Sharon: US Approves West Bank Settlements, Nuclear Program

Hi Pakistan (not exactly a beacon of journalistic integrity, but then again, what is these days) reports,

Speaking at a political party gathering in Tel Aviv on Thursday, Sharon said the United States backs Israel in keeping control of main West Bank settlements, drawing secure borders that include parts of the West Bank in Israel and banning Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes in Israel. Hinting at nuclear weapons, Sharon said the United States recognises that “Israel faces an existential threat, and it must be able to defend itself by itself by preserving its deterrent capability.”

Full story.

I’m so glad the Bush administration has decided, on America’s behalf, to endorse illegal settlement which half of all Israelis don’t even support, and nuclear weapons proliferation which was like, soooo two decades ago. But alas, what can we expect from an administration who’s earliest move was to violate the non-proliferation treaty and fire up the reactors at Los Alamos? Sigh.

Cold war: It does a military economy good!

10 thoughts on “Sharon: US Approves West Bank Settlements, Nuclear Program

  1. Mob,
    don’t let Sharon fool you. Bush/Rice/Powell/Foggy Bottom have not changed any US policy recently. The US does not support ‘settlement blocs’.

  2. what bush says to the press and what he says behind closed doors is likely akin in manner to the way arafat says one thing to the white press and another to the arab press .. the press is merely a vehicle for prolefeed and not a venue for truth

  3. Mobius,
    Please define a “settlement.”
    Does your interpretation include the French Hill neighborhood of Jerusalem, Gilo, and the Jewish quarter of the Old City?

  4. I would consider settlements pretty much anything built post-Oslo I that started out as caravans…

  5. Mobius,
    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?

  6. Mobius,
    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.”

  7. 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 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…)

  8. Mobius,
    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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.