Population of Jewish settlements in West Bank up 15,000 in a year

[Violet_Crumble]

The number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank grew by more than 15,000 in the past year to reach a total that exceeds 350,000 for the first time and has almost doubled in the past 12 years.

Figures from Israel's population registry show a 4.5% increase in the past 12 months. Most of the newcomers moved into settlements that many observers expect to be evacuated in any peace deal leading to a Palestinian state.

There are an additional 300,000 Jews living in settlements across the pre-1967 border in East Jerusalem, the pro-government and mass-circulation newspaper Israel Hayom reported.

The populations of the big settlement blocs of Maale Adumim, Gush Etzion and Ariel were stable over the past year. Maale Adumim and Gush Etzion are expected by most diplomats and negotiators to become part of Israel under an agreement on borders, but the future of Ariel, which juts deep into the West Bank, is uncertain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/26/jewish-population-west-bank-up

[holdencaufield]

1. You say that like it's a BAD thing.

The Palestinian population of the West Bank is up by a much larger number this year.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. That's because it IS a bad thing...

See, this is a left-wing forum, and people who are left-wing tend to oppose occupation and settlement. So watching the numbers of settlers in the West Bank grow is not a good thing, and shouldn't be seen as good by all but the most moronic on the fringes of 'Team Israel'

[pennylane100]

4. Your comment, not only is ridiculous, it is also so very sad.

The fact is, that you can not even acknowledge your country is rapidly encroaching into it's neighbors land through some legal, but mostly illegal means. It is even more sad that you would think that this is somehow justified because the population of the legal citizens of that land has also increased.

The formation of Israel, which was to be a shining example of democracy in that area, got off to a really bad start with the exit of almost one million refugees. The many wars that have been fought by its neighbors ever since were not too hard to predict. Now that Israel is firmly in control of its own destiny and thanks to its hard work and a little help from US tax payers, is well able to defend itself.

Expansion into the West Bank has only complicated a bad situation. With the continued expansion Israel will soon be left with only two choices, either incorporate the land into the state of Israel or run an apartheid system that worked out so well for South Africa.

The smart choice would be to go back to original borders and pay compensation for the land that was taken. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen. Because like the people in the Bob Dylan song, they really believe the words "The land that I live in has God on my Side" So sad.

[azurnoir]

5. True the Palestinian population in the WB is growing-at about 1/2 the rate of Israeli population

of the West Bank

[azurnoir]

3. In 1993 when oslo was signed there were 111,600 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank

today according B'tselem there are over 350,000, an increase of over 200% I guess that's supposed to be 'natural growth'

[Scurrilous]

6. Thanks.

[azurnoir]

7. Is Israeli annexation of Area C of the West Bank imminent?

I started to think that a formal, unilateral annexation of Israeli-controlled Area C is imminent in May, when I saw this video (Hebrew) advocating the move. A public relations ploy designed to convince Israelis that annexing Area C is good for their future—and that giving the Palestinians who live in the area citizenship or residency won’t disturb Israel’s demographic balance—the video was put on YouTube by settler leader Naftali Bennett.

......................................................................................................

And what is that larger context? The last year has seen an increase in the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank as well as a marked rise in the demolition of Palestinian and Bedouin structures in the same area. According to Israel Hayom, the settler population has grown 4.5 percent this year, passing the 350,000 mark. Over 15,500 Israeli citizens moved beyond the Green Line in the last year, making 2011 a record-breaking year of settlement growth.
........................................................................................................

It’s a one-two punch intended to increase the Jewish population in the West Bank as much as possible and deplete the Palestinian population as much as possible to ready the area for annexation. Susya, a Palestinian village that is under threat of demolition, is an example of how this works. The village has been destroyed numerous times since the Jewish settlement of Susya was built there in 1983, despite the documents proving it belongs to Palestinians and the fact that this small community has no where else to go.

Israeli pressure on the Palestinian and Bedouin residents of Area C has resulted in a drop in the Arab population in the same area.

http://972mag.com/is-israeli-annexation-of-area-c-of-the-west-bank-imminent/51956/

[Bradlad]

8. Well . .

. . it can also be seen as a reasonable response to the Palestinian refusal to negotiate final status according to R242 - after 45 years of trying to get them to do it. And after several offers were made and none accepted and none receiving counter offers.

One main purpose of R242 was to allow Israel to retain defensible borders as part of final status negotiations. By refusing to settle, Israel is denied what was agreed to by all the parties who signed R242. And moreover the Palestinians do not have to agree to normalization with Israel which I believe is the real line they will not cross (not that they'd honor any agreement they made). But it would have been at least a symbolic step toward peace.

It can be seen as Israel saying, OK - since they refuse bi-lateral negotiates on the matter, which they agreed to do - we'll annex what we deem necessary for defensible borders. They can then negotiate if they wish to get some of that land back - but at least then we will at least provisionally have what we deem to be defensible borders and they will have been forced to start real negotiations.

But yes, I understand this would mean that the Palestinians didn't get their way and were not able to prevent Israel from establishing those defensible borders - provisional as they might be - and for you and the Palestinian leadership or anyone who hopes that some day Israel will cease to exist that would be a terrible setback. For the Palestinian people not so much. For them it could be a fist step toward living normal lives without the constant threat of violence - except for the usual violence from their leaders.

[azurnoir]

9. Area C was granted to Israel during Oslo

which was not 45 years ago, and it was intended to be only temporary, none of the West Bank was ever intended to be part of Israel period

[oberliner]

10. What was the West Bank intended to be part of?

Are you saying Jordan?

[azurnoir]

11. a then unnamed Arab state

and the other was a Jewish state that decided to call itself Israel

[Bradlad]

12. That is simply not true.

Area C was not "granted" to Israel. Israel was given temporary control of it. R242 specifically allows Israel to retain parts of the West Bank sufficient for Israel to establish defensible borders - subject to negotiations with the Palestinians.

[azurnoir]

13. the operative word here is temporary

as for the rest I am quite aware of the weaseling involved with the word "the" in the withdrawal clause because is states territories which supporters of Israels occupation claim means only some the territories however most of the signatories either disagreed with that interpretation or remained silent about it and there are disputes about the meaning between the version in French and the version in English , as for the defensible borders claim that was also an interpretation and a good deal of area c borders Jordan with whom has a Peace treaty

[Bradlad]

14. If R242 actually meant . .

If R242 actually meant the green line or the 1948 borders or something else, then there wouldn't be much need for negotiations it would seem. Why didn't they just say where they agreed that the borders should be?

Here's a hint. They couldn't agree. And so they left it for the Palestinians and Israelis to negotiate them within the language they used. The language they used was "territories" not "the territories". The specific purpose for that as explained by those who actually wrote the agreement was to leave the borders as negotiable.

[azurnoir]

15. you mean they quibbled over the word 'the' for 2 months so that

later when there actually might be a risk of Israel having to give up the valuable aquifer and land area in the West Bank folks could come back and quibble about what territories means?

thanks nothing like negotiating in good faith is there?