Monday, February 19th | 4 Adar 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

December 11, 2014 11:53 am

Obama Administration Says U.S. Position on ‘Settlements’ Won’t Change With Different President

avatar by News Editor

Email a copy of "Obama Administration Says U.S. Position on ‘Settlements’ Won’t Change With Different President" to a friend

Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon. Credit: Reuven Kapuscinski.

Arutz Sheva – The United States on Wednesday responded to Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon’s statement that a building freeze in Judea and Samaria was due to pressure from the Obama administration.

Speaking to reporters in Washington, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that objection to “settlements” was longstanding and would not change after President Barack Obama leaves office in 2017.

Read full story.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • charlie johnson

    When this golfer tells you something about the future don’t mark it down. Later he calls it rehtorick or something like that. That means you wasted your ink.

  • shloime

    it’s sad to see the american administration splitting hairs.

    no previous american, or plo, president ever demanded a construction freeze in jewish settlements as a precondition to peace talks before obama. the irony is, that it was obama’s freeze that provided the incentive for abbas to stay away from the peace talks altogether. all his baloney to the contrary, it was obama’s support for the palestinians that derailed the negotiations.

    but at least the next american president, either republican or democrat, is unlikely to embrace the moslem brotherhood as enthusiastically as barack hussein obama has.

  • With status akin to a multilateral treaty, the 1922 Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations is all about Western Palestine (i.e. the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea) as “national home for the Jewish People.” Still with some legal effects today, the 1922 Palestine Mandate specifically calls for “close settlement by Jews on the land,” everywhere from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

    In December 1924, the complete text of the Palestine Mandate was literally incorporated into the Anglo-American Treaty, wherein the USA government officially “consents” to all the terms and stipulations of the Palestine Mandate. Duly ratified by the USA Senate, the Anglo-American Treaty has the force of law under the USA Constitution. For this reason, the USA government is probably now estopped from today arguing that there is some “illegitimacy” or “illegality” to Jewish settlement between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea (Western Palestine).

    Apart from the Jewish People’s 20th-century treaty rights to all of Western Palestine, there is also the matter of the Jewish People’s earlier and continuing aboriginal rights to its larger ancestral homeland which extended far to the north, and also eastward across the Jordan River.

    Consistent with the normal minimum content of aboriginal rights, Jews have always claimed, inter alia, the right to visit and/or dwell in their ancestral homeland. And, they have regularly done so for more than two thousand years. Across the centuries, some then self-identified “Jews” always lived in their homeland; and some other Jews, whether from the Mideast or abroad, persistently perceived a duty and desire to join them there.

    For close to two millennia, first Christianity and then also Islam — as kindred Abrahamic faiths — generally understood the broader context in which the Jewish People had a special connection to the land of its birth. Thus, minority status there did not in itself cancel these key settlement rights of the Jewish People.

    A thousand years ago or today, then self-identified “Jews,” returning to join other Jews in “Eretz Israel,” are not like the 17th-century Pilgrim Fathers who built English “settlements” in America, where they had neither ancestors nor native kin. Nor is the Jewish People in its own aboriginal homeland to be compared with the Dutch Boers in South Africa or the French colons in Algeria.

    Right of settlement in “Eretz Israel” is the key aboriginal right of the Jewish People. With respect to this fundamental right of settlement, the USA government and also all the States formerly members of the League of Nations are probably now legally estopped from today arguing that there is “illegitimacy” or “illegality” to Jews settling anywhere west of the Jordan River.

  • snag


    Next administration will continue to turn it’s blind eye and make sure that US tax-deductible donations keep finding their way to settlements or funds supporting this land grab and dispossession.

    We need a military putsch or something to get rid of foreign interest peddlers that corrupt this system and start all over again.

    • Reply to snag:

      For at least a decade, public-opinion polling consistently shows that 60-65% of Americans support Israel. Nor is there any convincing empirical evidence showing that Israel’s support among the American people is declining. For this reason, it is understandable that both Parties in this outgoing “lame duck” Congress support Israel. Such bipartisan support for Israel is likely to be even higher in the incoming Congress which takes it seat in mid-January 2015.

      Why do Americans support Israel? Snag, I doubt whether you are correct in referring to “foreign interest peddlers that corrupt this system.” Rather I think that strong USA popular support for Israel has to do with the circumstance that circa 70% of Americans consider themselves to be Christian and thus have (to a greater or lesser extent) something of a biblical viewpoint that definitely includes the connection of the Jewish People to the Holy Land.

      Snag, I find it particularly interesting that to end pro-Israel policies you favor some sort of “putsch” in Washington. This might perhaps also be the wishful thinking of your left-liberal leader Barack Obama who is much more of a “populist” than a “constitutionalist.” He would probably love to stay in office beyond January 2017 to run the USA in the same way that Hugo Chavez ran Venezuela — “in to the ground,” I might add. It is also especially instructive to learn that you, Snag, who oppose Israel also oppose American constitutional democracy. For sure, we know our enemies with respect to Israel and also those opponents who are trying to destroy constitutional democracy in the West.

      • charlie johnson

        Mister Hertz is right on frequency.He is right that Christians have better views of the Jews of Israel because we find a kinship to the folks who gave us the Ten Commandments that the politicians prefer to not have on view on government controlled property. They are a law in and of themselves and find favor with the terrorist rulebook of lording it over the infidels.