Friday, December 11, 2009

Settlements are either "illegitimate," or they are not (either way they're illegal)

Ha'aretz is carrying an article entitled "U.S. not opposed to Israel pumping more funds into settlements":
"The new map would enable another 110,000 settlers - most of whom live outside the major settlement blocs - the economic benefits conferred on residents of zones already included on Israel's list. Senior U.S. administration officials told Haaretz earlier Thursday that the prime minister's bureau had provided satisfactory explanations as long as the benefits plan was in keeping with the freeze and that money would not be transferred for new housing in the settlements."
Apparently, the U.S. position is that settlements are illegitimate until they are fully funded by Israel, in which case they're fine? These sorts of contradictions are widespread, as noted by a recent Electronic Intifada article on President Obama's Peace Prize speech:
"Obama advised that "all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force." Those standards -- international humanitarian law -- were however not applied by Obama to Israel in its devastating attack on the Gaza Strip last winter....Obama also advocated that "Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure." Yet when it comes to Israeli intransigence, Obama appears unwilling to demand the same level of accountability or exert any pressure at all."
Click here to find out how you can meet with your member of Congress during the winter recess to express your frustration with ongoing U.S. support for the Israeli occupation. And click here to learn how you can oppose settlements using the nonviolent tactics of boycott, divestment, and sanctions.