Group items tagged

The Justice Department on Monday announced a final settlement with the oil giant BP of $20.8 billion for its role in the disastrous 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, raising the total from the initial $18.7 billion settlement announced in July.At either amount, it is the largest environmental settlement — and the largest civil settlement with any single entity — in the nation’s history.The United States attorney general, Loretta Lynch, called the filing of the final settlement “a major step forward in our effort to deliver justice to the gulf region in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy — the largest environmental disaster our nation has ever endured.”Gina McCarthy, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, estimated that the final settlement represented a payment of $1,725 for each barrel of oil spilled in the disaster. The maximum amount that a judge could have assessed in the case was $4,300 a barrel.

The settlement resolves a 2010 lawsuit filed by the Justice Department against BP. It includes civil claims under the Clean Water Act, for which BP has agreed to pay a $5.5 billion penalty, the largest civil penalty in the history of environmental law. Also, it includes natural resources damages claims under the Oil Pollution Act, for which BP has agreed to pay $7.1 billion, on top of the $1 billion it previously committed to pay for early restoration work. Continue reading the main story Related in Opinion Editorial: BP Deal Will Lead to a Cleaner GulfJULY 8, 2015 In addition, the settlement includes economic damages claims, for which BP has agreed to pay $4.9 billion to the five gulf states — Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas — and up to $1 billion to local governments. Louisiana, the hardest hit of the states, will receive $5 billion of the $8.8 billion allocated for restoration.Ms. Lynch said the increase in the total settlement represented a “refining of the numbers” over the initial settlement. “Over time, we refine numbers as the settlement is finalized,” she said.

Geoff Morrell, BP senior vice president for United States communications, said in a statement that the revised overall figure did not change the settlement announced in July, but included amounts previously spent or disclosed by the company. The settlement, he said, “resolves the largest litigation liabilities remaining from the tragic accident,” and provides the company “certainty with respect to its financial obligations.”Under the draft restoration plan, $8.8 billion would be allocated to restore the gulf ecosystem.

“Goldman took $10 billion in TARP bailout funds knowing that it had fraudulently misrepresented to investors the quality of residential mortgages bundled into mortgage backed securities,” said Special Inspector General Christy Goldsmith Romero for TARP. 

Bank of America has agreed to a legal settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to avoid prosecution for the hundreds of billions of dollars in bad mortgage loans that it and its subsidiaries sold to unwitting investors in the run-up to the financial crisis, according to multiple new reports. The total on-paper cost of the deal is reportedly at least $16 billion and perhaps as high as $17 billion, which makes it the largest corporate legal settlement with the government in U.S. history. But that record price tag is deceptive. The deal is unlikely to cost Bank of America anywhere close to that amount.

the government’s decision to pursue civil settlements rather than criminal cases against banks that inflated the toxic mortgage bubble means that shareholders pay the price while executives who oversaw the misconduct earn large bonuses.

“If you let a thief buy his way out of jail, you should really make sure the check doesn’t bounce,” HDL national campaign director Kevin Whelan said in an email. “Even a record $17 billion settlement is a small fraction of the damage done by B of A and Countrywide. But it could do real good for a lot of families,” Whelan said. “The fact that the JP Morgan Chase settlement has not delivered any noticeable relief to families makes us skeptical.”

"Israel has just opened the 'floodgates', and crossed a 'very, very thick red line'." These were the words of Nickolay Mladenov, United Nations' Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, in response to the passing of a bill at the Israeli Knesset on February 7 that retroactively legalises thousands of illegal settler homes, built on stolen Palestinian land. Mladenov's job title has grown so irrelevant in recent years that it merely delineates a reference to a bygone era: a "peace process" that has ensured the further destruction of whatever remained of the Palestinian homeland. Israeli politicians' approval of the bill is indeed an end of an era. We have reached the point where we can openly declare that the so-called peace process was an illusion from the start, for Israel had no intentions of ever conceding the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. In response to the passing of the bill, many news reports alluded to the fact that the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House, riding a wave of right-wing populism, was the inspiration needed by equally right-wing Israeli politicians to cross that "very, very thick red line". There is truth to that, of course. But it is hardly the whole story.

The political map of the world is vastly changing. Just weeks before Trump made his way to the Oval Office, the international community strongly condemned Israel's illegal settlements on Palestinian land occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem.

That date, Trump's inauguration was the holy grail for Israel's right-wing politicians, who mobilised immediately after Trump's rise to power. Israel's intentions received additional impetus from Britain's Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May. Despite her government vote to condemn Israeli settlements at the UN, she too ranted against the US for its censure of Israel.

Criticism of US government leniency on Wall Street legal transgressions is now being covered widely - even by trade publications such as the National Mortgage Professional Magazine. On January 18, the trade publication ran an article about Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) condemning the most recent US government settlement with a "too-big-to-fail" financial firm, in this case Goldman Sachs, for illegal abuse of the mortgage market: Sen. Warren used her Facebook page to denounce the agreement, noting that the settlement sum was “barely a fraction of the billions investors lost” while arguing that Goldman Sachs was not properly penalized for its actions. “That’s not justice – it’s a white flag of surrender,” she wrote. “It’s time to end this farce. These companies think they’re above the law – and too many government officials go along with them. A first step would be to pass the bipartisan Truth in Settlements Act to shine more light on these backroom deals. A second step would be to get government officials who have the backbone to fight back.” Warren’s comments were echoed by the nonprofit U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG).

The publication, which is geared toward professionals in the mortgage industry, also tellingly noted, "In announcing the [$5.1 billion] settlement, Goldman Sachs made no admission of guilt or error, and no executive from the New York-based financial giant will face criminal or civil charges."  As we have noted in this space many times, the seemingly large financial penalties levied on Wall Street firms for illegal activity are not so large, in the context of those firms' budgets: The fines are generally less than the revenue that the firms generated by engaging in the often fraudulent practices in the first place. As The Huffington Post noted in a report on the recent settlement,  About $2.4 billion of the settlement is in the form of a government penalty. The bank has said that it securitized about $125 billion of home loans between 2005 and 2008, of which about $23 billion eventually soured. The penalty represents about 10 percent of investors’ losses. Goldman can deduct the rest of the settlement, about $2.7 billion, from its future tax bills, according to a person familiar with the accord. The bank said the settlement will reduce its fourth-quarter profit by about $1.5 billion. It reports earnings next week.

Goldman Sachs is being let off the hook for 90 percent of the investor losses for which it was primarily responsible. Furthermore, as is consistent with past settlements with Wall Street firms by the Department of Justice and other executive agencies, much of the fine is tax-deductible. As BuzzFlash has noted before, this rewards Wall Street financial companies by allowing them to factor in settlements with the government for illegal behavior as nothing more than the cost of doing business. Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who left office last year to resume a six-figure-salary partnership at the DC corporate law firm of Covington & Burling (which defends many of the firms that Holder was responsible for prosecuting as attorney general), infamously stated to a US Senate committee in March of 2013: I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute - if we do bring a criminal charge - it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.  Apparently, under current Attorney General Loretta Lynch, that legal exemption for too-big-to-fail financial firms and their executives has not changed.

A poll of registered voters from the end of the year shows that on the issue of the UN Security Council resolution against settlements of December 23, there are sharp splits between Democrats and Republicans and between Jews and African-Americans/Hispanics. There’s a huge partisan divide in the data released by Politico/Morning Consult. Democrats support the UN resolution, by 47 to 16 percent. Among Republicans, it’s the opposite: 43-24 percent against. And the Democratic Party is divided between traditional blocs: Jews were against the resolution by 47-42 percent. But Hispanics are 44-17 percent for the resolution. And African Americans are 39-18 percent for the resolution. Religious nones/atheists are also strongly for the resolution.

Registered voters support the resolution, overall, 35-28 percent. Good news for those who oppose settlements: the voters have the politicians’ backs. Break out whites, they support the resolution: 34-31 percent. Though bear in mind, in each of those categories, there are large numbers who are indifferent. Jews and Protestants stand out as being against the resolution. Jews: 47 oppose, 42 support. Only 12 percent don’t know. That’s the indifference quota, very low. Evangelicals: 36-27 percent oppose it. But 37 percent don’t know. Protestants oppose the resolution, 41-28. But Catholics support, it 39-30. Here’s the big kahuna in the poll: Atheists/Agnostics/Nones: 43-16 percent support the UN Resolution. That’s whopping. Notice that the Nones/Agnostics/Atheists now make up 478 of the sample of 2000 — nearly a quarter. Jews are only 63. Talk about punching above your weight! Those Nones are what gave Bernie Sanders his oomph on this issue. More of the partisanship. Clinton voters: 49-14 percent support the resolution. But Trump voters: 46-23 percent oppose it.

Young people don’t buy the security argument. From ages 18-44, the numbers are about 30-20 percent saying that the settlements are illegal. Between 45 and 55, it’s even. The numbers only start going the other way, for the settlements as a security measure, above age 55. The religious difference is even more pronounced when you ask whether settlements are a security measure or illegal. Jews go 52-32 percent for them being a security measure, with 16 percent having no opinion. And while evangelicals line up more or less with Jews, by 35-19 saying it’s a security measure, 47 percent don’t know/have no opinion. So much for the fervor of the evangelicals. Again: Jews know about settlements. Only 16 percent of Jews don’t know or have no opinion. But among other religions the no opinion numbers are all 39 or higher. Nones/Agnostics/Atheists say they’re illegal, 35-18. But 47 percent have no opinion. This is important because it shows that while Jews are just 3 percent of the sample, they care more than any other group. They know the story. And they’re conservative on the question.

In the end, the abject fear of Ben Wagner got Jamie Dimon to cave.For much of 2013, Dimon, the chairman and chief executive of the formidable JPMorgan Chase & Company, was telling anyone who would listen that it was unfair and unjust for federal and state prosecutors to blame him and his bank for the manufacture and sale of mortgage-backed securities that occurred at Bear Stearns & Company and at Washington Mutual in the years leading up to the financial crisis. When JPMorgan Chase bought those two failing firms in 2008, Dimon argued, he was just doing what Ben Bernanke, Hank Paulson and Timothy Geithner had asked him to do. Why should his bank be held financially accountable for the bad behavior at Bear and WaMu?It was a clever argument—and wrong. Dimon's relentless effort to spin his patriotic story soon collided with the fact that Wagner, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of California, had uncovered evidence that JPMorgan itself was guilty of many of the same greedy and irresponsible behaviors. Piles of subpoenaed documents and e-mails revealed that JPMorgan bankers and traders had underwritten billions of dollars' worth of questionable mortgage-backed securities that Dimon had been telling everyone had originated at Bear Stearns and WaMu. Worse, the bad behavior had occurred on Dimon's watch.

The likelihood that the Justice Department would file Wagner's civil complaint last fall—exposing publicly for the first time the litany of wrongdoing at JPMorgan and threatening to push it off the perch that Dimon had so artfully constructed for it over the years—ultimately brought Dimon to the table. On September 26, just weeks after the Justice Department shared a draft copy of Wagner's complaint with Dimon, the two sides arranged for a summit meeting between Dimon and Attorney General Eric Holder. By mid-November, the bank had agreed to pay $13 billion in a comprehensive settlement of mortgage-related securities claims with various branches of the federal government and a group of states, led by the attorneys general of New York, California, Illinois, Massachusetts and Delaware.It was the largest financial settlement of all time, and it kept Wagner's complaint away from the prying eyes of the public. One thing is clear: Dimon's claim that his own bankers and traders had done nothing wrong in the years leading up to the financial crisis wasn't true. "The investigators and the lawyers were uncovering very viable evidence," explains Associate Attorney General Tony West, who headed up the settlement negotiations on behalf of the Justice Department. "I think there was recognition that we had enough evidence there that would support the complaint and would support a robust lawsuit."

[A disclosure of my own: after JPMorgan Chase fired me as a managing director in January 2004, I brought—and lost—a wrongful-dismissal arbitration against the bank. Separately, I remain in litigation with the bank as the result of a soured investment I made in 1999.]

Terms of the possible settlement under consideration center on foreclosure improprieties like so-called robo-signing and submitting apparently forged documents to the courts to speed up the process of removing troubled borrowers from homes.

An initial term sheet outlining a possible settlement emerged in March, with institutions including Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo being asked to pay about $20 billion that would go toward loan modifications and possibly counseling for homeowners

The European Union's move to label goods produced in Israeli settlements is the latest expression of international disapproval of one of the country's most controversial policies. The Palestinians view Jewish settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem as a major obstacle to reaching any two-state solution, saying they carve up lands expected to form a future Palestinian state. Virtually the entire international community, including the United States, views the settlements as illegal or illegitimate. Israel has long dismissed the criticism, saying most settlement growth is in areas it expects to keep in any future peace agreement and that the issue should be resolved in peace talks along with other core issues like security and borders. Many Israelis want to keep the West Bank and east Jerusalem -- territories captured from Jordan in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war -- citing security concerns as well as the deep religious significance of the territories for devout Jews.

The settlements are now home to more than 570,000 Israelis, according to the Israeli anti-settlement watchdog Peace Now. They range from small wildcat outposts on West Bank hilltops to fully developed towns with shopping malls, schools and suburban homes. Many Israelis choose to live in settlements for economic and quality-of-life reasons. Some 2.2 million Palestinians live in the West Bank, with another 300,000 in east Jerusalem.

— In 1972 there were just over 10,000 Israeli settlers, with 1,500 living in the West Bank and the rest in east Jerusalem. — Twenty years later, ahead of the Oslo peace accords between Israel and the Palestinians, there were 231,200 Israelis living in the territories, with 105,400 in the West Bank and 125,800 in east Jerusalem. — At the end of 2000, when the second Palestinian uprising began, over 365,000 Israelis lived in the territories with more than 198,000 in the West Bank and some 167,000 in east Jerusalem. — In 2008, the year before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took office, over 474,000 Israelis were living in the two territories, with about 281,000 in the West Bank and some 193,000 in east Jerusalem. — Some 570,700 settlers now live in the territories, according to the latest Peace Now figures from the end of 2014, with 370,700 in the West Bank and 200,000 in east Jerusalem.

On Wednesday, in the wake of Israel’s announcement of hundreds of more units in West Bank settlements, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted a page on its website articulating its view that building in the occupied West Bank is legal under international law and is not, as many critics claim, an impediment to peace. The fact that the MFA felt the need to make such a case indicates that rising international criticism, particularly from the U.S., is having an impact, and that case bears an examination of its key claims. Israel claims that the settlements are not illegal because the laws of belligerent occupation do not apply to the West Bank and that the prohibition against transferring citizens of an occupying power to occupied territory “…applied to forcible transfers and not to the case of Israeli settlements.” The vast majority of legal opinions, including those of the High Court of Justice in Israel and the US State Department (which consistently refers to the West Bank as “occupied territory”), directly contradict this claim. As recently as 2004, the High Court in Israel ruled “…that Israel holds the (West Bank) in belligerent occupation,” and that its authority over the Palestinians “… flows from the provisions of public international law regarding belligerent occupation.” No ruling since has superseded this view. Indeed, in an analysis requested by the Israeli Prime Minister’s office in 1967 regarding the potential legality of settlements in the then-newly occupied territories, Israeli Foreign Ministry legal adviser Theodor Meron wrote, “My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.” This is the overwhelming consensus view of international legal opinion, and contradicts Israel’s claim that Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention applies only to forcible transfers, rather than voluntary ones like those of Israeli settlers. Israel says “the current Israeli government, like several preceding governments, has limited Jewish construction primarily to those areas that are fully expected to remain under Israeli control in any final agreement with the Palestinians.”

The European Union (EU) will soon begin to mark the products of Israeli settlements, according to the Associated Press.

According to Al Ray, the EU had frozen its decision to put marks on settlements products under the pressure of the United States, in 2013, but this move was restored again and approved by 13 European countries. The report added that 16 foreign ministers of EU demanded in less than two months, to go forward with procedures to mark settlement products in European marketing networks. The foreign ministers assured that the continued expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, and in other areas occupied by "Israel" in 1967, threatens the chances of reaching a final and fair peace deal. European diplomats said that "after the Israeli elections, and in the light of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's latest statements against two-state solution, it was decided to renew the initiative of marking the Israeli products ." The Belgian Foreign Minister, Dedea Rendr, is the initiator of the draft letter, according to the diplomats.

In 2014, Belgium published instructions obliging the marketing networks to mark the agricultural products of settlements in the occupied West Bank, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. To be noted, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier is the only one of the five major foreign ministers of European countries who did not sign the letter.

A hard-hitting EU report on Jerusalem warns that the city has reached a dangerous boiling point of “polarisation and violence” not seen since the end of the second intifada in 2005. Calling for tougher European sanctions against Israel over its continued settlement construction in the city – which it blames for exacerbating recent conflict – the leaked document paints a devastating picture of a city more divided than at any time since 1967, when Israeli forces occupied the east of the city. The report has emerged amid strong indications that the Obama administration is also rethinking its approach to Israel and the Middle East peace process following the re-election of Binyamin Netanyahu as Israel’s prime minister. According to reports in several US papers, this may include allowing the passage of a UN security council resolution restating the principle of a two-state solution. The leaked report describes the emergence of a “vicious cycle of violence … increasingly threatening the viability of the two-state solution”, which it says has been stoked by the continuation of “systematic” settlement building by Israel in “sensitive areas” of Jerusalem.

For its part, Israel rejects the charge of illegal settlement-building in Jerusalem, claiming the city as its “undivided capital”. Among the recommendations in the report are: Potential new restrictions against “known violent settlers and those calling for acts of violence as regards immigration regulations in EU member states”. Further coordinated steps to ensure consumers in the EU are able to exercise their right to informed choice in respect of settlement products in line with existing EU rules. New efforts to raise awareness among European businesses about the risks of working with settlements, and the advancement of voluntary guidelines for tourism operators to prevent support for settlement business.

The disclosure of the 2014 report – which suggests a series of potential punitive measures targeting extremist settlers and settlement products – comes days after Israeli elections which saw Netanyahu emerge as the decisive victor.

A group of Palestinians and Palestinian Americans are seeking $34.5 billion dollars in damages from wealthy individuals and companies they accuse of financing and profiting from Israel’s settlements in the occupied West Bank and other abuses of their rights. The plaintiffs include Palestinians who have lost family members in Israeli attacks in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Their lawsuit is the latest effort to expose and curb the role of organizations that operate as tax-exempt US charities in fueling violence and settlement expansion on occupied Palestinian land. It names as defendants US tycoons Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, Irving Moskowitz and Oracle founder Lawrence Ellison.

Adelson is renowned for using his huge casino fortune to advance his pro-Israel political agenda and is a major financial backer of both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the US Republican Party. Saban has donated millions of dollars to US Democratic Party presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. Moskowitz is one of the main financiers of settler efforts to force Palestinians out of their homes in occupied East Jerusalem. The lawsuit also names Israeli diamond magnate and settlement builder Lev Leviev and Christians United for Israel founder, the US Evangelical pastor John Hagee. Twelve US-based charities and a number of Israeli and US corporations are also named as defendants. The charities include Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, The Hebron Fund and Christian Friends of Israeli Communities.

The plaintiffs, represented by the law firm Martin McMahon and Associates, allege that the defendants are directly responsible for violence and for the expansion of settlements. The lawsuit, filed in a Washington, DC, federal court on Monday, alleges a wide range of crimes under US and international law, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, conspiracy, money laundering, racketeering, perjury and pillage. It alleges that charitable donations are sent to the Israeli army, a violation of US laws against funding a foreign military. Last December, some of the same plaintiffs using the same law firm sued the US Treasury for allowing billions of dollars of tax-exempt donations to flow to Israeli settlements. This lawsuit targets those who are supplying the money. Several are powerful billionaires who the lawsuit contends have defrauded the US tax authorities by funnelling huge sums of money meant for illegal purposes through tax-exempt organizations. According to the lawsuit, approximately $1 billion is sent through these organizations each year, with $104 million going to the Israeli army in 2014.

Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has been accused of being a traitor by activists after publicly rejecting calls for a boycott of Israel.His unambiguous statement, made in the aftermath of Nelson Mandela's death, has fuelled a bitter debate on the legitimacy and efficacy of sanctions over Israel's treatment of Palestinians.However, Abbas distinguished between Israel's borders and its settlements in Palestinian territories. "We do not support the boycott of Israel. But we ask everyone to boycott the products of the settlements."His comments infuriated the boycott movement, which after Mandela's death has been boosted by comparisons with the anti-apartheid campaign in South Africa and the decision last week of the American Studies Association (ASA) to boycott Israeli academic institutions.The boycott movement claims it is on a roll, citing a recent EU prohibition against giving grants or funds to bodies with links to settlements, a warning by the British government that firms risk damaging their reputations if they have dealings with Israeli enterprises across the Green Line, and the decision by a Dutch company to sever links with the Israeli water company, Mekorot.

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, set up in 2005 by more than 170 Palestinian civil society organisations, expects next year "to cross even higher thresholds in its drive to isolate Israel, just as South Africa was isolated under apartheid", said Omar Barghouti, one of its founding members.The ASA's decision was "fresh evidence that the BDS movement may be reaching a tipping point on college campuses and among academic associations", he added. Two other US academic bodies – the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association and the Association of American Asian Studies – have also backed the boycott movement.

Samia Botmeh, a lecturer at Birzeit university in the West Bank and a leading member of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, said restricting a boycott to settlements was to focus on the consequences, rather than the origins, of the occupation.

he Israeli government will not force West Bank settlers to leave their homes, even under a permanent peace agreement with the Palestinians, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a TV interview.

The prime minister said it was clear that Israel would not be able to extend its sovereignty under a permanent accord to encompass all of the settlements, but he was adamant that “there will be no act of evacuation.” The comment marked the first time that he has indicated that he would not countenance a repeat of the 2005 forced evacuation of Gaza’s settlements, overseen by the late prime minister Ariel Sharon, which he opposed at the time. Asked in the Channel 2 interview on Friday how he could hope to reach a deal with the Palestinians within such limitations, and whether he expected settlers to leave their homes voluntarily, Netanyahu said it was not yet clear where the borders of a two-state solution would run, and that he did not “want to go into the details” of how an accommodation regarding the settlers might be achieved. “Of course some of the settlements won’t be part of the deal, everyone understands that,” Netanyahu said. “I will make sure that [number] is as limited as possible, if we get there.” He pledged that no Israeli will be “abandoned.” Netanyahu’s comments marked the closest he has come to confirming The Times of Israel’s exclusive report from last month, which quoted a well-placed official in the Prime Minister’s Office as saying that Netanyahu would insist that settlers who find themselves on the far side of a two-state border be given the choice between remaining in place and living under Palestinian rule, or relocating to areas under Israeli sovereign rule.

The prime minister charged, however, that the Palestinians under PA President Mahmoud Abbas were “a very long way” from readiness for viable peace terms. They had to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, abandon the demand for a “right of return” for millions of refugee descendants to Israel, and agree to an “end of the conflict” accord, he said, and were giving no signs of being prepared to do so. Asked about the stern interview given by Barack Obama to Bloomberg on the eve of his meeting with Netanyahu in Washington Monday — the US president had castigated the settlement enterprise in a wide-ranging critique — Netanyahu said vaguely that “lots of people say lots of things.” He said he’d “stood up to pressure” in the past, and added that he had done so again while in the US this week, but did not elaborate. More important than any critical interview, he said, was the “positive” meeting he had with Obama at the White House.

US-based multinational RE/MAX is marketing properties in illegal Jews-only settlements built on stolen Palestinian land such as Ariel, near Salfit in the West Bank. Keren Manor/ActiveStills Agents working for the US-headquartered real estate giant RE/MAX are promoting themselves as specialists in property built in Israel’s settlements on occupied Palestinian land. The Colorado-based corporation which says it operates in nearly 100 countries was identified as responsible by a 2013 United Nations’ probe for how its Israeli franchises sell houses and apartments in the occupied West Bank. Despite that criticism, many RE/MAX representatives are continuing to handle such property.

In fact, all of these “communities” are Israeli settlements inside the West Bank and are illegal under international law. Their construction and growth violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbids an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into a territory that it occupies.

Scores of properties in the occupied West Bank (including East Jerusalem) are currently listed as for sale on RE/MAX websites. Some of them are on the market for high prices. RE/MAX is trying to sell a three-bedroom house in Jerusalem’s Old City for $1.7 million. According to RE/MAX, the house was “built over 600 years ago by the Turks.” A video for the same property posted to YouTube by Benzaquen, states that the “light train is just nearby.” That is a reference to a tram network which connects Israel’s settlements in East Jerusalem to other parts of the city. The French corporation Veolia has faced years of criticism and activist campaigns for its large-scale involvement in building the Jerusalem light rail, which Palestinians see as a means of tightening Israel’s grip on their city. RE/MAX’s Colorado headquarters did not reply to requests for comment.