The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Silliness on Settlements

Text Size

As Secretary of State Clinton, echoing President Obama, chides Israel for construction in what the New York Times calls "East Jerusalem" -- even though, as the photo caption next to the story correctly notes, the neighborhood in question is actually in southern Jerusalem -- Michael Weiss offers a nuanced and historically literate rebuttal to some widespread misconceptions:

Of all the problems bedeviling Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, the status of Jewish settlements in the West Bank -- thrown into the spotlight again this week by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to the United States -- has surely attracted the most attention. But that does not make it the most important or the most pressing issue.

Contrary to what many believe, Israelis are largely in agreement over the terms and circumstances under which they would compromise over the settlements -- a consensus that is surely larger than that which exists in Palestinian society over how to reconcile the feuding Islamist and secular nationalist factions in Gaza and the West Bank. While Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has used settlements as an excuse to disrupt the latest round of peace talks, the open secret in today's Middle East is that the issue is one of the least problematic obstacles to a final-status agreement.

Anyone interested in this issue should read the whole thing.

View all comments (4) | Leave a comment

Seamus| 11.11.10 @ 3:11PM

To claim that Har Homa isn't really in East Jerusalem because it's geographically in the southern part of the city is like saying that Bayreuth and Regensburg weren't in West Germany because a glance at the map shows that they were in southern Germany (and even to the east of parts of East Germany).

explosion proof light| 11.13.10 @ 12:40AM

Anything that reduces the deficit is okay

mzk1| 11.11.10 @ 4:46PM

What people miss is that Israel is currently under something close to a DE FACTO settlement freeze. And it's because of a different Barak - not Obama, but Labor defense minister Ehud Barak. If we make it official, then the goernment falls; if we don't do it unofficially, the government falls. So we do the opposite of the PA; we make believe we are hard-line, but we really aren't.

And this is all STUPID. None of the building would be outside of existing settlements, anyway. All we are doing is making people's lives miserable for no reason. Reminds me of cap-and-trade, actually.

mzk1| 11.11.10 @ 4:53PM

BTW, the U.S. Congress long ago declared that Jerusalem should be undivided, and that it is the capital of Israel. Yes, I know, they don't get to do foreign policy, but it is an important statement.

And from Israel's point of view, it is our capital, period. ALL OF IT. It is not a settlement. It was taken from us by the Jordanians in 1948 in an unprovoked war of extermination, and we got it back. In an agreeement (if you like fantasy), we might let the PA make a capital out of some of the Arab vliilages annexed on the east, but that's it. Please stop dreaming, and stop listen to the extreme left, it's ours, and you can't have it.