They call this 'taking the offensive'
The JPost reports that the government is 'taking the offensive' against a court of world opinion that is equating Israel's 'road map obligations' to suspend expansion of Jewish cities and towns with the 'Palestinian' obligation to dismantle terrorist groups. Here's what the Israeli government calls 'taking the offensive':The official indicated that neither the fate of Har Homa, nor any of the other settlements, would be determined by the construction of another 300 units.And this is IN JERUSALEM! Pathetic, simply pathetic.
"If Har Homa will not be part of Israel, it doesn't matter if Har Homa is 5,000 units or 6,000 units - Har Homa will be dismantled," the official said.
It was clarified afterward that the official was not putting Har Homa on the negotiating table, but rather speaking in theoretical terms; that if the government decides to dismantle a settlement, it will do so, and an addition of a few hundred units would not tip the balance.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:57 PM
3 Comments:
I understand the point, however inarticulately made. Settlement construction will not "prejudice" final outcomes, but boy I agree that sure sounds bad.
I see this article also refers to Har Homa as a "settlement," despite its being part of Jerusalem, but doesn't say it is "in the West Bank." I'm still trying to get a fix on where this terminology is going and whether it's changing.
I have put up a post about the Washington Times terminology thing here:
http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2007/12/terminology-shift-jerusalem-now-part-of.html
Post a Comment
<< Home