Please inform what the “world consensus” is? If it means the informal opinion of the majority of the leaders of the world’s countries (a great many of which, I would note, are hardly paragons of good governance), than what relevance does it have to Israeli policy, beyond possible damage to Israel’s PR? If it means the opinion of the General Assembly of the United Nations, I have nothing but contempt for it. If it means that the majority of the world’s nations have not recognized the annexation of East Jerusalem, this is true, but has no bearing on whether Israel can or can’t build on that land, at least as Israel views the staus of East Jerusalem in terms of international law (a point of view I happen to agree with); at any rate, its irrelevant to the West Bank and Gaza whether the annexation of East Jerusalem is recognized or not.

The author of the post is also wrong that most Israelis do not support the settlements. I think most Israelis oppose settlements in Gaza and deep in the West Bank. The story is quite different in the large settlement blocs such as that which includes Ariel and the post-67 neighborhoods in Jerusalem.

That sounds funny to me — no sovereign nation is allowed to determine its final borders, because it always affects the neighbouring countries. (Instead, it’s negotiations…)

1) The Oslo Accords do not mention any sort of freeze or a committment to halting expansion.

2) Please note that the term “settler” is also applied to the Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem’s Old City. Although you may find disturbing, it is nevertheless consistent with the worldwide (consensus) approach that Jewish “settlements” are communities built on land acquired during the 1967 war.

While you may attempt to differentiate between French Hill, Kiryat Arba, Gush Etzion and the Old City, it is worthwhile to note that virtually no one outside of Israel does.

3) In my opinion, the Israeli custom of legitimizing certain settlements and disqualifying “illegtimate” ones is a futile exercise - unless one recognizes the fact that Israel is a sovereign nation capable of determining its final borders without relying on outdated international resolutions or imaginary “pressure.”

That is a pretty convenient definition.

However, it is not one shared by most of the world.

Last I checked, the French Hill neighborhood, Gilo, and the Jewish quarter of the Old City was built on land acquired during by Israel during the 1967 war.

I am curious - why do you choose Oslo 1 as a cut-off date?

Please define a “settlement.”

Does your interpretation include the French Hill neighborhood of Jerusalem, Gilo, and the Jewish quarter of the Old City?