Netanyahu: No New But Expansion of Settlements Allowed
New Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu does not agree with President Barack Obama on the issue of settlements. Obama said recently that he wants Israel to stop expanding its existing settlements, to oppose building more and to prepare destroy those already built by Israeli settlers.
Netanyahu responded immediately. Israel’s settlements were none of America’s business, he said. He would oppose building more settlements, but he would not tell colonists they would not be allowed to expand existing ones.
“The demand for a total stop to building is not something that can be justified and I don’t think that anyone here at this table accepts it,” Netanyahu told his cabinet, referring to Jewish settlements in the West Bank, according to an official.
Netanyahu said Israel had no plans to set up any new West Bank settlements. But he told Obama, according to the official, that his government “does not accept limitations on building” within what Israel defines as its capital, the Jerusalem municipality, an area that includes Arab East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank captured in a 1967 Middle East war.
It is important to point out that Netanyahu did not say that existing settlements would be expanded. He just said he would not rule it out, and that America should butt out of it. That is a significant difference.
Netanyahu is right to tell Obama publicly what he can do with his wonderful plans: Obama did not exactly have the reputation of a friend of Israel when he was elected, and he has proved this image to be correct.
Obama understands Palestinian terrorists a little bit too much. He may not sympathize with them – although, Stanley Kurtz’s writings give one the impression he actually does – but he is willing to give them everything they want, and more. Even if doing so threatens Israel’s security.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Michael – So we meet again. I miss jousting with you over at TMV. The only practical solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is two states for two peoples. Now as you know, I spend a lot of time in the West Bank and I can assure you settlements are a problem as is settlement expansion. Typical settlement expansion does not mean a couple new houses built in an existing settlement, it usually involves building some houses on the next hill over. An example is the settlement of Adam(Geva Binyamin), north of Ramallah. It’s a nice little town of about 4000 residents. It recently, got approval to expand by 3000 residents on a hill 1.3 kilometers away. In order for it not to be called a new settlement, they call it a new neighborhood, Adam East. As my nephew who lives in Adam can testify, the purpose of Adam East is to block off Ramallah from the rest of the West Bank.
This is how the creeping annexation of land is making a viable Palestinian state close to impossible without creating a HUGE burden on Jews in these settlements. While the residents of Adam are primarily secular and are movable, some like Kiryat Arba (next to Hebron) contain Jews who will fight to the death like Masada to stay. If the west bank were turned over to the Palestinians and these Jewish enclaves were part of a Palestinian state, tens of thousands of the settlement Jews would become terrorists fighting for reattachment to Israel. Ironic isn’t it?
Settlement expansion can only make an eventual peace agreement more difficult to the detriment of both Israel and Palestinians. Imagine the agony of moving 100,000 Jews – Imagine the greater agony of moving 300,000 Jews if settlements continue to expand.
Michael, all that settlement expansion does is create
Some words ended up missing:
The last sentance should read – Michael all that settlement expansion does is to create greater problems for Palestinains and Jews eventually.