powers"

The declaration by Theodor Meron, the Israeli Foreign Ministry's legal adviser at the time and today one of the world's leading international jurists, is a serious blow to Israel's persistent argument that the settlements do not violate international law, particularly as Israel prepares to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the war in June 1967.

The legal opinion, a copy of which has been obtained by The Independent, was marked "Top Secret" and "Extremely Urgent" and reached the unequivocal conclusion, in the words of its author's summary, "that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

Judge Meron, president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia until 2005, said that, after 40 years of Jewish settlement growth in the West Bank - one of the main problems to be solved in any peace deal: " I believe that I would have given the same opinion today."

Judge Meron, a holocaust survivor, also sheds new light on the aftermath of the 1967 war by disclosing that the Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, was " sympathetic" to his view that civilian settlement would directly conflict with the Hague and Geneva conventions governing the conduct of occupying powers"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/secret-memo-shows-israel-knew-six-day-war-was-illegal-450410.html

-------------------------



Here are just some of the many UN Security Council Resolutions affirming the recognition by the virtually the entire international community that the territories are OCCUPIED Arab land and the illegal nature of the settlements:

Resolution 252 (1968)
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.

267 (1969)
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

271 (1969)
Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers

298 (1971)
Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

446 (1979)
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and "in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."

452 (1979)
Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

465 (1980)
Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel's settlements policy.

484 (1980)
Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

592 (1986)
Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.

672 (1990) Israel
Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

673 (1990) Israel
Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672.

681 (1990) Israel
Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel

============================

------------------------------------

EVEN the one dissenting judge in the July 2002 case regarding the Wall -agreed that any part of the wall that was built to protect settlement is illegal. Thus any protection of the settlements or the settlers by the Israeli state is illegal under international law.

Out of 15 distinguished international jurist representing 15 different countries, 14 agreed that the wall was completely illegal and the one dissenting jurist, Judge Buergenthal representing the United States ruled that those parts of the Wall built to protect the settlements are ipso facto illegal because the settlements themselves are illegal. All 15 Judges without exception agreed that every single inch of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza which was Occupied after June 1967 - every single inch is Occupied Palestinian Territory.

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh141.htm#_ednref2

.
" Status of territory and applicable law (Paras. 70-106)

=====================

There are approximately 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, (*now closer to 500,000) including East Jerusalem. According to B'tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights, " the built-up area of the settlements in the West Bank covers 1.7 percent of the West Bank, the settlements control 41.9 percent of the entire West Bank".* http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp

As appears from the map, while the built-up area of the settlements in the West Bank covers 1.7 percent of the West Bank, the settlements control 41.9 percent of the entire West Bank.

full PDF map: http://www.btselem.org/Download/Settlements_Map_Eng.pdf

LAND GRAB:

Israel’s Settlement Policy in the West Bank

link to full report:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/200205_Land_Grab_Eng.doc

Introduction


In December 2001, a long article appeared in Ha’aretz under the headline “Five Minutes from Kfar Saba – A Look at the Ari’el Region.” The article reviewed the real estate situation in a number of “communities” adjacent to the Trans-Samaria Highway in the vicinity of Ari’el. The article included the information that most of the land on which these “communities” were established are “state-owned land,” and that “despite the security problems and the depressed state of the real estate market, the situation in these locales is not as bad as might be expected.”

The perspective from which this article was written (the real estate market) and the terminology it employs largely reflect the process of the assimilation of the settlements into the State of Israel. As a result of this process, these settlements have become just another region of the State of Israel, where houses and apartments are constructed and offered to the general public according to free-market principles of supply and demand.

This deliberate and systematic process of assimilation obscures a number of fundamental truths about the settlements: the “communities” mentioned in the article are not part of the State of Israel, but are settlements established in the West Bank − an area that has been occupied territory since 1967. The fundamental truth is that the movement of Israeli citizens to houses and apartments offered by the real estate markets in these “communities” constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The fundamental truth is that the “state-owned” land mentioned in the article was seized from Palestinian residents by illegal and unfair proceedings. The fundamental truth is that the settlements have been a continuing source of violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, among them the right to freedom of movement, property, self-determination, and improvement in their standard of living. The fundamental truth is that the growth of these settlements is fueled not only by neutral forces of supply and demand, but primarily by a sophisticated governmental system designed to encourage Israeli citizens to live in the settlements. In essence, the process of assimilation blurs the fact that the settlement enterprise in the Occupied Territories has created a system of legally sanctioned separation based on discrimination that has, perhaps, no parallel anywhere in the world since the dismantling of the Apartheid regime in South Africa.

As part of the mechanism used to obscure these fundamental truths, the State of Israel makes a determined effort to conceal information relating to the settlements. In order to prepare this report, B’Tselem was obliged to engage in a protracted and exhaustive struggle with the Civil Administration to obtain maps marking the municipal boundaries of the settlements. This information, which is readily available in the case of local authorities within Israel, was eventually partially provided almost one year after the initial request, and only after B’Tselem threatened legal action.
The peace process between Israel and the Palestinians did not lead to the evacuation of even one settlement, and the settlements even grew substantially in area and population during this period. While at the end of 1993 (at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Principles) the population of the settlements in the West Bank (including settlements in East Jerusalem) totaled some 247,000, by the end of 2001 this figure had risen to 375,000.

The agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority entailed the transfer of certain powers to the PA; these powers apply in dozens of disconnected enclaves containing the majority of the Palestinian population. Since 2000, these enclaves, referred to as Areas A and B, have accounted for approximately forty percent of the area of the West Bank. Control of the remaining areas, including the roads providing transit between the enclaves, as well as points of departure from the West Bank, remains with Israel.

This report, which is the continuation of several reports published by B’Tselem in recent years, examines a number of aspects relating to Israeli policy toward the settlements in the West Bank and to the results of this policy in terms of human rights and international law. The report also relates to settlements in East Jerusalem that Israel established and officially annexed into Israel. Under international law, these areas are occupied territory whose status is the same as the rest of the West Bank.

This report does not relate to the settlements in the Gaza Strip. Though similar in many ways to their counterparts in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip settlements differ in several respects. For example, the legal framework in the Gaza Strip differs from that applying in the West Bank in various fields, including land laws; these differences are due to the different laws that were in effect in these areas prior to 1967.

This report comprises eight chapters.

• Chapter One presents a number of basic concepts on the principal plans implemented by the Israeli governments, the bureaucratic process of establishing new settlements, and the types of settlements.
• Chapter Two examines the status of the settlements and settlers according to international law and briefly surveys the violations of Palestinian human rights resulting from the establishment of the settlements.
• Chapter Three discusses the bureaucratic and legal apparatus used by Israel to seize control of land in the West Bank for the establishment and expansion of settlements. The chief component of this apparatus, and the main focus of the chapter, is the process of declaring and registering land as “state land.”
• Chapter Four reviews the changes in Israeli law that were adopted to annex the settlements into the State of Israel by turning them civilian enclaves within the occupied territory. This chapter also examines the structure of local government in the settlements in the context of municipal boundaries.
• Chapter Five examines the economic incentives Israel provides to settlers and settlements to encourage Israelis to move to the West Bank and to encourage those already living in the region to remain there.
• Chapter Six analyzes the planning mechanism in the West Bank applied by the Civil Administration, which is responsible for issuing building permits both in the settlements and in Palestinian communities. This mechanism plays a decisive role in the establishment and expansion of the settlements, and in limiting the development of Palestinian communities.
• Chapter Seven analyzes the map of the West Bank attached to this report. This analysis examines the layout of the settlements by area, noting some of the negative ramifications the settlements have on the human rights of the Palestinian population.
• Chapter Eight focuses in depth on the Ari’el settlement and the ramifications of its establishment on the adjacent Palestinian communities. This chapter also discusses the expected consequences of Ari’el’s expansion according to the current outline plan. "

link to full report:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/200205_Land_Grab_Eng.doc

[truthisfreedom]

7. Ever practical, ever realistic. We have a real President.

I'm proud

[AlphaCentauri]

8. I think the president 's position is well balance

both sides have to give up something

[MaraJade]

9. Yessiree!

Lets destroy the ONLY DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY in the Middle East to appease the Islamic
world! Lets GIVE ISRAEL totally back to the Palestinians. Never mind that the Palestinians
DID NOTHING for years to develop any sort of infrastrasture over there. Jews are supposed to
work for others! Let them give the developed infrustracture to the Palestinians. That's Perfectly FAIR!
So what!!! Let all of the Jews over there get on ships (or whatever) and go wherever
(but NOT THE HELL HERE in the US) just let them get the hell out of Palestine (there is no Israel)!

Lets do ANYTHING at all to appease the Islamic world. Throw Israel under the bus--
that's perfectly okay as long as we get peace in the middle east. (Obama has thrown the US Middle Class
under the bus, so its okay!!) Lets do ANYTHING to get peace in the middle east. ANYTHING!

(So-Called) PEACE AT ALL COSTS!!!

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anonymous171]

16. Isreal is just as bad as the rest of them, don't let them fool you. nt

[Kaleko]

29. Strawman argument:

creating the illusion of refuting an opponent’s argument by mischaracterizing it and then knocking down that mischaracterization.

[Fedja]

36. Funny

"...just let them get the hell out of Palestine (there is no Israel)!"

You seem to think that Palestine is Israel. Until you get your hands on a map, you need to keep your opinions between yourself and the demons in your head.

[No Elephants]

42. Hope you didn't hurt yourself.

[fascisthunter]

63. lol... wow there's alot of bs in that post

take a drama class will ya.

[Thrill]

10. Sounds like a President who is finally serious about this. One that finally stops being scared

to challenge Israel.

[The Doctor.]

11. How can you not be impressed by SoS Clinton?

She's fucking brilliant, she knows what she's doing, and God Damned... I'm impressed.

Bebe has nothing on her when it comes to sheer brass.

[Truth2Tell]

22. She's doing what she's told to do

by her President. I doubt very much that any of this would be happening if she were at the top.

[napoleon_in_rags]

30. Oh yeah, its pure conservatism in the areas SHE controls.

Like these conservative policies she just implemented at the State department while "her president" wasn't looking:
http://www.shewired.com/Article.cfm?ID=22880

[No Elephants]

41. That was great news, but I am waiting to see if it actually gets

implemented, given DOMA. "Clinton has granted equal rights" is something I can understand. I have no idea what "Clinton to grant equal rights" means, though.

BTW, I am sure she and Obama discussed it. In fact, he may well have initiated it, given the pressure he was getting over DADT. The timing was just too convenient.

BTW, she does not control any area. She heads one of many departments in the Executive Branch. That's her job description. Obama controls all departments in the Executive Branch. With respect to the Executive Branch, he functions as a combination of CEO and Board of Directors. That's his job description. She takes orders from, and answers to, the POTUS, just like every department or division head in a corporation answers to the CEO and the Board of Directors.

Unless you're prepared to be fired sooner or later, you don't try to sneak major policy changes by the EO and Board of Directors of which they do not approve.

[napoleon_in_rags]

70. I'm sure it was Clinton who did it...

I'm not implying that she went against Obama, but Obama has bigger fish to fry than micromanaging the State department.

[Truth2Tell]

67. Social liberalism (which is great) and

foreign policy globalism, ie neo-liberal militarism. That's her MO.

[napoleon_in_rags]

69. I don't mind a leftist critique of Hillary...

...its the idea that Obama is this far left leader holding her in check that doesn't add up. During the debates it was obvious to me that they were pretty similar on the policy front.

[Truth2Tell]

71. I think that's right. But this pressure on Israel is

beyond what I expected from either of them, so I still doubt Hillary would have taken this particular course. In other areas, Iraq, Afgan, Pakistan, Latin America, etc, I suspect a President Hillary would be very similar to Obama.

[Rhiannon12866]

12. K&R. It's long past time that the US took action on this long ignored issue.

There will never be peace in this beleaguered region without US involvement and taking a hard line on the West Bank settlements is the only road to a two-state solution.

[rpannier]

13. I see...When SoS Hilary R Clinton says it, it's "...shrill"

Interesting choice of words.
Very revealing

[Pirate Smile]

15. I noticed that too.

:wtf: Shrill - ha - it was tough, you dumbass.

[No Elephants]

49. Have you heard the clip? I thought she said it very matter of factly, as she

tried to cover all possible "weasel out" possibilities. Calling that shrill was totally out of reality, IMO. I sure do hope someone goes all Amazon on him IRL.

[No Elephants]

43. Nice catch. Let's remember whose

words those were, in case we see his name again:

Aaron David Miller, a veteran of Arab-Israeli peace efforts in administrations of both parties and now a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington.

Well, that may explain some of the failure of peace efforts in that region.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HughMoran]

18. Finally

It's about time we made appropriate demands of both sides on this issue.

[thread-bear]

19. I'll believe it when I see it.

In my opinion, the two greatest evils in the world since time began,are theocracies and racism. They have caused the most suffering and death. Whether you are a Christian theocracy,Muslim,Jewish,or whatever,there is something about mixing religion with government that makes people sickeningly,murderously crazy. I am an American,I believe in the American style of government. I believe in the vision of a small group of Deists, among a nation of mostly Christians, of a government separate from religion. I don't believe in Arab states,Jewish states,or Christian states. Having said that,I blame Israel for all this mess. If they had listened to Jimmy Carter,there would be peace and prosperity in the area today. Instead,they used their influence in the U.S. to grab more land. Because "God gave it to them." Guess what,God is not mocked. Just because I believe God gave me something my neighbor has,doesn't excuse me murdering him to have it now. If God gave it to me,it will be mine the right way.I thank God for my Jewish fellow citizens. There has been no other group of citizens in this nation,more fervent,more noble,more self-sacrificing than my Jewish friends in fighting for liberty and the importance of the Constitution than they have been. Simply because they know the alternative too well. But religion and power has blinded the eyes of so many. My goal is a middle-east where there is peace and equality.

[rpannier]

21. I would disagree

Nationalism is worse than a theocracy (IMO)

[BlueMTexpat]

28. A nationalistic theocracy is even worse ...

and wrt Israel, a lot of the most strident "nationalism" comes from people who don't even live there. Think AIPAC.

The Israeli left is still there, very principled and courageous, but unfortunately not helped at all by US policy until now.

[DLnyc]

31. Yes, I know quite a number of Americans who have extreme hawkish ideas

in regards to Israeli policy. I think a careful analysis would show that the right wing in Israel would never be able to hold on to power there without the support of American reactionaries. Israelis tend to be more pragmatic, in my experience. Sadly there are a lot of American chickenhawks who like to show how 'tough' they are by sending other people's children to die. And whose idea of being a 'friend of Israel' is to promote a policy that cannot possibly end well for Israel or for anyone else (except for arms merchants and rightwing politicians who feed on hate and fear).

[BlueMTexpat]

40. Spot on!

:hi:

[No Elephants]

45. Maybe US policy will even help the American left someday.

[fascisthunter]

64. This is absolutely true

my friends family lives there. That country is run by rabid right wing nutcases

[snake in the grass]

26. I was living in Germany...

...during Netanyahu's first stint as P.M. In an interview with "Der Spiegel", he and the interviewers were flying over Palestinian territory as Bebe pointed to the land and said, "Wherever Jewish blood was spilt, that is Jewish land.". Without real pressure from the U.S., I don't expect to see any substantial peace developing there under Netanyahu.

[Fedja]

37. He's a retard.

I assume they'll want Poland as well.

[Fozzledick]

62. Maybe they'll be appeased with Czechoslovakia....

or half of Jerusalem, at least for a little while...

[No Elephants]

46. Wherever Jewish blood was shed when? And why is Arab blood less sacred. BTW, is he expecting

Germany and Russia, too? Rome?

[kenfrequed]

58. That quote would surprise me.

I'm uncertain about it, but if it is true then I suppose Rome will want Jeruselum back or maybe it can be shared by the various nations that supported the crusades. Isolated from any other argument it makes about an equal amount of sense.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. KICK AND RECOMMEND!!!

[Truth2Tell]

23. Big props to Obama on this. I like it.

(don't say I never say anything nice about the guy)

[ProudDad]

25. A two state solution will not work

as long as the illegal Israeli "settlements" are allowed to remain in the West Bank.

They command 1/2 of the land, the best land, and steal 4/5 of the water of Palestine.

That was their plan all along. To create the fait accompli of Israeli domination of the West Bank pushing the remaining Palestinian people out of Palestine or, at a minimum, perpetuating the current status-quo; a set of occupied Bantustans under the thumb of the IDF.

Have you ever seen a map of these "settlements" in the West Bank? Check it out...as of 2002...



------------------------------------------------
Here's another (2007) with the Apartheid wall...
------------------------------------------------

[Selatius]

32. At that rate, Palestine will be nothing more than a glorified "Indian reservation."

It would simply be a piece of land surrounded by another country. It's funny that leaders like Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu who lead the revolt against South African Apartheid compared living conditions in the West Bank to the living conditions Blacks had to face in the Bantustans of South Africa.

[davidpdx]

38. That's a good way of putting it, if it even ever happens

I don't think Israel will ever agree to it, nor will they ever stop the settlements. As long as the US stands squarely behind them, they have no reason to flinch. Our policy has to change if toward them or they will continue to drag their feet.

[xxqqqzme]

33. Yep, the wall seals off the water.

Our tax dollars at work. The 'aid' we give to Israel goes into their general fund. The general fund is building the wall. Aren' you pleased?

[Turborama]

34. You've brought up a very important topic that isn't discussed enough...

Here's another map showing the water situation....



In case you missed it, I added some info about why water is such a big issue in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3820804&mesg_id=3821191">this post.

[No Elephants]

47. Those pictures really are worth thousands of words. Thanks.

[DerekJ]

27. WOW, K&R.

[No Elephants]

48. Pardon me if I say I'm going to wait to see what, if anything, comes of this before

I go all K & R on it.

I am prepared to be overjoyed beyond reason if and when anything positive actually happens in that region. Until then, meh.

So far, all we have is more words. Add them to all the words spoken on this subject since the Balfour Declaration. And we have not even heard words describing what will happen if Israel ignores Obama and Clinton, which it is quite likely to do. So far, I've seen nothing but more nose thumbing. I hope it is false bravado, but, again, I think I'll wait and see before I react. Seems like the only sane and realistic thing to do.

And that's before I even contemplate the maps in Reply ## 26 and 35.

[Wednesdays]

52. K&R

:kick:

[Bragi]

53. Not sure I share the excitement here

The idea that this is "tough and risky" is pure spin. It is just a setup where Obama gets to sound tough by demanding a stop to EXPANDING settlements, to which Bibi will eventually agree, making it look like Obama is being "tough". meanwhile, EXISTING settlements on stolen land remain untouched.

Looks more to me like a shell game than a "tough and risky" move by the President.

[kenfrequed]

55. In a sane world

This would never be defined as "taking a risky position" I mean honestly saying "Hey, stop taking your neighbors land and settling on it illegally," doesn't sound risky by most peoples standards.

[harun]

57. It is a good move by Obama. If Israel won't even do something small

like stopping (real stopping, not the BS stopping they suggest) settlements then why waste any effort going forward with anything more difficult.

[Mari333]

60. good. see, when I agree with Obama, I say so. nt

[Faryn Balyncd]

65. K&R...If we stick to our guns on this (like no one has done since Carter) we may progress toward...

.....real peace.

[Pirate Smile]

74. Check this out:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/28/netanyahu_what_the_hell_do_they_want_with_me

[Faryn Balyncd]

75. Actually, anything less than totally DISMANTLING all illegal settlements is a violation of the law:

Is Obama saying he'll settle for a simple FREEZE on future illegal settlements, and that we are abandoning our official support for U.N. resolution 446?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5745701&mesg_id=5745701