Skip to main content

Many U.S. policies should change to help bring about peace in the Middle East.

But in some cases, existing U.S. policy just needs to be implemented.

Such is the case with respect to U.S. policy towards the expansion of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated:

"Settlement activity should stop - expansion should stop."

Unfortunately, the Israeli government does not appear to believe that Secretary of State Rice is serious. The Israeli government is moving forward with plans to build hundreds of new homes for Israeli settlers in the West Bank, in violation of international law and in violation of pledges that the Israeli government made at the peace conference in Annapolis.

Many Americans would like to change the perception that the U.S. is not serious about opposing Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank. Thousands of Americans have written to Congress urging action.

In response, Representatives Kucinich and Hinchey are circulating a Congressional letter to Secretary Rice, praising her for stating U.S. opposition but asking her to press that opposition more firmly. The letter will be sent on May 15; you can ask your Representative to sign it here.

The stated policy of the U.S. and its allies is to support Palestinian President Abbas and Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad, and to try to improve conditions for Palestinians to support prospects of a peace agreement. It's surely worth considering, then, what Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad said recently about settlement expansion:

Salam Fayyad, the western-backed Palestinian prime minister, warned separately yesterday that Israel must freeze all settlement activity and ease restrictions on movement in the West Bank if peace talks are to have any chance of succeeding. Fayyad also called on Israel to alleviate the "catastrophic" crisis in Gaza.

"Unfortunately, in the five months since Annapolis, Israel has done little, most significantly with its continued noncompliance with the obligation to freeze all settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territories," Fayyad said. "The language is very clear: it says 'not one more brick,' and we have witnessed expanded settlement activity."

If that did not change quickly the peace process would be "devoid of any meaningful content," Fayyad added.

Here is the text of the Kucinich-Hinchey letter:

We wish to applaud your recent statement, following your meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, that "[s]ettlement activity should stop--expansion should stop." We commend this sensible approach and urge the Administration to stand firm on this policy.

As you know, construction of more settlements will undermine a two-state solution. A peaceful resolution to conflict can only be achieved with the support and trust of both Israelis and Palestinians.
For that reason, the Administration's peace initiative should include an effective diplomatic response to the Israeli government's March 31, 2008 announcement regarding plans to build hundreds of new settlements on occupied land in the West Bank. We urge you to use your influence to ensure that the commitment to a "settlement freeze" made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at the Annapolis peace conference is fulfilled.

In addition to undermining the peace process, settlement expansion contravenes international law.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which states, that "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Your continued emphasis on halting settlement activity is critical to ongoing peace negotiations.

We look forward to your continued commitment to this important issue.

You can ask your Representative to sign the Kucinich-Hinchey letter here.

Originally posted to Robert Naiman on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:09 PM PDT.


The United States should press its opposition to Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank more firmly.

86%39 votes
13%6 votes

| 45 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  When you have (6+ / 0-)

    Kucinich and Rice agreeing on something, is it possible that they may just be right?

    "There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America." - Otto Prince Bismarck

    by MBNYC on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:26:46 PM PDT

  •  We should show Kucinich and Hinchey some support (0+ / 0-)

    for taking this position. I'm sure they will get enough angry letters telling them they are condoning terrorism or other such nonsense.

    The settlement freeze is a no-brainer, and should be totally uncontroversial to all but the most hare-brained zealots.

    Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. -Barack Obama

    by klizard on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:56:51 PM PDT

  •  Now *there's* high on the relevancy scale (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm sure few opinions matter more to Rice than Kucinich's.

    If Venus is made of ketchup and lions play pinochle, why doesn't the framistan frizzmaz the flomaton?

    by zemblan on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:59:28 PM PDT

  •  Two problems with the letter, which I support (5+ / 0-)

    so far as it goes. First, the Israeli government has not announced "plans to build hundreds of new settlements." Rather, it announced plans for additional housing units.

    Second, without making it a condition for implementing a settlement freeze, a letter addressing obstacles to progress towards a two-state peace settlement, which the Kucinich-Hinchey letter purports to be, ought also to call on the Palestinian side(s) to halt all attacks on Israel and Israelis, which they should do anyway, without conditioning an end to terrorism on a settlement freeze.

  •  For all the talk of.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ..."new settlement activity" Israel has effectively put an end to the "Greater Israel" endeavor.

    There are basically 2 issues.  One is the cropping up of unauthorized outposts. These are not condoned by the Israeli government. They are sometimes swiftly removed, at other times not.  But in terms of final borders, you can bet that if Israel needed to evacuate these areas, it could do so.  See:  Gaza Disengagement.

    Second is the fact that, in some already established Israeli areas outside the 1949 armistice, Israel has allowed the construction of new housing.  If you are someone who mistakenly insists that Israel is required to withdraw to the armistice lines and that the Arabs get a "do over" for 1967, then yeah, this is a problem for you.  On the other hand, if you recognize that, when one side wages war and loses, they can't expect to recoup all their loses, this really isn't a problem.  This does not entail seizing additional land, and, as far as I'm concerned, belong to Israel.

    There are a few key flashpoints that have to be watched.  The "E1" expansion of Maale Adumim to Jerusalem is the one real sticking point of negotiations.  But otherwise, it really is not a problem.

    So shame on Kucinich and Hinchey for trying to place the focus on what is, at worst, a molehill.  Palestinian/Arab rejectionism and terrorism is the root of the problem, not Israeli community building.

  •  Thanks for the diary, RN! n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Reel Bad Arabs: a crash course on Orientalism

    by Rusty Pipes on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:14:28 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site