MJ Rosenberg
The diplomatic crisis over Israeli settlements is going into its second week and there is no sign that either side is backing down. It started when the Israeli government announced that it would expand settlements in East Jerusalem while Vice President Joseph Biden was visiting Israel.The initial reason for the blow-up was the administration's anger that the Israeli government announced the construction of 1,600 new settlement units in East Jerusalem while Vice President Biden was in Israel. This was a slap in Biden's face because the United States has always opposed settlements and, like the rest of the world, does not recognize Arab East Jerusalem as part of Israel. The United States has consistently stated that the final status of East Jerusalem, like the West Bank and Gaza, must be resolved in negotiations and not resolved unilaterally by Israelis or Palestinians.
Read more-The Huffington Post
"... in December 2002, the Bush administration reversed U.S. policy on Jerusalem. At least in principle, the United States had previously gone along with the 1968 Security Council Resolution ordering Israel to revoke its annexation andd occupation and settlement policies in East Jerusalem. But the Bush administration reversed that policy."
ReplyDelete(Noam Chomsky, 'Imperial Ambitions', in interview with David Barsamian)
" At least in principle...." But not in fact!
ReplyDeleteWasn't James Baker under Bush the Elder, the last to push back?
<span>Off topic, but I could not resist this post from the angryarab. There is the usual asinine comment when some hapless Westerner has the nerve to write about the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteNote that the author of the article never claims the West is a perfect model of gender equality, but the professor goes ahead with the whinge, anyway!
In order to soothe the professor's tender sensibilities, all Western writers should, no matter the topic, scatter periodic disclaimers throughout their articles when writing about the Middle East. Let's say the topic is about the poor condition of roads in country X , the writer can spend a few lines explaining that he/she in no way wants to convey the impression that roads in the U.S. are any better. After an appropriate amount of groveling and veering off-topic to denigrate the White Man's efforts at road building, the writer can then return to his/her original focus.
What a big baby.
<span></span> The West: paradise of gender equality "<span>Despite the advances of women in places such as Iran, she argues that such countries are not nearly as advanced as they could be if women's opportunities were equal to men's." Yes, unlike in the West where women's opportunities are equal to men. Oh, yeah.</span> <span> Posted by <span>As'ad</span> </span><span> at 10:16 PM</span>
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2010/06/west-paradise-of-gender-equality.html</span>