Rice Warns Israel Against Settlement Expansion

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Israel today that its plan for a large expansion of an Israeli West Bank settlement was "at odds with American policy" and could threaten progress toward peace with the Palestinians at a critical moment.

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, the secretary of State said Israel's explanation of its plans to add 3,500 housing units to the Maaleh Adumim settlement east of Jerusalem was "not really a satisfactory response."

"We have noted our concerns to the Israelis," she added.

Her blunt remarks were a signal that the administration does not want the Sharon government to make concessions to Israeli settlers, although the government is under tremendous political pressure from the right as it prepares to withdraw settlers and troops from Gaza this summer, analysts said.

.........MORE...........

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-032405rice_lat,0,1039642.story?coll=la-home-headlines

that ought to stop them, when over 100 U.N. sanctions have received the ole one finger salute!

Wasn't that one premise for invading Iraq? Failure to comply with sanctions? I guess we'll be invading Israel any day now!

over 100 U.N sanctions against Israel have been ignored.

http://www.musalman.com/news/musalman-UN%20resolutions%20against%20Israel.htm

Doesn't Israel have WMD's. Let's go get 'em!

:nuke:

Israel?

Israel being among the worst of the rogue nations.

Colin Powell explained that anti-Israeli isn't anti Semitic.

At least that's one good thing...

everybody goddamn well knows it.

...

Without nukes, Israel would be exterminated.

Ain't happenin' - no matter what anyone on DU thinks.

Condasleezy telling another government what they need to do! She should appreciate the position Sharon is in...I mean, her boss likes to pander the religious right!

Israel -- trillions over the years. That is why she is pretending to almost, maybe a little bit, just about barely, quietly, not-so-as-to-raise-a-fuss, we're-all-friends-here, (wink wink), mousily saying just a little teensy, tiny, little bitty something.

Israel is the only country to receive funds from us and not obey us. :eyes:

it's lip service from the beeotch!

Why does everyone in Washington act like they have to walk on eggshells around them?

In other words, can't someone who actually has the power and/or clout to do something disagree with our policy and joined-at-the-hip status with that racist genocidal bunch of maniacs?

Was that a reference to the US?

that was Israel

Even though that title fits with our adminstration as well.

it border on hate speech?

Regardless of your POV regarding Israel, these characterizations are inflammatory and completely inaccurate, to the point I practically do not know where to begin to answer.

However, I feel I would be remiss in not responding. It is important that truth and moderation have a voice also. So I will try.

At bottom, this is a war that has continued for nearly 60 years. The terrorities were seized in 1967 in order to prevent the nation of Israel, which is SMALLER THAN MASSACHUSETTS, by the way, from being overrun by the armies of several Arab states.

A quick look at a map will confirm the overwhelming size differential between Israel and the surrounding Arab states - not even including North Africa or the non-Arab state of Iran.

One should therefore be impressed with the precarious nature of Israel, and the difficulty obtained in defending it. Israel is essentially a strip of land along the Mediterranean, very narrow in places, culminating in the Negev Desert.

The citizens of Israel number some 6 million plus, including people of ALL faiths and from all over the world including hundreds of thousands of Jews who were expelled from Arab nations. Some estimates range as high as one million. This forced explusion began in the 1940's and continued up until the late '60's or thereabouts, at which time there are mere handfuls of Jews left in Arab states, and those who remain, in Syria for example, are quite repressed.

The Arab population in the region is approximately 500 million, give or take. I do not think there is much danger of a genocide here, unless it is Israel which is in danger of being exterminated. This has been the avowed goal of many armed militias AND governments in the M.E. for years and years. It has doubtlessly had an effect on the manner in which Israel deals with said neighbors.

The settlement question is considerably more complex than the article suggests. I have subsequently read several articles which indicate these are NOT new plans, they are merely administrative plans securing the urban centers which are already within the borders of Israel, and that do NOT apparently violate US policy on the question. Other articles debate this point of view. In any case an intemperate response such as that above is hardly called for.

Access to Jerusalem is a contested issue, with both Israel and the Palestinians wishing access to the city as a capital. It should be mentioned that such access WAS part of the package offered to Yasser Arafat by Clinton and by Israel - which Arafat rejected in favor of continued terrorism and war.

Withdrawal from the occupied territories continues nevertheless; settlements are scheduled to be vacated and/or dismantled; and there is every hope that a peaceful solution to all differences will evolve. However, hate-filled messages like the statement above are not helpful to this process, and should be condemned as the ignorance and bigotry that they manifest.

They certainly are NOT expressive of the tolerance, respect for knowledge and moderation that are embodied in our democratic principles.

suggests."

Wow! I sincerely doubt that such so called "complexity" transforms this settlement into a LEGAL vice ILLEGAL venture.

been long established and help secure the borders, especially near Jerusalem.

In general, I agree, the majority of the settlements should be abandoned. I also do not see the wisdom in making Jerusalem inaccessible to the Arabs. However, there are serious security issues that must be addressed. Many people are of the opinion that certain settlements serve as buffers and should be maintained. There remains the fact that Jerusalem has been used as an entry point for terrorists. So, it is one thing to say that this or that is "illegal" but these issues must be considered.

Also - there are political issues that must be dealt with. Israel is one of those pesky nations - a DEMOCRACY. People vote, their attitudes are quite various, and their government must respond to these often contradictory wishes.

Some believe that the entire West Bank is historical, biblical Israel and should not be returned to the Arabs. Others are very liberal and believe no settlements should be maintained. The steps that must be taken WITHIN Israel during this withdrawal process are laborious and even dangerous. Some 400,000 people would have to be relocated. Where will they go?

Meanwhile, even as steps are being taken to withdraw from Gaza, it has been discovered that rockets are being smuggled in through tunnels from Egypt. So, the security issues remain paramount in the minds of the Israeli government. The country is simply so small that there is little margin for error and that is what lies behind most of the problems.

No doubt, some of the settlers are extremists and that makes things even more difficult. IMO, they shouldn't have built their settlements in the first place. But, they did. Obviously, they must be controlled or all will be for naught. The same goes for the extremists on the other side, who continue to regard violence as a legitimate means of political discourse.

current discussion here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x88563

when does the US abandon minorities simply because they are minorities? It isn't our position domestically and it shouldn't be our position internationally.

And while we're on the subject of genocides - please check out the situation in Darfur, and the Arab colonization of much of North and Subsaharan Africa.

And furthermore, one might want to check out the history of the PLO, which along with Al Qaeda seems to have become some sort of saintly entity among certain members of the Left. Actually, I, as a lifelong member of the Left, disown these individuals. The Left SHOULD stand for balance, for tolerance, and for EDUCATION. But I digress. On the subject of the PLO...

This kind and gentle outfit was evicted from Jordan by its government, for the atrocities of Black September, whereupon it moved to Lebanon. It was instrumental in getting Israel into the civil war there, by firing on farmers from Southern Lebanon, and was subsequently accused by Lebanese Christians and human rights groups of having killed up to 100,000 Lebanese Christians. Or maybe they don't count? The only massacres one seems to hear about on DU involved the poor Palestinians. Perhaps, the people in these camps were killed by the Christians out of straight up revenge - not pretty - but also not surprising.

You can find articles aplenty about the above issues by Googling, don't take my word for it. Wikipedia has a pretty good section on the Lebanese civil war, which seems to be fairly well balanced. I'm sure a touch of research on the Israeli wars wouldn't hurt either: the war of independence, the war of 1967 and the Yom Kippur War, in which the situation was so grim Golda Meir was advised to use the nukes but declined.

So yes, the idea of "hordes" does come to mind.

It must be said that great progress has been made recently, particularly since the death of Yasser Arafat. Egypt and Jordan, who are the technical owners of Gaza and the West Bank - are getting actively involved in the peace process. Other Arab nations have reached tacit understandings with Israel and there is every reason to suppose that, with good will and less crazies, peace will evolve.

Meanwhile, I am amazed by the lack of perspective and ANY kind of historical knowledge possessed by some of the posters on this thread. It's actually quite depressing. And there's a dimension of hatred to some of these posts that is seriously disturbing. I find it personally offensive and deeply painful. And I'm frightened that this is what the Democratic Party might be spawning: hatred, irresponsible yellow "journalism", and ignorance.

If people wonder why Israel says it needs nukes, or wants to beef up its borders with settlements and/or by a fence, I think we can see WHY simply by reading this thread.

Finally, we are left with the inescapable stench of hypocrisy. I note that y'all are living safely in the US of A, your bottoms planted firmly on former Native American land and defended by the mega weapons you disdain. You enjoy the freedom of speech, access to power so you can send your brilliant observations about other people to the four winds, people who are trying to survive and enjoy some of the same securities you take so for granted.

Some of the people living in Israel have blue tattoos on their arms, from the death camps in Europe. They have, in their lifetimes, never known a real peace. Have you, on this Easter Sunday, NO compassion for THEM?

....mumbo-jumbo....

She's more overrated than Derek Jeter.

It's not so innocuous as a "settlement." This is the mind-speak of the those who seek to control rational thought across the globe.

Once you get a few 'settlers' to move in, they'll have to be 'protected' from the 'violent hordes' who, for some 'unknown' reason, want to run them out of their 'God-given' land!!! :grr:

I suspect the statement from Rice is nothing more than window dressing and cover for the Bush Administration. If the U.S. Government were adamant with Israel about "no more expansion", there would be no more expansion.

I remember GW screaching from his perch as Texas Governor that President Clinton needed to twist the arms of the Saudis and get the price of oil down.

Yeah, sure. I suppose when Bush was appointed President, twisting the arms of the Saudis to lower the price of oil went the way of term limits.

JERUSALEM - Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) told his Cabinet on Sunday there is no need to clarify U.S. policy on Jewish settlements, saying Washington supports Israel's retention of West Bank blocs as part of a final Mideast agreement but opposes continued settlement building at this time.
....
"The Americans have always criticized settlement building efforts and they are doing it now. Whoever thinks you can get the Americans to say they are in favor of building in the settlements, you can't do this. They have been opposed to this since 1968."
...
While the United States reaffirmed its policy on the settlement blocs, it remains at odds with Israel over plans to build 3,500 new homes in Maaleh Adumim, the biggest Jewish settlement in the West Bank.

The project is especially contentious because it would link the settlement to eastern Jerusalem, separating Arab neighborhoods of the city from the rest of the West Bank. The Palestinians hope to make east Jerusalem the capital of their future state.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=4&u=/ap/20050327/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_sharon

anything for US policy?

Looks like Sharon is going to tell our Lady Macbeth where to put that head of hers! Despite Condi's speeches, which are meant for domestic US consumption, the fact remains that it is Israel and not Bush that are in the driver's seat.

Bush makes Sharon look like a sympathetic character!

Mon., March 28, 2005 Adar2 17, 5765

PM: Israel will retain settlement blocs

By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent

"We can't expect to receive explicit American agreement to build freely in the settlements," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said at Sunday's cabinet meeting. The large blocs of settlement in the West Bank "will remain in Israel's hands and will fall within the (separation) fence, and we made this position clear to the Americans. This is our position, even if they express reservations," he said.

The U.S. administration makes a distinction between his position that the blocs will remain in Israeli hands after the final status agreement, and the issues of continuing construction in the settlements at the present phase, Sharon said.

"The Americans always expressed criticism about construction in the settlements, and they have done so now, too. The publicity (about the plan to connect Ma'aleh Adumim to Jerusalem - A.B.) put them in a very difficult spot," he said.

Sharon's top adviser, attorney Dov Weisglass, will leave next week for Washington for preparatory talks before the meeting of President George Bush and Sharon, which will take place next month at the president's ranch in Texas.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/557472.html