![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
borislvinhttps://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=488730418402447
А вот и текст появился:
Turning now to Israel, the Trump administration is reversing the Obama administration’s approach towards Israeli settlements.
U.S. public statements on settlement activities in the West Bank have been inconsistent over decades. In 1978, the Carter administration categorically concluded that Israel’s establishment of civilian settlements was inconsistent with international law. However, in 1981, President Reagan disagreed with that conclusion and stated that he didn’t believe that the settlements were inherently illegal.
Subsequent administrations recognized that unrestrained settlement activity could be an obstacle to peace, but they wisely and prudently recognized that dwelling on legal positions didn’t advance peace. However, in December 2016, at the very end of the previous administration, Secretary Kerry changed decades of this careful, bipartisan approach by publicly reaffirming the supposed illegality of settlements.
After carefully studying all sides of the legal debate, this administration agrees with President Reagan. The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.
I want to emphasize several important considerations.
First, look, we recognize that – as Israeli courts have – the legal conclusions relating to individual settlements must depend on an assessment of specific facts and circumstances on the ground. Therefore, the United States Government is expressing no view on the legal status of any individual settlement.
The Israeli legal system affords an opportunity to challenge settlement activity and assess humanitarian considerations connected to it. Israeli courts have confirmed the legality of certain settlement activities and has concluded that others cannot be legally sustained.
Second, we are not addressing or prejudging the ultimate status of the West Bank. This is for the Israelis and the Palestinians to negotiate. International law does not compel a particular outcome, nor create any legal obstacle to a negotiated resolution.
Third, the conclusion that we will no longer recognize Israeli settlements as per se inconsistent with international law is based on the unique facts, history, and circumstances presented by the establishment of civilian settlements in the West Bank. Our decision today does not prejudice or decide legal conclusions regarding situations in any other parts of the world.
And finally – finally – calling the establishment of civilian settlements inconsistent with international law hasn’t worked. It hasn’t advanced the cause of peace.
The hard truth is there will never be a judicial resolution to the conflict, and arguments about who is right and wrong as a matter of international law will not bring peace. This is a complex political problem that can only be solved by negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
The United States remains deeply committed to helping facilitate peace, and I will do everything I can to help this cause. The United States encourages the Israelis and the Palestinians to resolve the status of Israeli settlements in the West Bank in any final status negotiations.
And further, we encourage both sides to find a solution that promotes, protects the security and welfare of Palestinians and Israelis alike.
https://www.state.gov/secretary-michael-r-pompeo-remarks-to-the-press
А вот и текст появился:
Turning now to Israel, the Trump administration is reversing the Obama administration’s approach towards Israeli settlements.
U.S. public statements on settlement activities in the West Bank have been inconsistent over decades. In 1978, the Carter administration categorically concluded that Israel’s establishment of civilian settlements was inconsistent with international law. However, in 1981, President Reagan disagreed with that conclusion and stated that he didn’t believe that the settlements were inherently illegal.
Subsequent administrations recognized that unrestrained settlement activity could be an obstacle to peace, but they wisely and prudently recognized that dwelling on legal positions didn’t advance peace. However, in December 2016, at the very end of the previous administration, Secretary Kerry changed decades of this careful, bipartisan approach by publicly reaffirming the supposed illegality of settlements.
After carefully studying all sides of the legal debate, this administration agrees with President Reagan. The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.
I want to emphasize several important considerations.
First, look, we recognize that – as Israeli courts have – the legal conclusions relating to individual settlements must depend on an assessment of specific facts and circumstances on the ground. Therefore, the United States Government is expressing no view on the legal status of any individual settlement.
The Israeli legal system affords an opportunity to challenge settlement activity and assess humanitarian considerations connected to it. Israeli courts have confirmed the legality of certain settlement activities and has concluded that others cannot be legally sustained.
Second, we are not addressing or prejudging the ultimate status of the West Bank. This is for the Israelis and the Palestinians to negotiate. International law does not compel a particular outcome, nor create any legal obstacle to a negotiated resolution.
Third, the conclusion that we will no longer recognize Israeli settlements as per se inconsistent with international law is based on the unique facts, history, and circumstances presented by the establishment of civilian settlements in the West Bank. Our decision today does not prejudice or decide legal conclusions regarding situations in any other parts of the world.
And finally – finally – calling the establishment of civilian settlements inconsistent with international law hasn’t worked. It hasn’t advanced the cause of peace.
The hard truth is there will never be a judicial resolution to the conflict, and arguments about who is right and wrong as a matter of international law will not bring peace. This is a complex political problem that can only be solved by negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
The United States remains deeply committed to helping facilitate peace, and I will do everything I can to help this cause. The United States encourages the Israelis and the Palestinians to resolve the status of Israeli settlements in the West Bank in any final status negotiations.
And further, we encourage both sides to find a solution that promotes, protects the security and welfare of Palestinians and Israelis alike.
https://www.state.gov/secretary-michael-r-pompeo-remarks-to-the-press
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2019-11-19 12:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-11-19 01:19 am (UTC)Там вообще пляска ненависти, так как проще запащивать картинки и прочую полиграфику.
Вопрос, однако, не в тех, кто там беснуется. С ними все ясно, их электоральное поведение было предопределено заранее. Но вот насколько широк круг избирателей, которых такое решение подвигнет к размышлениям?
no subject
Date: 2019-11-19 04:31 am (UTC)По второму вопросу тяжело сказать. Мне иногда кажется что поляризация достигла такого градуса, что объяви завтра Трамп что нашёл способ лечить детский рак, так его всё равно будут ненавидеть. Уж найдут повод за что.
Думаю что в этом конкретном случае американские светские евреи останутся при своём мнении, т.к. они и так дистанцируются от Израиля и поселения в Иудее и Самрии считают оккупацией и геноцидом. Так что решение Администрации только утвердит их в борьбе против Тампенфюрера.
no subject
Date: 2019-11-19 05:54 am (UTC)Вспомнилась цитата кого-то из Израиля:
"
Судя по всему, отступление будет продолженно с любым премьером (личность определит лишь скорость исполнения приказа) до тех пор, пока большинство населения страны не осознает сформулированный Д. Конторером в Хевроне принцип: "Легитимность сдачи поселенцев для умиротворения арабов в глазах обывателя с побережья ничем не отличается от легитимности сдачи всего Израиля для успокоения мусульман в глазах рядового француза".
"
А если прокатит "сдачa всего Израиля", то и за американских левых левреев возьмутся всерьёз - зачем останавливаться на достигнутом.
no subject
Date: 2019-11-20 01:20 am (UTC)Что касается настроения избирателей, то, вряд ли, что-то изменится. ORANGE MAN BAD.
no subject
Date: 2019-11-20 02:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-11-20 02:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-11-20 08:59 am (UTC)евреи могут повлиять на результат разве что во Флориде, но её Трампу выиграть необходимо но недостаточно.
no subject
Date: 2019-11-19 02:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-11-19 04:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-11-19 03:26 am (UTC)Pompous pompeo... If you don't have the cojones to stand up for State Department employees, what makes you think the citizens of Kansas would think you would stand up for them as Senator from Kansas and not lie to them either?
Т.е. главная задача US Secretary of State это "to stand up for State Department employees" !
А вообще понятно, что туда комментировать восновном идиоты ходят, нормальному человеку это незачем.
В статье на MSN
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pompeo-announces-reversal-of-longstanding-us-policy-on-israeli-settlements/ar-BBWXg35?ocid=spartanntp
внизу Microsoft poll, сейчас 7,404 ответов:
Do you agree or disagree with the decision to reverse US policy toward Israeli settlements in the West Bank?
28% Strongly agree
6% Somewhat agree
7% Somewhat disagree
52% Strongly disagree
не так плохо для левого СМИ
no subject
Date: 2019-11-19 04:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-11-19 05:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-11-19 04:48 am (UTC)Ведь если бы их спросили - мол, считают ли они правильной политику Обамы по отношению к поселениям, - то они, очевидно, сказали бы, что очень даже считают.
Но новая политика, объявленная Помпео - это и есть возвращение к политике Обамы, которую Обама проводил все восемь лет своего президентства за исключением самого последнего месяца. Это была политика Рейгана, Буша, Клинтона, еще одного Буша и, наконец, Обамы - до тех пор, когда Обама, уходя, не решил погромче хлопнуть дверью.
no subject
Date: 2019-11-19 05:45 am (UTC)Pompeo tried to suggest that the Trump White House was simply echoing an earlier stand by Reagan, saying, "This administration agrees with President Reagan." But the Trump administration is going significantly farther.
Since President Jimmy Carter, no president has described Israeli settlements as "illegal," preferring to refer to them as "obstacles to peace" or "illegitimate," but no president, including Reagan, reversed the 1978 State Department finding.
(но эти то "Strongly disagree" конечно восновном имеют в виду "Orange man и его свора и Israel are bad")
no subject
Date: 2019-11-19 02:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-11-19 06:37 am (UTC)Timing выбран конечно случайно. Именно когда Ганз пытается сформировать правительство
no subject
Date: 2019-11-19 08:16 am (UTC)Ганц пытается сформировать правительство уже несколько недель как.
Я почти уверен, что решение Трампа, озвученное Помпео, имеет прежде всего внутриполитический смысл.
no subject
Date: 2019-11-19 07:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-11-19 10:14 am (UTC)Пока они получают внешнее финансирование, и пока без такого отказа им не угрожает ухудшение их положения и перспектив.
no subject
Date: 2019-11-19 11:31 am (UTC)Они сами уже давно понимают, что если палестинское государство будет создано в желаемых границах, власть они там всё равно не удержат. Поэтому Аббас никогда не согласится на создание палестинского государства.
Любое палестинское руководство, получающее основную часть средств в качестве международной помощи будет продолжать действовать аналогично.
Трамп уже сделал шаг, который мог бы подтолкнуть ситуацию к выходу из текущего тупика - перекрыл финансирование, но при наличии других желающих заплатить палестинцам это не имеет особого значения. Сами-то доноры считают себя "ответственными политиками, которые предотвращают кризис, способный привести к непредсказуемым последствиям", но по факту они удерживают ситуацию в очень неприятном тупике.