Colum,

First off, Bolton isn't perfect. It's not like he never made a mistake and anyway as ambassador we all now he was following the orders of Rice and those above him. It wasn't his call.

That said, his statement in 2006 and the one you posted from this year are totally different.

Bolton's was a pro-forma statement that no one paid any attention to. In addition, he actually called out and criticised Palestinian terror by name, twice in one sentence actually. Has Obama or his WH ever used the words terror or terrorist or terrorism in relation to the Palestinians? Then Bolton said that the UNSC reiterates its view that settlement expansion must stop. Note the word expansion. That's the key. Not what's already there and has taken place and current settlements. Expansion, building new settlements. Expanding..

By contrast, compare what Obama apparently has agreed to.

The statement does not condemn Palestinian terror by name or even use the word terrorism. Instead, it calls on both parties to refrain from violence, thus conflating the two and making both sides seem equally at fault, instead of directly criticizing Palestinian terrorism.

More to the point, it says the UNSC "rejects the legitimacy of continued settlement activity". A much stronger statement. Bolton didn't reject anything. Reject is a strong word to use diplomatically. Has the US ever rejected any policy of Israel before? Have it ever rejected the legitimacy of anything related to Israel before?

Bolton never used the word illegitimate or legitimacy or anything close to it. The UN saying something is illegitimate is very strong medicine. It's basically saying it's illegal and immoral. Has the US ever used the term illegitimacy in regards to any other ally, let alone a longstanding ally like Israel?

And note continued settlement activity vs expansion. Continued settlement activity refers to existing/ongoing settlements, those that have already been built, those that are active now. IOW, the US is saying that Ariel is illegitimate. That Maale Adumim is illegitimate. Any continued activity there is illegitimate. That's the clear meaning of the term. They're calling for all activity to stop, not just expansion related to new settlements. That's much stronger than anything Bolton said.

Really, the meaning and significance of the two statements are totally different, and I suspect you know that.

None of my views here but just a couple of intresting things I feel like sharing.

Half of Israel opposes Settlements, half are in support, right now the half that support them are in charge, just like the Democrats and Republicans (except there are significantly more parties).

In the U.S., the liberals support the resolution, the conservatives oppose it.

Looking up, Bolton I found about 50 liberals who would want to strangle him. Now it seems they are welcoming him as he fits into their goal.

Funny how politics works.

We didn't call the French underground fighting German occupation "terrorists".
We didn't call Yugoslav partisans fighting Hitler's thugs "terrorists". We didn't call people like Mandela fighting an oppressive, racist regime "terrorists" (or at least we don't do so today).

Why do we call Palestinians -- fighting with whatever tools are at hand to rid themselves of a foreign invader every bit as oppressive, illegal, inhumane and disgusting as the Nazi -- why should we call them "terrorists"?

The Israeli goons who attack Gaza two years ago were terrorists. Read Normal G Finkelstein's "This Time We Went Too Far" or the Goldstone Report (if you can find a copy of either one of them in our Zionist controlled media environment). They read like a how -to handbook in terrorism.

As Bolton was just doing the will of the leadership at that time. I havent seen Colum Lynch actually post current Bolton statements, and I'm beginning to suspect that he may be a liberal in disguise by how he is slinging things.

Israel has stopped expanding communities in the occupied territories for several years now. They build within the borders of existing communities, but they dont build outside of the borders. Of course, the whole issue of these communities is a false issue; the real issue is the existence of Israel itself. If Israel offered to pull out of the entire west bank today, there would not be peace, unless Israel also offered to pull completely out of the Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem and also agreed to allow the children and grandchildren of Arabs who fled Palestine in 1948 to move, not to the new Palestinian State, but to Israel itself.

First of all, Ambassador Bolton was speaking on behalf of the Bush Administration. Just as Secretary LaHood may disagree with President Obama's agenda, he nonetheless pushes it because he serves at the pleasure of the president.

Second, Ambassador Bolton seems to intentionally include the phrase "at time of dangerous instability in region." I don't think he included that bit of text because the paragraph appeared uneven without it.

Egypt's government of 30 years has just fallen. Protests have broken out in Iran, Bahrain, and elsewhere. Tehran has ordered its warships through the Suez. The Middle East is more unstable than it has been in decades.

It's entirely possible that Ambassador Bolton would again take his earlier stance were the situation in the region not as, shall we say, wobbly as it happens to be.

And it is known in Islam the true religion which beleives in One and Only One God. Not 3........ Just one the one taht created u and me... Allah has prohibited killing innocent civilenes but the war has gotten out of hand

Pure Acai Select

The moderate Israeli view, which is actually held by a majority* of the population, holds that settlement construction is unwise but not illegal. The Geneva convention is fairly ambiguous on this point, and contrary to the assertions of most in the UN, many legal scholars just think it refers to forced population transfer. In fact, very very few supporters of Israel in the US have said that settlements are a good thing-- most who are accused of being "pro-settlement" have just said some combination of the following:
A. They're not illegal
B. They're not as big a problem as people claim
C. They're not a legitimate excuse for the Palestinians to refuse to negotiate and
D. Bigger issues are being ignored.

So, I'd like to ask Mr. Lynch if he can point to a place where Bolton has called the settlements *illegal,* not just unwise. Otherwise, he hasn't actually proven the claim of this article.

*Settlement construction only continues because the religious parties are too well entrenched, despite being a minority