May I insert some logic here? If this were a sincere policy the Obama administration wanted to follow, they would've voted against Israel building in those areas very early in his first term. A vote like that in the last month of Obama's presidency does seem like a deliberate attempt to cause even more chaos in the Mideast.
(I'm in the minority on this issue for a freeper; don't agree that settlements should be built that infringe on Palestinean territory...just being logical about what Obama did)
(I'm in the minority on this issue for a freeper; don't agree that settlements should be built that infringe on Palestinean territory...just being logical about what Obama did) Why shouldn't Israel build out their settlements onto Palestinian territory. So-called Palestinian terrritory is occupied by the Israelis because the Palestinians attacked Israel in the Six-Day War an Israel counter-attacked, overrunning the area. Palestine is thus a "conquered province" subject to the tender mercies of the victor. Under international law, Israel would be within its rights to annex the territory and expel its inhabitants. There is another justification for the settlements that is less reliant upon the abstractions of international law. Under the Oslo Accords, the current negotiations between Israel and Palestine are predicated upon a "land for peace" proposition. However, despite Israel's willingness to give "land for peace", the Palestinians have not been forthcoming with peace. Is not "no peace, take land" the other side of the same coin?