On the surface, the issue seems rather futile. The Israeli government, which has built hundreds of exclusively Jewish settlements in the occupied territories in violation of international law, is being criticized for "legalizing" four of these illegal settlements. What is it about "outposts" that makes them different from other settlements? A deeper look at the issue reveals decades of attempts to fool the international community about Israel’s commitment to peace.

To understand the difference, it is important to go back to the beginning of this century. The US and its allies were preparing to go to war against Iraq (after having already gone to war against Afghanistan in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001). To minimize potential anti-Americanism, the Bush administration leaned on its Israeli allies not to carry out any actions that would provoke the anger of Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims. The US attempts to simultaneously restart Palestinian-Israeli talks required that Israel refrain from any further official settlement activity.

As a result of this situation, the pro-settlement right-wing Israeli leader Ariel Sharon looked for ways to avoid carrying out any official settlement activity while wanting to disrupt any negotiations that could lead to Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. It was during this period in 2002 that then-prime minister Sharon called for Israeli settlers “... to capture the hilltops in the occupied West Bank before losing them to Palestinians in negotiations.” Within a short time, 221 illegal Israeli settlement outposts were established.

The Israelis made it clear that they would turn a blind eye to attempts by Jewish settlers to expand and create new housing units. Thus, the term “outpost” was created to refer to settlements built without official Israeli government approval. While these outposts were not officially sanctioned, Israeli soldiers were made available to protect the settlers and their units once they were up.