Argument: General statements against Israeli settlements

Issue Report: Israeli settlements


UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s spokeswoman Michel Montas: “The secretary-general calls on the government of Israel to halt settlement expansion and reiterates that the fulfillment of Road Map obligations by both parties is an important measure underpinning the political process between them.”[1]

Secretary Colin Powell, September 21, 2003: “Settlement activity must stop. And it has not stopped to our satisfaction.”[2]

Daniel Kurtzer, U.S. Ambassador to Israel”. Ha’aretz. May 29, 2002: “Our opposition to the settlements is political. Washington feels that Israel would be better protected and more accepted inside borders where there are no settlements, so a decision on their future must be accepted on the basis of their feasibility. It is a fact that we have opposed the settlements for decades and you continue to build them and we have done nothing untoward to you [in response]. If Israel wants, it can even expand to the borders promised in the Bible. The question is whether it is able to do so from a security and political standpoint.”[3]

President Bush’s Rose Garden Address. April 4, 2002: “Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338.”[4]

The Mitchell Report – April 30, 2001: “‘During the half-century of its existence, Israel has had the strong support of the United States. In international forums, the United States has at times cast the only vote on Israel’s behalf. Yet, even in such a close relationship there are some difficulties. Prominent among those differences is the U.S. government’s long-standing opposition to the Government of Israel’s policies and practices regarding settlements.” ….. ‘the GOI should freeze all settlement activity, including the ‘natural growth’ of existing settlements. The kind of security cooperation desired by the GOI cannot for long co-exist with settlement activity described very recently by the European Union as causing ‘great concern’ and by the United States as ‘provocative.'”[5]

The Johnson Administration: Airgram from the Department of State to the Embassy in Israel,” in Smith, Louis J. (Ed.). Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-1968, V. 20, Arab-Israeli Dispute 1967-1968. DC: 2001: “Although we have expressed our views to the Foreign Ministry and are confident there can be little doubt among GOI leaders as to our continuing opposition to any Israeli settlements in the occupied areas, we believe it would be timely and useful for the Embassy to restate in strongest terms the US position on this question.”[6]