By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Israeli settler population in the occupied West Bank experienced a significant increase in 2023. A recent report, based on Israeli government population statistics and published by WestBankJewishPopulationStats.com, indicated a nearly 3% growth. As of December 31, the settler population reached 517,407, up from 502,991 the previous year.
Read the original article here
14 Countries, including France, Britain, Canada, and Japan, Condemn Israel’s Expansion Of West Bank Settlements – This action is a recurring pattern, isn’t it? Countries, including some of the world’s most influential, voicing their disapproval of Israel’s expansion of West Bank settlements. The condemnation is often strong, with carefully worded statements expressing concern and disappointment. However, the question lingering in the air is, “What does it actually change?” It seems like a familiar dance, a diplomatic ritual that falls short of tangible action. The pattern is clear: a strongly worded statement, followed by the continuation of the very activity being condemned. It’s almost as if the international community is caught in a loop.
The core issue seems to be a lack of willingness to take more decisive steps. The idea of sanctions, similar to those imposed on Russia, is raised, but rarely acted upon. Some feel this is because of other priorities, others due to the very real and strong ties Israel has with many nations. The point is often made that countries are seemingly more willing to act when their own national security is at stake. The economic, strategic, and even military benefits that some countries receive from their relationship with Israel also serve as a barrier to imposing meaningful consequences. So, the condemnation continues, but the settlements keep expanding.
The settlements themselves are not just about land, but about the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many view the expansion as a deliberate move to prevent a two-state solution, a vision of a future where Palestinians have their own independent state. The expansion is seen by many as a clear sign of disregard for international norms and a purposeful effort to make a two-state solution impossible. Some even go so far as to accuse Israel of actively working towards a one-state solution, but one that falls far short of equal rights for all. This is the heart of the matter, and the reason why this issue evokes so much strong emotion.
The reactions to the condemnations are varied and revealing. There is frustration, with people feeling like the international community isn’t doing enough. There is also resignation, the sense that the two-state solution is a pipe dream. There’s even a sort of cynicism: the perception that powerful nations will only act in their own self-interest, ignoring the plight of the Palestinians. On top of this, there are concerns about the perceived reluctance of some countries to criticize Israel due to fear of being labeled antisemitic. It’s a complex stew of opinions, each one reflecting a different perspective on the conflict.
The very act of condemnation, some argue, has become a form of political theater. It allows countries to appear as though they are taking action without actually disrupting their relationships with Israel. It’s a way to placate certain segments of their populations who demand action, while still maintaining the status quo. The sentiment of this is clear: if you truly believe something is wrong, you do something about it. Verbal condemnation, without any consequences, is perceived as being hollow.
One of the more interesting points that come up in these discussions is the nature of foreign aid. Many question the very act of giving aid to a country that is actively expanding settlements. Some argue that this aid indirectly funds these very settlements. If a country is financially stable and economically robust, then perhaps they should not need the aid in the first place. The point is that if Israel is an economic powerhouse, then they should be able to support their own projects and programs. Many feel that tax dollars should be used to improve the lives of citizens rather than funding foreign projects.
The United States’ role in this whole scenario is frequently noted. Many believe that the US is the only country that could truly influence Israel’s actions and that the US has not been exerting enough pressure to halt the expansion. The feeling is that without the US taking a strong stance, the rest of the world’s efforts are ultimately ineffectual. Some argue that the US might even be wary of taking too much economic action against Israel, fearing the repercussions from other powerful entities.
Ultimately, the condemnation of Israel’s West Bank settlement expansion by these fourteen countries is a reflection of a deeply entrenched conflict. It highlights the international community’s frustration with the status quo and the lack of progress toward a peaceful resolution. It also underscores the complex web of political, economic, and strategic interests that influence international relations and, indeed, the future of the region. As long as these interests remain, the cycle of condemnation without significant action seems destined to continue.