HOW TO FORCE US GOVT TO ACCEPT ISRAHELLS COLONIAL EXPANSION IN OCCUPIED PALESTINE .Prof. Zaki Shalom: The United States and the Israeli Settlements: Time for a Change The American administration would refrain from voicing opposition to Israeli construction throughout Jerusalem.Such a formula for a document of understanding could be acceptable to both right and left wing Israeli governments. A largely similar document of understanding was in place between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. There is no reason for the current American administration not to adopt it as well.Conclusion  After more than four decades, it is evident that widespread opposition to the settlement enterprise on the part of the international community in general and the American administration in particular, and within large circles in Israel itself, has not succeeded in shutting it down. Many “ even among the most ardent opponents of the settlement project and even senior members of the Palestinian leadership – feel that the settlement project has created an irreversible territorial and demographic reality in the Middle East that affects a wide range of issues, especially prospects for the regional peace process.As a rule, the foreign policy of the United States combines an ideological, moral approach with a practical, pragmatic one. Historical experience shows that in many cases, when the United States understood its opposition to certain moves was pointless, it changed its policy and adapted it to the prevailing reality. The United States was vehemently opposed to moving Israeli government ministries and the Knesset to Jerusalem after the War of Independence. Eventually, it made its peace with the fact, if only partially. The United States was bitterly opposed to Israel developing a nuclear option, yet eventually arrived at understandings with Israel over this sensitive issue. For many years, the United States was opposed to recognizing China, but was fïnally forced to change its position in light of the prevailing reality.Should the administration come to recognize the limits of its power to affect the settlement enterprise in a significant manner, the necessary conclusion is that it would be in America’s national interests to arrive at understandings with Israel about the settlements on the basis of the outline described above. Continuing to embrace the routine formula opposing the settlements in a sweeping manner damages the status of the United States and its relations with Israel, and does not lead to an achievement that would serve the national interests of the United States.
[ed notes:the illegal occupation of occupied terriritories is in violation of many international laws,and us must oppose them at least superficially in public or look as if it is endorsing apartheid and colonialism(wich it is nonetheless).since us is forced by the zionist israhellis there and at home who run the show,they must offer lip service as colonial settlements grow and say they are against it,(they are unhelpfull)even as israhell continues the illegal activity..this puts us in a position of embarassment as whole world opposes it..so the professor is endorsing or saying us must finally adopt and not even pay lip service saying it opposes the illegal activity and openly tote the israhelli zionist line and acceptance of illegal activity of colonial land grabs,in other words promote colonialism in public and continue violating international laws..hes recommending us not look so hypocritical and just outrigth adopts a position wich like israhells shows no committments to international laws,and unashamedly continues to usurp and plunder a land that isnt theirs..us already supports this in practice,thru military aid,and foreign aid(illegal btw)but it does so by also stating that its against the colonial expansion..israhell does it and promotes it openly on the other hand.the professor wishes us finally adopt israhells two pronged approach with pride..so as not to look hypocritical while doing it,but look like an outrigth imperialist neocolonial entity who could care elss for human rights and international obligations,and laws..the change professor proposes isnt end to illegal settlements but rather the farcical opposition to settlements expansion the us uses in front of world community,while still funding and backing it..