Archive

Posts Tagged ‘settlement’

Ohio charity accused by US of Hamas ties disbands (AP)

January 9th, 2012 Comments off

AP – A charity that the government suspected of having ties to the militant Islamic group Hamas has shut down but is still negotiating a settlement with the U.S. Department of the Treasury over its frozen assets.
Go to Source

Israel rejects criticism of settlements (AP)

December 22nd, 2011 Comments off

AP – Israel is lashing out at diplomats at the U.N. who condemned Israeli settlement construction in territory claimed by the Palestinians and attacks apparently carried out by Jewish settlers.
Go to Source

Likud propaganda in the New York Times!

May 20th, 2011 Comments off

” President Obama’s endorsement on Thursday of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute based on the 1967 borders prompted Netanyahu  to push back and  said in a statement just before boarding a plane to Washington that while he appreciated Mr. Obama’s commitment to peace, he “expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of American commitments made to Israel in 2004 which were overwhelmingly supported by both houses of Congress.” Those commitments came in a letter from President George W. Bush that stated, among other things, that “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,” which was another way of describing the 1967 boundaries…. … Netanyahu added that the commitments “relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines,” a reference to large Israeli settlement blocs in the West Bank. Netanyahu said in Parliament on Monday that Israel needed to hold on to the large settlement blocs in any future two-state solution with the Palestinians. Mr. Obama’s new position does not appear to rule out Israel retaining settlements, but suggests that United States would pressure Israel to offset any retained land by providing other land or making other concessions to the Palestinians…”



Go to Source

Israel unveils settlement plans

October 15th, 2010 Comments off

Israel unveils preliminary plans for 238 new homes for Jewish settlers in East Jerusalem, sparking an angry Palestinian response.
Go to Source

Obama calls for settlement freeze

September 11th, 2010 Comments off

Four Israelis killed in West Bank

August 31st, 2010 Comments off

Four Israelis are shot dead in an attack near a settlement in the West Bank, days before peace talks in the US.
Go to Source

"End game"

May 25th, 2010 Comments off
barack_obama_attends_a_briefing_on_afghanistan_in_the_situation_room_of_the_white_house

FB Ali via SST/ here

The players involved in the conflict in Afghanistan have all concluded that neither side can achieve a military victory and that it will end in some other way, probably through a negotiated solution. Since each of them has different goals, this end game is likely to be both confusing and complicated……

The mainstream viewpoint in the US administration, espoused by Secretary Gates and the military hierarchy, accepts the inevitability of a negotiated settlement but wants one that preserves a friendly government in Kabul that continues to lean on the US for support. If Taliban participation is unavoidable, it must be as limited as possible. They believe the insurgency has not yet been weakened enough to accept this kind of a settlement, and thus further military action is necessary. Hence the forthcoming Kandahar operation, as well as renewed pressure on Pakistan to complete the military takeover of its tribal areas. President Obama is going along with this policy for now but does not appear committed to it; he could abandon it if the approach does not work as successfully as its proponents promise.

Another school of thought in the administration (possibly including VP Biden) could be termed the minimalist position: it would agree to any kind of a negotiated settlement between the Afghan parties that would enable the US to get out of there expeditiously. They would like Hamid Karzai to pursue this option as soon as possible and get the best deal he can. There is also still a maximalist position in the US, advanced by those groups who believe the US should dominate the world with its military power, and who were the original backers of the Iraq and Afghan wars. This group advocates the continuation of the war until the Taliban are defeated and al-Qaeda is eradicated from the region. Its supporters in the administration maintain a low profile since this position is unlikely to ever become administration policy. (continue/ here)

Go to Source

Palestinians intensify settlement products boycott (AP)

May 18th, 2010 Comments off

A Palestinian man throw a product from Jewish settlements in a fire in the West Bank village of Salfit, Tuesday, May 18, 2010 . A Palestinian law, signed in April 2010 prohibits the sale of Israeli settlement products in the West Bank. (AP Photo/Nasser Ishtayeh)AP – The Palestinians stepped up a campaign against Israeli settlement products Tuesday, with hundreds of volunteers in white T-shirts distributing a brochure with brand names and photos of 500 goods they want West Bank consumers to shun.

Go to Source

Walt on Miller and "shared values"

April 30th, 2010 Comments off

I can’t resist but post this great answer by Stephen Walt to Aaron David Miller’s recent Foreign Policy piece on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, on the specific point of “shared values” between Israel and the US:

Third, Miller invokes the familiar mantra of “shared values,” but without asking whether the values we share are now diminishing. American values don’t include confiscating land from Palestinians, throwing thousands of Palestinians in jail without trial, and carving up the occupied territories with separate roads, a wall, and hundreds of check-points.  America’s values are “one person, one vote,” but that’s not the reality in Greater Israel today and that is certainly not what Bibi Netanyahu has in mind for the future. Miller doesn’t think the peace process has any future — and he may be right — but he still believes the United States should give Israel several billion dollars each year in economic and military aid and provide it with consistent diplomatic protection, even in the face of events like the Gaza War or the pummeling of Lebanon in 2006. 
As always Max Blumenthal let us know about these values — just listen to these loonies:
On Tuesday, Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, made the rounds at the State Department and the Pentagon, warmly welcomed by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. At a White House meeting with the national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones Jr., President Obama dropped by, lingering for 40 minutes.
The message was clear: “The special relationship between Israel and the United States is unbreakable,” Mr. Barak declared.
Across town, on Capitol Hill, the mayor of Jerusalem, Nir Barkat, was making his own rounds, unfurling maps that showed development in his city’s Jewish and Arab neighborhoods. His message was also clear: Jerusalem will not stop construction in East Jerusalem, either formally or informally, regardless of whether it hurts American efforts to restart peace negotiations.
“There is no freeze,” Mr. Barkat said. “We’re minding our own business, building the city for the residents.”
I don’t buy the idea, pushed around by the Israelis and others, that Netanyahu has agreed to a settlement freeze in East Jerusalem but won’t announce it. That may be true in the short-term that construction has ceased, but how long before the local government officials there decide, for electoral or other reasons, to go ahead with a new project and then we’ll hear Bibi say he can’t intervene in local government affairs or some-such nonsense. He cannot be trusted, and really neither can any other Israel official after 20 years of settlement expansion while agreeing to notional settlement freezes. This is why the public commitment to complete settlement freeze is essential: to immediately stop the creation of facts on the ground.

 



Go to Source

Americans consider withholding veto protecting Israel at UN if building goes ahead at Ramat Shlomo

April 30th, 2010 Comments off
“…An Offer TO consider, … at least for now … not clear what constitutes…” Am I the only one thinking that this is something that looks like a Brooklyn bridge sale?

“… The US has given private assurances to encourage the Palestinians to join indirect Middle East peace talks, including an offer to consider allowing UN security council condemnation of any significant new Israeli settlement activity, the Guardian has learned.
The assurances were given verbally in a meeting a week ago between a senior US diplomat and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. Since then – and after months of US diplomacy – it appears Israeli and Palestinian leaders are close to starting indirect “proximity” talks, which would be the first resumption of the Middle East peace process since Israel’s war in Gaza began in late 2008.
There was no official confirmation of the details of the meeting and Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, denied assurances were given. “It’s not true,” he said. “We are still talking to the Americans.”
But a Palestinian source, who was given a detailed account of the meeting, said David Hale, the deputy of the US special envoy, George Mitchell, told Abbas that Barack Obama wanted to see the peace process move forward with the starting of indirect talks. The diplomat said Washington understood there were obstacles and described Israeli settlement construction as “provocative”.
He told Abbas the Americans had received assurances from the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, that one particular settlement project in East Jerusalem, at Ramat Shlomo, would not go ahead, at least for now.
Hale then told Abbas that if there was significantly provocative settlement activity, including in East Jerusalem, Washington may consider allowing the UN security council to censure Israel. It was understood that meant the US would abstain from voting on a resolution rather than use its veto. Any US decision not to veto a resolution critical of Israel would be very unusual and a rare sign of American anger towards its long-time ally. However, it was not clear what may constitute significantly provocative activity. Palestinian officials asked in the meeting, but were not given an explicit definition, the source said….”

Go to Source