Skip to main content

A clear message to PM Olmert

Israel has, rightly, attracted criticism for building, and allowing to be built, settlements in the West Bank.

Needless to say the usual suspects have attacked those calling for a cessation of the building and expansion as anti-Israeli etc. Forget that such building is in contravention of the Oslo Peace Accord [?] and undertakings said to have been given by Israel to cease the expansion of settlements on what is after all Palestinian land.

It is therefore refreshing to read this week's editorial "Settlement Freeze" in Forward", a Jewish weekly newspaper published in New York:

"A rash of reports coming out of Israel indicates that a spurt of new construction is under way in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The development should be alarming to anyone who cares about Israel’s welfare. It’s a violation of Israel’s public commitments, most of all to the Bush administration. It’s damaging to Israel’s international standing and harmful to its security, both short and long term. Most troubling, it’s a sign of the weakness of the Olmert government, and it raises questions about Israel’s ability to negotiate for the peace that its prime minister so clearly wants.

Settler spokesmen and their allies on the right are claiming that the reports were trumped up by the left-wing Peace Now in order to embarrass the settlers and the Israeli government. But that’s simply not true. The reports come from the hawkish Shas party as well as Peace Now, from the conservative Jerusalem Post as well as the liberal Ha’aretz. Some reports, in fact, have come from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert himself, apparently in a bid to soothe his right-wing opponents and keep Shas from bolting his coalition."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more