Obama has called settlements "illegitimate." And he has said that Israel "has obligations under the road map," while referring disparagingly to "settlements that, in past agreements, have been categorized as illegal." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Obama's Middle East envoy George Mitchell have repeatedly uttered similar statements. By characterizing its demand that Israel prohibit Jews from building homes in Israel's capital city and its heartland as a legal requirement, the Obama administration portrays Israel as an international outlaw. After all, if building homes for Jews is a crime, and Israel is not prohibiting Jews from building homes, then Israel is at best guilty of enabling a crime to take place, and at worst, it is a criminal state. It makes good political sense for the Obama administration to make its case against Israel in this fashion. According to a survey of US public opinion published in early 2006 by the Boston Review, whereas only 7 percent of Democrats support going to war to spread democracy - versus 53% of Republicans; 71% of Democrats - versus 36% of Republicans - support going to war to help the United Nations "uphold international law." What this poll shows is that for Obama supporters, the idea that Israel should be treated poorly because it is in breach of international law resonates deeply. The problem with the Obama administration's characterization of a ban on Jewish building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as an Israeli legal obligation is that Israel has never taken upon itself a legal obligation to prohibit such building activities. Israel has never signed an agreement that has characterized any Jewish communities as "illegal." Moreover, both former prime minister Ariel Sharon's chief of staff Dov Weisglass and former president George W. Bush's deputy national security adviser for the Middle East Elliot Abrams have gone on record stating that Sharon's much vaunted decision to curtail Jewish building in Judea and Samaria (never Jerusalem), in line with the road map negotiating framework, was based on a series of explicit understandings with the Bush administration that spelled out the scope of Jewish building that Israel would maintain for the duration of the peace process. As Abrams wrote on Thursday in The Wall Street Journal, "Not only were there agreements, but the prime minister of Israel relied on them..." Then, too, since the road map was approved as a mere cabinet decision - as opposed to an international agreement - the Netanyahu government has no legal obligation to actively advance it. Indeed, if it wishes, it can abrogate Israel's acceptance of the document at any time simply by calling for another vote. More importantly perhaps from the Obama administration's perspective is that the road map itself lacks the force of international law. Although it was adopted by the Security Council, it was not adopted as an internationally binding document under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Consequently, Israel has no international legal obligation to end Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria or Jerusalem. Like the US, Israel is a signatory to the 1976 International Convention for Civil and Political Rights, which among other things prohibits all forms of discrimination against people on the basis of religion and nationality. Consequently, Israel is barred from discriminating specifically against Jews who wish to build homes on legally controlled lands in Judea and Samaria. As a binding treaty, this convention takes precedence over the nonbinding road map. Indeed, given the road map's prejudicial position on Jewish building it can be reasonably argued that the road map itself calls for a breach of international law.

Finally, there is always the claim made by Israel's critics that Jewish communities located beyond the 1949 armistice lines are illegal by dint of the Fourth Geneva Convention from 1949. That convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring parts of its population to occupied territory. Legal authorities have long disputed whether this convention is applicable to Judea and Samaria, but even if it is applicable, according to Prof. Avi Bell from Bar-Ilan University Law School, it "only proscribes state actions." Bell explains, "The Fourth Geneva Convention does not purport to limit in any way what individual Jews may or may not do on their legally held property or where they may or may not choose to live." WHEREAS UPON examination it is clear that the Obama administration is wrong in insinuating that Israel is in breach of its international legal commitments through its refusal to bar Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, the Obama administration's own policy toward the Palestinians places it in clear breach of both binding international law and domestic US law. On September 28, 2001, the UN Security Council passed binding Resolution 1373. Resolution 1373, which was initiated by the US government, and was passed by authority of Chapter VII, committed all UN member states to "refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts." Resolution 1373 further required UN member states to "deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts or provide safe haven" to those that do. In 1995, the US State Department acknowledged that Hamas fits the legal definition of a terrorist organization. Today, due to its policies toward Hamas, the Obama administration is in breach of both Resolution 1373 - that is, of international law - and of US domestic law barring the provision of support and financing to foreign terrorist organizations. According to an internal State Department document cited Wednesday by the Atlas Shrugs Web site, the US has already transferred or is in the process of allocating $300 million dollars to Gaza through USAID and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Since Hamas controls "humanitarian" organizations in Gaza, and Hamas has openly and repeatedly stolen "humanitarian aid," there is little doubt the transfer of funds to Gaza constitutes indirect assistance to Hamas and is therefore prohibited by Resolution 1373 as well as by US statute. The Obama administration is further in breach of international and domestic US law due to its attempts to coerce Israel into opening international passages between Israel and Gaza to enable trade and commerce with Hamas-controlled Gaza and to end or curtail travel restrictions for people between Gaza and Israel. Resolution 1373 stipulates that all states must "prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls." Given the fact that the Gaza side of the border is controlled by a terrorist organization, any significant relaxation of Israeli border controls puts Israel at risk of facilitating the movement of terrorists and permitting direct and indirect support to terrorists. So too, Resolution 1373 requires all states to "ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetuation of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice." Yet rather than calling on Israel to arrest all persons working with Hamas and operating in its territory, the US itself pledged $900m. to rebuilding Gaza. Moreover, it is demanding that Israel allow the importation of dual use materials such as cement into Gaza which will enable Hamas to rebuild its infrastructures that were destroyed during Operation Cast Lead. It is also attempting to coerce Israel into transferring cash to Hamas-controlled banks in Gaza.

Then, too, as Dan Diker reported in a study published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, US-supported Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayad recently acknowledged that the US-financed PA continues to pay the salaries of Hamas terrorists. Multiple news reports in recent days have indicated that the Obama administration is working to facilitate the establishment of a Palestinian government that will include Hamas. US efforts to legitimize the incorporation of a terrorist group in a Palestinian government are a severe violation of US and international law. This is the case since it would clearly involve aiding a designated terrorist organization and helping to provide it with a safe haven. Hamas is not the only terrorist organization to which the Obama administration is providing assistance - again, in apparent breach of international and US law. The administration is also aiding Hizbullah. Ahead of his June 4 address in Cairo, Obama met with members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood at the White House. He also invited members of the Muslim Brotherhood to be present at his speech at Cairo University. Shortly before the White House meeting, Egyptian legal authorities alleged that the Muslim Brotherhood provided material support to Hizbullah terrorists in Egypt. These Hizbullah operatives - and their Muslim Brotherhood partners - were allegedly engaged in a plot to commit massive terrorist attacks in Egypt whose goal was the illegal overthrow of the government. That is, the Muslim Brotherhood was allegedly involved in a terrorist conspiracy led by Hizbullah - a designated foreign terrorist organization. Furthermore, the plot was apparently hatched by Iran - which the US State Department has designated as state sponsor of terrorism. By meeting with representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood suspected of providing material support to a designated terrorist organization, Obama was arguably illegally providing indirect assistance to Hizbullah - again in breach of Resolution 1373 and US law. Then there is the US's direct assistance to the Lebanese military. During the 2006 war between Israel and Hizbullah, the Lebanese military provided direct assistance to Hizbullah operatives in carrying out their illegal war against Israel. Since then, expanding Hizbullah influence over the Lebanese military has been copiously documented. Consequently, by providing direct US military assistance - including weapons - to the Lebanese military, the US government is arguably in breach of Resolution 1373 and US law. GOING BACK for a moment to the Palestinians, Hamas of course is not the only terrorist organization that is materially assisted by the Obama administration's policies. As Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook wrote in The Jerusalem Post last month, the US is financing the construction of a Palestinian computer center named for arch Fatah terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who led the 1978 bus bombing on Israel's coastal highway in which 37 civilians, including 12 children and US citizen Gail Rubin, were murdered. As Marcus and Crook note, the 2008 US Foreign Operations Bill bars US assistance to the Palestinians from being used "for the purpose of recognizing or otherwise honoring individuals who commit or have committed acts of terrorism." Obama, the former law professor, never tires of invoking international law. And yet, when one considers his policies toward Israel on the one hand, and his policies toward illegal terrorist organizations on the other, it is clear that Obama's respect for international law is mere rhetoric. True champions of law in both Israel and the US should demand an end to his administration's contempt for the US's actual - rather than imaginary - legal obligations.

Syria BUTCHERS their civilians. Iran is building Nuclear Weapons, calls for Israel's genocide and threatens the world with using these Nuclear weapons, but EU are "profoundly disappointed" by Israel building a few buildings in its capital. EU proves again why they are irrelevant and why Israel should DISREGARD their racist remarks. Their OBSESSION with demonizing Israel while ignoring the atrocities of the Muslims, and the Palestinian terror, is the main reason why EU is NOT a relevant party to whatever happens in the Middle East.

"All settlement activities are illegal under international law"? Really? Which international law do you mean? You know nothing about the law, you were and are an soviet useful idiot.

Well the the Americans and EU were quick to act when Iraq illegally occupied Kuwait, so why no action when Israel illegally occupies the West Bank and E.Jerusalem. As for the illegal settlements in occupied territory, well they violate article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention. That's a clear violation of International Law, and warrants action by the Security Council, but all we get from the EU and Americans are words of appeasement, like regrettable and not helpful - the world is sick of their immoral sycophancy and hypocrisy.

i'm reluctant to call them palestinians because they are all actually either jordanian or syrian and perhaps lebanese. one day israel will have a government that will deport them all to those countries where they can live in peace and harmony (ha!) with their arab brothers inshallah!. they have already stolen 78% of the land earmarked in 1922 by the league of nations for the jewish homeland.

Was it a palestinian state? if so what were their borders? stealing people's ancestors home and religion, torturing, killing and decimating a whole group of Jews does not make you the de facto owners of the land. Catherine; read the discrepencies in Mark, luke and John, written 70-110 years after the Temple destruction and you'll see under which big fraud you are sabbotaging the rebuilding of our home! I really don't get it . What makes you so superior? Stop and think. 12 million of us Jews equally contributed in all walks of life as much as you 7 billion common pagans collectively. You forced me to spit it out, so I did!

Israel launched the first strike to start this war, thus it IS occupied territory and illegal according to the 4th Geneva convention. Ashton is correct. However, I agree, the EU should stop talking. Israel is like a spoiled brat, talking does nothing. It needs to be "spanked" with sanctions until it stops expanding it's illegal settlements. EU and UN aren't accomplishing anything by "regretting" Israel's unilateral, illegal actions.

and isn't bound to Ashton's interpretation of international law.

Until that happens, and until they do not ACT for peace (instead of shooting empty slogans), Palestinians have no say in anything we do - especially in Jerusalem! Palestinians must understand that for as long as they do not ACT for peace, and not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, there will be no trust and no desire for a peaceful compromise from the Israelis. Trying to attack Israel, using terror (diplomatic or armed), trying to lie their way into forcing Israel to surrender, will only make our resolve to resist and repel them and their terror-supporting friends harder and more determined. We have no choice but to fight for our survivial and we'll be doing that without mercy or remorse!

Your arrogance blinds you, my racist "friend". You know squat of what happens here. You better focus on the Algonquins' rightful demands than on exposing your ignorance, racism and unwarranted hatred on forums residing in foreign countries!

The West Bank is UN-declared "disputed territory" - not "occupied" as you so ignorantly (and maliciously) claim - same goes for East Jerusalem, so A49 does NOT apply here! Leave law to real lawyers. Keep the racist hateful ignorance to yourself. When your racism and hatred give you one free moment, better learn some history and facts. Lying about something long enough does not make your lies more "true". That saying is dead my friend. You know why? Because we are everywhere, debunking your lies and showing everybody what deceiving, arrogant and murderous impostors you really are. Whether you like it or not, Israel and its eternal capital UNITED Jerusalem are here to stay, regardless of what you and your genocidal pals do.

"I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on palestinian land" . He was speaking to Egyptian media on 28 July 2010 . Had the arabs accepted the UN partition plan in 1947 , there would be NO problem today . But they did'nt . They prefered to demolish everything instead of building , together with Israel ,a great peacefull future for their and our children . And now they , after always attacking [ is this allowed by international law ? ] dare to speak about "illegal building" !

Will they hear ? No! Its the spirit of the 30es which is working again in the EU and will cause ( once again ) desaster in the EU........Curse Israel an you will be cursed - its that simple !

" Resolution 1515 (2003) Adopted by the Security Council at its 4862nd meeting, on 19 November 2003 The Security Council, Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002) and the Madrid principles, Expressing its grave concern at the continuation of the tragic and violent events in the Middle East, Reiterating the demand for an immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terrorism, provocation, incitement and destruction, Reaffirming its vision of a region where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders, Emphasizing the need to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, including the Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese tracks, Welcoming and encouraging the diplomatic efforts of the international Quartet and others, 1. Endorses the Quartet Performance-based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (S/2003/529); 2. Calls on the parties to fulfil their obligations under the Roadmap in cooperation with the Quartet and to achieve the vision of two States living side by side in peace and security; 3. Decides to remain seized of the matter." ----------- The 1515 UN resolution does not say a word about the illegality settlements or build in Jerusalem. Another typical case but to build a legal fiction that only exists in the minds of Erekat and Ashton. The EU is very desperate when one of its officials invented a legal theory that only exists in fantasy ..

I tremble at the thought of Catherine Ashton being "outraged" lol.

Netanyahu has made it quite clear he has no plans to reach any agreements with the Palestinians. The continued expanding and building of settlements shows this clearly. He says he wants talks, then approves for more Jewish houses in occupied East Jerusalem. Either he doesn't want peace, or he just doesn't get it.

The Israeli Addendum to the Geneva Conventions clearly states as follows: "Nothing herein shall impair the Israeli government right to conquest or displace any person or seize any property for which it has a whim or yen, including any population whatsoever that displeases it or is not sufficiently Jewish or enthusiastic at being ruled by said government, ad infinitum." You only need infrared glasses and it becomes clear as day.

Israel will address Ms. Ashton's complaints as soon as finished with meetings with represetatives of the Holy Roman Empire, the Golden Horde and the United Arab Republic.

Erekat complains Israel's actions are impairing negotiations when the "palestinians" refuse to sit to negotiations in the first place, organize a government-sponsored boycott against Israel, and are unilaterally trying to seek recognition. Israel's crime, building homes for it's citizens. Ashton should know that Israel isn't building in the West Bank, Judea and Sameria on the other hand, well no one mentioned we couldn't.

Kuwait is a sovereign state. The West Bank is not. Your analogy is therefore completely inapposite. The balance of your post, based on an erroneous assumption, is therefore ludicrous.

Per what we have come to expect from you, wrong! Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping in May 1967. He also re-militarized the Sinai, kicked out the United Nations peacekeepers in violation of the cease-fire agreement with Israel in 1956. Those were the casus belli of the Six Day War, particularly the first point above. Closure of international waters to commercial shipping by a sovereign state is an act of war. Look it up. Israel's extraordinary strike against Egypt the morning of June 5, 1967 was purely retaliatory. And there is no dispute that Jordan initiated military action against Israel; as did Syria. But Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt and has withdrawn from Gaza, so your point is actually irrelevant. There is no question that Jordan and Syria were the aggressors in 1967. Six days; three countries defeated in humiliating fashion. Not too shabby. Annoy us some more, and we'll just have to do it all again.

Thank you for your extraordinary posts.

Take a page out of Mansour's embarrassing episode and burst into tears. Well -- you know -- when all else fails, why not amusement? I could use a good laugh.

Excellent! YNET should reprint this as an article - imagine the effect this would have on readers around the world. Thanks for writing such a clear and detailed piece.

The EU is on the verge of financial collapses. They don't have enough money to bail their members out of debt and they have the gall to interfere in our business to appease the Palestinians who are a people who don't exist! They are merely ex-pat Jordanians. The only problem with this project is that the only religious and ultra orthodox will want to live in Har Homa and so it is another Netanyahu exercise in giving money to right wing fanatics.For him any one else are merely "sushi eaters" and nargila smokers who MK Kara called "parasites".

The closure of the Tyran straits by Egypt was a internationally recognised "casus Belli" , this means an attack . So we were not those who begon the 67 war .

Ms Ashton, how come you're not "overly concerned ", or " profoundly disapointed " or " disgustingly annoyed " when your arab pals are lobbing rokets into Israel ? Is there a " secret provision " in the UN charter that allows that ? Please enlighten us; is it 4 rockets per week?, a dz. monthly ?, more ?. You're supposedly a servant of the people, we are people, so please tell us. Maybe one of your associate can give us a couple hours warning?. We are getting tired of moving our iron dome of world fame..We keep changing tires every month, and it hasn't seen combat yet. Very wasteful and expensive. --- and to you Mr. Erekat, please stop condemning us every Monday and Wednesday; you are getting to be a big bore.