Should Israel continue expanding settlements in the West Bank? | The Tylt
Despite a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli construction of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Israel says it will go forward with new settlements in disputed territories. The resolution calls the settlements a "flagrant violation under international law" and an obstacle to peace, but pro-settlement Israelis argue the settlements are not only legal, but historically justified and necessary for Israel's security. What do you think?
Should Israel continue expanding settlements in the West Bank?
Many people argue you can be pro-Israel and still against the expansion of settlements in disputed territory, on the grounds that they are not good for Israel's future. Though the Israeli government is furious that the United States did not veto the Security Council resolution, the U.S. has expressed antipathy towards the settlements for many years. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo writes...
The US could have vetoed the resolution but chose not to. This was a clear and deliberate policy decision. What is also clear is that the merest suggestion that the US might not issue a veto was sufficient to get the other members scurrying to come up with something that might pass muster. This is the larger and real point. More or less the entire world—or virtually all the governments of the world—oppose the settlement project.
Others, including House Speaker Paul Ryan and President-elect Donald Trump, say the U.S. needs to be more supportive of Israel, and strongly oppose any Security Council resolution on settlements.
After allowing this anti-Israel resolution to pass the UN, Secretary Kerry has no credibility to speak on Israeli-Palestinian peace.— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) December 28, 2016
Conservative writer Ben Shapiro (along with many others) argues the settlements are perfectly legal.
New York Times writer Nick Kristof opposes the settlements on the grounds that they make a two-state solution and eventual peace impossible.
Obama was right to let the UN resolution pass: Bibi's settlements destroy a two-state solution, and antagonize former supporters of Israel.— Nicholas Kristof (@NickKristof) December 24, 2016
Many see the United State's rebuke of Israel by allowing UN Security Council condemnation as justified and necessary.
But many believe the recent Security Council resolution and opposition to the settlements are simply anti-Semitic, and argue that Israelis have historical claim on the disputed territories. As one commenter noted:
"Fortunately the next US administration understands that Israel should be able to build in the capital city of its ancient homeland. The ultimate chutzpah is that of all 15 countries on the security council only China existed since Jerusalem was the capital city of the Jews, more than 3000 years ago. The idea that they can ask Israel not to build homes for its citizens in its capital city is laughable."