Israeli Housing Ministry plans to build 1,900 new housing units across West Bank

[ProgressiveMuslim]

Date: 02 / 04 / 2008 Time: 20:40


Bethlehem – Ma'an - The freeze on building Israeli settlements announced by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert before the Annapolis summit appears to have come to an end with the announcement by the Israeli Housing Ministry that they are planning to build 1,900 housing units across the West Bank, the Israeli daily newspaper Yediot Ahronot has reported.

According to the newspaper, it's ten years since such large scale plan for settlement building has been proposed. The plan comes in the wake of Olmert's promise to the religious Shas party to revoke the decision to freeze the construction of settlements.

The plan, which was coordinated with Olmert's office, is to build 158 new housing units in the settlement of Efrat south of Bethlehem, 682 units in the settlement of Beitar Illit west of Bethlehem, 160 units in the settlement of Benyamin, near Ramallah, 510 units in Giva't Ze'ev south west of Ramallah, 302 units in the Ma'ale Adumim settlement east of Bethlehem, 48 in Kiryat Arba near Hebron and another 48 units in Ariel, near Salfit.

A number of contractors have begun preparations for the expansion of Givat Ze'ev, with bulldozers ready and waiting for Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak to sign the construction plan.




Print Preview

Send to friend

[ProgressiveMuslim]

1. Israel continues to demonstrate its "commitment to peace."

I think the diplomatic term for a government that engages in this behavior is "bunch of fucking boldfaced liars."

[bemildred]

2. Can't seem to get everyone on the same page.

(Psssst, you need a link.)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

3. Sorry.. link to above inside..

http://maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=28605

[ProgressiveMuslim]

4. This here, folks, is why we have a conflict. Neither rain, nor snow, nor peace talks,

nor previous commitments, nor human decency, nor an attack of conscience.... NOTHING STOPS THE SETTLEMENT MACHINE.

Israel's tyrannical subjugation of Palestine has nothing to do with Palestine's "wrong response" to their plight. It's all about the land, baby.

[subsuelo]

5. I don't know why.. but I continue to be shocked....

At the fact that this is allowed to continue. They're stealing the land while everyone watches it happens. And nothing is ever done.

Oh, they removed 50 dirt roadblocks, as a good will gesture. That's supposed to get everyone to shut up about Israel not doing it's part.

Why I continue to be shocked, I don't know. I guess that's my problem.

[azurnoir]

6. Don't forget the water too

gee why did they "give up" arid Gaza?

[Vegasaurus]

8. This may be why we may have a conflict now

it is not why we had a conflict between 1948 and 1967, and surely not why there was conflict between Arabs and Jews before 1948.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

9. This behavior is utterly repugnant and completely indefensible.

That is why not one Israel supporter is touching this with a 10 foot pole.

I defy any of you to show your faces to state in public that you believe the gov't of Israel is interested in peace.

You simply cannot. This behavior obviates any speechifying. Shame! Shame! Shame!

[idontwantaname]

16. bump for someone with chutzpah to take this challenge n/t.

[Vegasaurus]

18. There are plenty of people who will take that challenge in public

including most of the US congress.

[azurnoir]

37. During an election year

this is an example of why the lobby and campaign contribution systems must change, and once again if Israel is a low priority issue with voters why do our Congress critters spend so much time on on it, could it be there is something more in it for them?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

20. There is only one explanation for this despicable behavior.

It shows Israel's true intention.

PERIOD.

[pegleg]

17. It's a bargainng chip and as long as rockets keep landing in Israel,

Israel will keep settling.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

19. Bullshit. Settlements have been built since day 1 of occupation.

What was the excuse then?

SHAME SHAME SHAME!

[pegleg]

21. well, if I recall properly, the "occupation" began with Israel defending itself

from extinction.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. Give the tired old nonsense a rest, will ya? (insert sound of Charlie Brown's teacher's voice). nt

[pegleg]

24. facts is facts

[LeftishBrit]

25. Well, it's true - though admittedly so are two other points:

(1) This doesn't justify the occupation still going on after 40 years.

(2) The threat of extinction came not from the Palestinians but from some Arab states - of which two have long since made a sort of peace with Israel.

But neither of these alters the fact that Israel WAS threatened with extinction in 1967 and again in 1973.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

27. Have you guys read any recent histories by Israeli historians?

I think the whole "threat of extinction" nonsense is overblown hyperbole.

Seriously, have you read any modern histories?

[idontwantaname]

36. i read it a bit differently.

it went more along the lines of israeli troops removing the native population from their land.
ill share my sources if you want to share yours.

[Crunchy Frog]

28. It's a deliberate provocation to violence

and as long as Israel keeps settling, it will keep reaping that violence, which I'm beginning to strongly suspect is exactly what it wants.

[breakaleg]

12. In terms of reaching a solution, what matters is now, not who started it 60 years ago.

[LeftishBrit]

26. True enough - so what do you think *should* be done to reach a solution?

[Crunchy Frog]

29. Either remove the settlements, or

establish a single state and give everyone equal citizenship and equal rights.

[LeftishBrit]

30. I agree wtth the first idea. The second is pie-in-the-sky under the circumstances.

[Crunchy Frog]

31. I will continue to support the second

until or unless it begins to look like the first is a realistic possibility. I'm not holding my breath on that.

[breakaleg]

32. Isn't the first also a pie in the sky? Especially since they are expanding them as we speak.

Or are you one of those people that when you say remove the settlements, you don't mean the majority of them or all of them, or the big ones?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

33. The latter, perhaps? nt

[breakaleg]

34. I don't see peace anywhere on the horizon. I don't see Israel giving up any settlements either.

For those who disagree, just look at the OP.

So that leave one state. Israel is digging itself a hole it may not get out of. I'll laugh as I watch them try though. This is one of several areas where they have created this mess themselves and I will not have any sympathy.

[Vegasaurus]

35. The large settlement blocs will not be removed

just like there will never be right of return for four million Palestinians.

There could be land swaps, reparations, etc. But the demand to return to the '67 lines and allow for right of return for all refugees and their descendants? Not happening.

The sooner people realize those facts on the ground, the sooner the Palestinians might get a state. The violence and terrorism and demands for the above conditions have only made the life for the average Palestinian more miserable.

It is really time that they look carefully at what 60 years, or closer to 100, or trying to chase out Jews, has gotten them. Had they accepted the partition plan in '48, they would have had much more land than they will ever have now, no matter what kind of agreement is signed. They just continue to lose more and more, and their lives could improve, if they made better choices.

[breakaleg]

38. Let's face it. The only reason Israel is demanding to keep what it wants and get away with it,

is that the US is backing them up against all opposition in the UN and world wide. Do you think that gravy train will last forever? Europe is getting tired of Israel. For all we know, Israel could wear out its welcome mat any time now.

The longer Israel keeps this up, the more likely a one state solution becomes the ONLY option.

[LeftishBrit]

42. Europe is NOT 'getting tired of Israel'

Europaeans have mixed views about Israel, as about everywhere: some support it, some don't. The majority view is probably support for Israel, but also for a Palestinian state and of course opposition to settelement expansion.

Frankly, given Europe's history, I'd be VERY careful about making sweeping statements that 'Europe is getting tired of Israel', etc. - that could be misinterpreted in a very bad way by people who live outside of Europe.

[Vegasaurus]

44. Do you honestly think that Israel will willingly move

a half million people?

There is no way in hell. There will be a war first.

This is why this "negotiating item" of the Palestinians is ridiculous. It will never be negotiated that Israel will willingly draw back to the '67 lines and move all their large settlement blocs, people who are grandparents now, who have lived there for forty years.

That is just fantasy thinking.

[Shaktimaan]

45. That's dumb.

The longer Israel keeps this up, the more likely a one state solution becomes the ONLY option.

Israel constructing 1,400 new homes is going to void the two state solution? Why? How does it hurt the two state solution in any way?

I'm playing devil's advocate here because I detest ongoing settlement construction and think it's crazy for Israel to do this. But it's crazy because of what it symbolizes, endless settlement expansion and a lack of will for meaningful negotiations, not because the reality reflects that fear.

Realistically, these homes don't affect anything aside from people's emotions. They're being built in existing settlements where there's already very high concentrations of Jews. These are the areas that are already effectively off the table regarding Palestine. It isn't as though Israel's appropriating more land to build on. This construction will have zero net effect on anything regarding the Palestinians.

It would be one thing if land was being appropriated or if small settlements were being expanded outward. But that's not the case. This construction is obnoxious and aggressive. But it doesn't change anything; especially anything that would affect the odds of a two state solution's validity. I'd encourage you to keep this in perspective. We are talking about 1,400 homes... basically nothing. How does this diminish Palestine's odds for creating a successful state in any way? It doesn't.

Europe is getting tired of Israel. For all we know, Israel could wear out its welcome mat any time now.

Europe is getting tired of Israel???? How so????

[ProgressiveMuslim]

46. Shakti, today's tiny settlement is tomorrow's unyield-able settlement bloc.

Settlments like Maale Adumin will never be returned. The will require IDF, roads, support etc. Increasing numbers of those settlements decrease the likelihood of Palestine ever getting a viable state that doesn't look like a piece of swiss cheese.

If that land will be going back, why bother settling it?

[Shaktimaan]

47. That's my point.

It isn't going back.

Look, I have a hard time defending settlements and settlers so I'm not going to pretend that I think this expansion is all OK or that it doesn't represent something truly awful and antithetical to the foundation of the peace process. It's truly disgusting.

That said, being disgusting doesn't mean that it is also the end of the two state concept. If settlements are going to expand at all, (And I understand that there needs to be SOME expansion for natural growth. Those guys do all have like 8 kids, after all.) then I would prefer that it happen in the large, established settlements that border Jerusalem or the green line. Those settlement blocks aren't going to end up as part of Palestine anyway.

Expanding tiny settlements that exist on their own way out in the middle of the WB by expropriating the farmland surrounding it is a whole different story IMO. Doing that would be truly damaging to the peace process and would only cause future problems even post-peace treaty establishment. Since they're expanding any settlements at all, frankly, I'd like to see some kind of action on the other side to reaffirm Israel's commitment to their word. Arresting hilltop settlers who re-settle after being evicted by the IDF would be a good start.

I'm not defending settlement expansion. Just trying to can the extreme hyperbole and give the situation some perspective is all. 1400 homes isn't the Louisiana Purchase, after all.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

48. The sum total of settlement expansion since 1967 is far larger than the Louisiana

purchase. And each expropriated dunam makes future concession less likely. The patchwork that will be offered back simple won't be viable.

You're dreaming.

[Shaktimaan]

49. The louisiana purchase was over 800,000 square miles.

Almost 25% of America today was bought in the Louisiana Purchase, settlement expansion since 1967 does not even come remotely, slightly close to the area of it.

As far as appropriated land goes, my point is that the expansions we're discussing here don't expropriate more land. But it doesn't matter, everyone knows what the basic prace plan will look like. Israel has already agreed that it will be based on the green line. In real terms that means that while the exact land that will be offered to Palestine might exist in a different place, the total acreage and quality of the land offer will not lessen just because of settlement expansion.

You keep referring to a "patchwork" as though the offer would obviously be non-contiguous and I don't know why. Camp David and Taba were not rejected because they weren't viable offers. They fell apart over Jerusalem and to a lesser degree, the refugee issue. The camp david offer supposedly wasn't for a west bank split up into several different "cantons" anyway, as I keep hearing. There's a discrepancy between what the US and Israel say was offered and what Palestine thinks was offered. But that's OK because it means that Israel isn't arguing that a patchwork offer is, in fact, viable. They are claiming that their offer was misrepresented. In other words, any future offer will have to align closely with what Israel insists were their actual offers beforehand. They can't insist that they never offered a segmented Palestine only to then turn around and try and spin a new Banthustan plan as viable. At any rate, the offer at Taba certainly wasn't bisected, and encompassed an area of nearly the entire OPT. Taba was entirely viable, as was Clinton's offer made during Camp David. (His interpretation of it, obviously.)

You seem convinced that Israel won't ever make an offer that the Palestinians could work with. But seeing as how Israel has already made two viable offers, I don't see why you can't imagine a future one. They may not get the same offer we saw at Taba. They probably won't get an offer that they would consider fair or preferable. But an offer doesn't qualify as non-viable just because the Palestinians may have to swallow some pride to accept it. For example, they probably won't be offered sovereignty over Al Aqsa mosque, considering the unique significance it holds for Israel. Will that be a dealbreaker for the Palestinians? Maybe. I sure hope not, because it is a very likely scenario.

Ultimately, the viability of a Palestinian state will depend far more on the Palestinians themselves than on whether they get 95% or 98% of the west bank or whether they end up with enough of the old city to sate their birthright. Consider how much Israel managed to do, despite their extremely limited resources, the constant threat (and execution) of war, the vast sanctions imposed against them by both Arab, African and Asian states, their isolation and the not insignificant challenge of building a cohesive nation from people representing a myriad of different cultures and languages, most of them refugees who arrived with next to nothing. Look at what Israel was offered in the peel plan...



If offered to Palestine would you advise them to accept it? Would you consider it viable? Remember that the Jews accepted it, despite their losing Jerusalem and Hebron. Viability is in the hands of the beholder. If something like a 5% or 10% loss is enough to render Palestine nonviable IYO, then I'd seriously question your nation's likelihood of success, no matter how much land they are offered.

[Crunchy Frog]

51. Hence the necessity of a one state solution.

Thanks for making it so clear.

[Vegasaurus]

52. Which will bring on World War III.

Why would a progressive advocate war?

[Crunchy Frog]

53. Well heck, maybe it will bring about Armageddon,

then the fundy nutcases can finally be raptured, and the rest of us will have a more sensible world to live in.

[Shaktimaan]

54. why are you so supportive of a single state solution,

given the impracticalities of the notion? You have two nationalities who have been at war for 100 years. They each desire self-determination and independence. Why in the world do you think that forcing them together into a single state would have any beneficial effect at all? It is the opposite of what both states have been arguing and fighting for. Why not propose merging India and Pakistan (heck, and Bangladesh too) because of the fighting over Kashmir?

This, of course, is besides the point that Israel would never, ever, ever ever ever agree to a single state. It would be the end of Zionism and Jewish self-determination not to mention the creation of tremendous social problems they would be unlikely to overcome. What state would want to absorb a far less educated, hostile, populous yet extremely poor nation into itself, especially if it would mean that their nationality would become a minority in their own state? What brand new nation would want to merge with their far more wealthy, educated enemies who already have the benefit of 60 years of governing over a system that was set up to exclude them? What people would fight to become the lower socio-economic half of a pre-existing state instead of forging their own autonomous nation?

If we were to merge Palestine into any middle eastern state I couldn't think of a less likely candidate than Israel. Why not propose merging it with Jordan? The majority of west bankers were Jordanian themselves until very recently. And then merge Gaza with Egypt? I'll tell you why. Because neither Jordan nor Egypt nor Palestine wants to. Yet it would make infinitely more sense than an Israel/Palestine single state proposal.

If you really think this idea is for the best then you'll have no trouble selling it to the Israelis. (You know that they have to sign off on it before it can be done, right?) So, can you give a single compelling benefit that such a move would have for Israel?

[Vegasaurus]

55. Always surprises me that people trot out this idiotic

"one state" solution, as a solution to anything.

Want to ensure a bloodbath?

Shakti, you are exactly right. There is no way that you can put two peoples who have been at war for 100 years (although one has agreed to peace again and again) in the same country.

The Israelis will NEVER, EVER, EVER agree to it.

There will be a world war first. The Israelis are not suicidal. They are not giving up their country to a people who has sworn to obliterate them.

Anyone opposed to war ought to consider the consequences of recommending a "one state solution".

[azurnoir]

39. Again what land should be swapped?

The Jordan aquifer is what Israel wants, what will it "give" the Palestinians in return?

[idontwantaname]

40. if they had made better choices

not so funny how israels greedy land grab of occupied territory is like the failed land grab arab states sought all those years ago. instead of making peace with their smaller and weaker neighbor they(arab states) decided to sour relations and extend their borders. oh, but its not about pity for palestinians, but shame for the thief and scoundrel of a state israel has become.

[LeftishBrit]

43. I mean the majority

Including eventually all those established since 1993; since after the Oslo accords, settlers *knew* that a Palestinian state was being considered, and therefore should not have expected to be able to live permanently in these areas. There should be more room for negotiation with regard to pre-Oslo-accord settlements, but IMO as many should be disbanded (with full compensation, of course) as possible. Disbanding *all* would doubtless be 'pie in the sky'.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

7. Attention: US Dept. of State: This is response of the gov't of Israel to your attempts to

broker peace.

Do you have eyes?
Do you have ears?

Wake up, people! Boycotts, sanctions and divestment is the only way!!

[azurnoir]

10. Congress should take note too

they are the ones OKing the money and weapons, but just for some reason can not quite see straight, at least at election time.

I am going to repeat a question from another thread If I/P is low on the priority list with voters of any religion, why do our critters in the Congress and occasionally Senate spend so much time and so many resolutions on it, what is in praising Israel for them?

[LeftishBrit]

11. This is wrong, immoral and counterproductive ....

and in absolutely no one's interests in the long run - excpet the minority fringenut parties who are holding the government hostage politically.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

13. These actions show that the problem is not "extremism". These actions are the

policy of the elected gov't of the state of Israel.

If enough Israelis cared, this could be stopped TODAY.

As much as I may disagree with Hamas' tactics, they sure have the correct analysis of this situtation. The gov't of Israel is fundamentally not interested in negotiating a just peace through negotiation.

It is simply not possible for anyone to make the argument that the gov't of Israel has any intention of allowing 2 states because this behavior fundamentally flies in the face of those stated aims and everyone involved KNOWS IT!!!

LB... what next? What in the name of God do you think Palestinians are supposed to do in the face of these actions? The world is SILENT about this.

[Vegasaurus]

14. If enough Palestinians cared

maybe they wouldn;t have terrorists for their government, and they could stop the rockets TODAY!

Howz about them apples?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

15. The correct analogy would be if 2000 Palestinians marched to Tel Aviv, claimed 100s of dunams of

land, kicked Israeli citizens off at gunpoint, razed the buildings or fields, and built new housing.

Actually, that might not be a bad idea.

A little tit for tat.

[pegleg]

22. If I am not mistaken, that has always been their stated goal.

[azurnoir]

41. Well then if that is the truth

then at least the Palestinians are honest in their intentions, as opposed to others who smile, nod, and pretend to go along with a peace process, so as to collect tax dollars and arms, and then do as they please.

[Indenturedebtor]

57. Oh please

Who continues to break the peace? Hmm the Israelis? But when there is no peace there is no peace. Neither side should be aggressing but to suggest that Israel should just sit back and take the hits without retaliation is rediculous and you damn well know it.

Almost any other nation in the history of the world would have committed genocide by now, as is the stated goal of the Palestinian Democratically elected Leadership I might add.

Drop the smug.

[Indenturedebtor]

56. Exactly

Yes the settling shouldn't be going on... neither should the bombings and rockets. Decry both or decry neither. If you pick one you reveal yourself to be onesided and your words only sway people who are already so decided you might as well be talking to yourself.

For my part you sound about as rational about the whole issue as a fundie settler. No offense but sometimes a mirror is good for the soul.

On Edit: I was speaking to ProgressiveMuslim in most of the post... the exactly was for you though.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

50. ILLEGAL SETTLEMENT EXPANSION: Just another day under Israel's "not so bad" occupation. nt