Robert wants proof

I have to disagree with the poster. It is rather clear that the "official policy" of the current U.S. administration is opposed to labelling settlements illegal. Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, indicated that one of the reasons the U.S. vetoed the resolution was because its disagreement with use of this word:

QUESTION BY MEET THE PRESS'S DAVID GREGORY: Before you go, I want to ask you about the U.N. vote on a resolution brought forward by the Palestinians to declare Israeli settlement activity as illegal. You, as the United States representative there, vetoed that measure because of the word "illegal." The administration believes that settlements are illegitimate but not necessarily illegal. ...

RESPONSE BY AMBASSADOR RICE: First of all, David, we vetoed the resolution not only because of the word "illegal" but because our view is that we need to get the parties back to direct negotiations so that they can agree through direct talks on a two-state solution.

Even more clear was Ronald Reagan's position on settlements, namely that they are "not illegal." In the Feb. 3, 1981 edition of the New York Times, the President was quoted saying, "As to the West Bank, I believe the settlements there — I disagreed when the previous Administration referred to them as illegal, they're not illegal."

Subsequent administrations, although perhaps more vague when dealing with the topic, did not reverse course. James Foley, State Department spokesman under President Bill Clinton, answered a question about settlements during an Oct. 1, 1997 press conference by noting, "Our position on -- overall position on the question of the legality of settlements remains the same. We're, of course, not taking a legal position on that overall issue."

And on April 30, 2004, during George W. Bush's presidency, State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher answered a direct question about the U.S. position on the legality of settlements with as follows:

RICHARD BOUCHER: This administration has not taken an issue (sic) on the legality of them. We've taken a position that emphasizes the need to end settlement activity in order to make progress towards a two- state solution and the need to deal with the question of settlements in the final status negotiations.

QUESTIONER: So it's fair to say -- it's accurate to say that both before and after Sharon's visit, the United States officially did not take a position on the legality under the Geneva Convention of those settlements?

RICHARD BOUCHER: That's right.

Otway's claim in his blog entry, then, is plainly spurious. The United States does not officially view settlements as illegal, and it has not for the past thirty years.

One thing that Israel is not and that is dependent on the world. If that had been the case there would never have been Arab terrorism because as it has done elsewhere in the world the UN would have stepped in and sorted out the parties. However when the UN is manacled by an in-built Arab hegemony which would resolve that day is night if it meant not accepting Israel's position on the matter there is no way that Israel will get justice. Judea and Samaria were included in the mandate for Palestine for the close settlement by Jews as such the Jews have a legal right to settle there. If the world caves in to Arab pressure o Israel how much more difficult will it be when say given the changing demographics in the UK the Muslims as they have said on more than one occasion demand that Sharia Law be brought in in the UK. Forcing Israel to cave in to Islamic demands is just the thin end of the wedge. The Jews have an historic legal and moral right to remain in Judea and Samaria disputes should be settled (pun not intended) by compromise not by requiring Israel simply to surrender those rights for the promise of some nebulous peace agreement. This will only encourage further excesses on the part of the Arabs who have made it quite clear that the establishment of a 22nd Arab State in Judea and Samaria and Gaza is but a stepping stone to the destruction of the Jewish State. How anyone could be so blind not see this or hear it from the Arabs own mouths beggars belief.

sigh......So the Americans prefer to use the word illegitimate. How coy.

Hardly the point. My point is that the position outlined by Liam Fox is the position of the whole world, as near as makes no difference, including the US. And that is how it is going to be.

How long would Israel last without continued US political,diplomatic,and financial support ? You don't have to be too precise. Let's say to the nearest five minutes.

Amazing everyone uses technology from Israel let's have it all back and see how long you last -not even five minutes.

So where was your whole world when 1 million Rwandans ere being hacked to death by the Tutsis? Where was your whole world when Moslems were being ethnically cleansed (a euphemism) in the Balkans.

Sorry I am not convinced by your whole world argument especially when that whole world includes countries who policies are inimical to the continued existence of a Jewish State under any circumstances by which I include such worthies as the Arab dictatorships, the South American dictatorships and most of the Western European nations who have completely lost their moral compass under the threat of their burgeoning Muslim populations to name Sweden and Belgium as just two prime examples.

BTW I did not know that to be accurate which I was was to be coy which I was not.

Rwanda -- its leaders are now facing trial in the Hague.
Balkans -- Nato intervention and Serbia, some of whose leaders are now in the Hague, was bombed.
Doesn't Israel do a roaring trade in arms with some of those South American dictatorships?
Burgeoning Muslim populations? Israel's Muslim population is at 20 per cent (and if the occupied territories are included closer to 50 per cent), far, far higher than any country in Western Europe.

Anthony it's not all about you, it was the Americans I was calling coy.

And are you sure you don't want to add another paragraph or a hundred ?

"Its leaders are now facing ..." - that is a great comfort to the million plus people who lost their lives I am quite sure. As I am sure issuing an arrest warrant for Sudan's president is for the hundreds of thousands who have lost their lives in Darfur. But let's leave our fate in the hands of the "whole world". You are kidding right?

"Burgeoning Muslim populations" and loss of moral compass - see
http://swedenisrael.blogspot.com/2010/02/mona-sahlins-hypocrisy-on-malmo...

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=221199

http://hurryupharry.org/2011/05/18/belgium-vlaams-belang-amnesty-for-naz...

Yes, the world was slow over Rwanda. Terrible that. And it has been slow over Sudan.
Are you comparing nuclear-armed, economically-advanced Israel with the poor sods in Rwanda and Sudan or are you kidding?
Also, I am sure you would like "the world" to decide Israel's fate like it did Serbia's.