I mean maybe I shouldn't pick on them because Blinken is factually correct on this:
“New settlements are counterproductive to reaching an enduring peace,” Blinken says during a news conference in Buenos Aires.
“They’re also inconsistent with international law. Our administration maintains a firm opposition to settlement expansion. In our judgement this only weakens, it doesn’t strengthen, Israel’s security.”
Compared to their submission to the ICJ earlier this week:
"The court should not find that Israel is legally obligated to immediately and unconditionally withdraw from occupied territory," said Richard Visek, legal advisor at the US State Department.
"Any movement towards Israel withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza requires consideration of Israel's very real security needs," he argued.
"We were all reminded of those security needs on October 7," he said, referring to the Hamas attacks that sparked the current conflict.
I guess the number of Israeli settlements in the West Bank is in the Goldilocks Zone for maximum security. Any more - weakens Israeli security. Any reduction - weakens Israeli security.
Or maybe the US is full of shit and they are just making noises to not look like they are as contemptuous of international law as Israel is - but in fact are 100% cool with more settlements in the West Bank.
No comments:
Post a Comment