Israel okays new West Bank settlement construction

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Israel on Thursday approved construction of 400 new homes in a Jewish neighbourhood in annexed east Jerusalem and invited bids for construction of another 416 settler homes in the occupied West Bank.

The interior ministry announced that a committee had approved a plan first unveiled in March to build 400 housing units in the Jewish neighbourhood of Neve Yaakov, in predominently Arab east Jerusalem.

Israeli authorities also called for bids for the construction of 286 homes in Beitar Ilit, a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank, just south of Jerusalem.

They also called for bids for construction of 130 homes in Har Homa, a Jewish district in east Jerusalem, which Israel captured and annexed in 1967, a move that has not been recognised by the international community.

The Palestinians and the international community have repeatedly slammed Israel's settlement construction in the occupied West Bank and in east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as the capital of a future state.

Jewish settlements are widely seen as one of the major hurdles in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians that were revived at a US conference in November but have since made little tangible progress."

more

[TomClash]

1. By what right and by what standard?

None. Another clear violation of international law.

[Vegasaurus]

2. Why don't they just declare their statehood already?

Time is a ticking.

The more time that passes, the less land they will have.

Holding on, trying to annihilate Israel in "violent resistance" is not giving them more land.

TIme is now, for their own state.

[Sezu]

3. Amazing how some here seem to believe there are

already, settled borders isn't it? Nice fantasy but until the borders are settled you will see more of this no matter what some sillies think is "international law."

[azurnoir]

4. Yep it is amazing see post #2

she states it pretty plainly the more time passes and with it the settlements thee less land for Palestinians

[Vegasaurus]

11. But it is true, and you know it

The Palestinians have lost about half the land that they could have had in 1948, had they simply accepted Jews living in their midst.

But they refused, have started war after war, attempting to drive Jews into the sea.

It hasn;t worked for 60 years, and isn't going to work now.

Sooner or later, the Palestinans are going to have to face reality.

There is a Jewish state.

Either they live with it, or they continue to live in misery.

Every year that passes that they refuse to acknowledge Israel, or continue to "violently resist", their prospects get smaller and their lives get more miserable.

Sanity will prevail at some point, at least we hope.

[TomClash]

13. But "they" have "acknowledged" Israel

Arafat and Rabin exchanged letters of recognition in 1993 after Oslo.

That's fifteen years ago. Settlements have been built and expanded ever since.

[azurnoir]

18. What I know is that same tired propanda

is spewed post after post after post after post, you ignore anything going on right now and disparately cling to the past, you constantly point out the misery of the Palestinians and occasionally shed a crocodile tears, yet you ignore the truce with Gaza is being upheld by the Palestinians while Israel is allowing the sick and elderly to die waiting at crossings or jump on board with the blame Egypt crowd, but the so called truce is not with Egypt and they are doing Israel a favor by negotiating not just the truce but for the release of a captured soldier, or is preventing another "incursion" into Gaza with the resulting civilian death toll which will of course be blamed on "terrorists" or the Palestinians themselves what is really frustrating you? The Palestinians have faced reality if not why Annapolis, none of this makes a difference though, at least to some.

[Vegasaurus]

20. Why don't YOU blame Egypt?

After all, they aren't doing a thing to help the Palestinians.

They have built a ten foot concrete wall and refuse to open their border.

At least be consistent.

If you are angry about any Israeli closures (and they are actually letting in building supplies, and a lot more), then certainly be angry about the way the Egyptians, as the rest of the Arabs, keep the Palestinians in misery.

[azurnoir]

Must we once again go over why Egypt is keeping it's

border closed? Really are the on going negotiations for Gilad Shalit that unimportant?

And well according to someone in Israel

Vilna'i: Israel won't open Rafah Crossing without Gilad Schalit

Israel will not open the Rafah Crossing on the border with the Gaza Strip, and will not permit any passageway of Palestinians into Egypt until progress is made in securing the release of captured IDF Cpl. Gilad Schalit, Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilna'i said on Tuesday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x220711

No matter which country made the decision keeping Rafah closed is still part of negotiations

This has to at least the 3rd link that has been posted to you on the subject.

[Vegasaurus]

27. And Pelsar has told you repeatedly that Israel does not control the Egyptian border

What part of this do you not understand?

Do you see Egypt actually helping the Gazans? Sending in food, medicines, letting them out for medical treatment, etc, trying to ease the situation in any way?

I don't.

[azurnoir]

28. your title line is a weak attempt at deflection

I understand who controls Rafah as was said in both my post to you and on the thread, again I must ask why is Gilad Shalit is unimportant to you? I have opined in the past that for a certain hawkish mind set and although I was referring to extreme right wing Israeli's perhaps it has crossed the ocean, this kids corpse is far more valuable then his safe return.

[Vegasaurus]

29. Deflecting what?

Egypt controls its own border. It's a fact.

I don't think the return of Gilat Shalit is more important that the Egyptians opening their border and doing their part, but I was not in favor of trading terrorists and murders for dead soldier bodies either.

[azurnoir]

30. Puleez do you assume no one reads the comments?

you must or you would not keep up this ridiculous line

[azurnoir]

31. You deflect the reason Egypt has not opened Rafah

and yes I do understand how it runs counter to certain preconceived prejudices, but the negotiations for Shalit are the reason at present Egypt has not opened Rafah, whether you admit it or not,and your personal feelings or wishes that it were otherwise will thankfully not change that.

[TomClash]

14. Without international law

Israel has no basis for its existence.

[azurnoir]

5. Well of course they should

and well those on the West Bank trying to annihilate Israel presumably by rock throwing should just "declare" statehood something I am sure Israel would be most receptive of, why they might even sent in a few battalions of IDF and some IAF to help celebrate the independence of the Palestinians.

[Vegasaurus]

6. They could have had a state many times, and you know it

The fact is that annihilating Israel and "taking back all of greater Palestine" is a more important goal than statehood.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. That's totally incorrect...

A new state emerging isn't as simple as just declaring statehood. If it was, there would have been a Palestinian state long before. New states rely on recognition by other states. If they don't get that recognition, then they're not recognised as a state and can't enter into international agreements etc. Both Israel and the US have been consistantly opposed to any Palestinian declaration of statehood. Plus, I'm not too sure a state can be declared when it's under occupation. East Timor didn't declare statehood until after the Indonesian occupation had ended....

Let's talk about yr so-called fact. The PLO shifted to a two-state solution decades ago. Even Hamas have made statements that the West Bank and Gaza is the territory that will make up a Palestinian state. And seeing this is in a thread where Israel is violating committments it's made and continuing to build settlements in occupied territory, grabbing as much land as possible and "taking back all of greater Israel" (there's some in the Israeli govt who hold that view, as well as supporters of the settlements) is a more important goal than seeing a fair resolution of the conflict where two independent and viable states will exist...


I'd be guessing pretty safely that what is more important than a declaration of statehood is seeing the end of the occupation and an end to hostilities.

[TomClash]

15. Plus . . .

. . . what is the point of declaring a state without settled borders on occupied land? That would hardly be a step toward achieving a viable state.

[Sezu]

8. They coulda had a state as early as 1948 but chose to try

and drive out the Jews. They have been whining about it ever since.

[breakaleg]

10. Nice hijack. Do you think anyone will forget what the OP is about because you told them to

look over there?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

9. Too bad the real news mostly gets ignored here. nt

[LeftishBrit]

12. Deep sigh

Why create *new* settlements at this stage? It's just flying against all common sense and decency, and interfering with hopes for peace.

[Sezu]

16. Surely there has to be some pragmatism here. Housing is

needed; the neighborhood is already Jewish. Farting the wrong way seems to be " against all common sense and decency, and interfering with hopes for peace," anymore in this I/P situation. Housing does not kill people.

So while I respect your thoughts I reject the meme that mere housing can be the end of hope for peace. If it were that fragile, it is useless to hope for it anyway.

[LeftishBrit]

17. Never said that it was 'the end of hope for peace'...

just an added impediment.

I don't think there is EVER an end of hope for peace.

[Sezu]

19. Point taken n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

25. WHY is indeed the question. Does this flagrant provocation of world opinion, of previous agreements

and of Israel's stated objective, ie., peace, not make you ask the basic question:

Does the gov't of Israel actually want peace?

I think the answer is a resounding NO!

[Scurrilous]

21. EU: Settlements undermine peace process

French EU Presidency expresses deep concern over Israel's intention to build 447 new housing units

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3579723,00.html

<snip>

"srael's decision to approve the building of hundreds of new housing units in the Jerusalem area undermines the credibility of the Middle East peace process, the European Union said on Friday.

A statement from the French EU Presidency said it was deeply concerned by the Israeli move.

"This decision serves to undermine the credibility of the ongoing peace process," it said, adding that the building of such settlements was illegal under international law.

"Settlement activities prejudge the outcome of final status negotiations and compromise the viability of a concerted two-state solution," the EU statement said, calling on Israel to freeze settlement activities."

[Sezu]

22. Prejudge my ass. Final outcomes are negotiable as in any

agreement; he should know that. This is political BS.

[LeftishBrit]

23. Of course, but I think that having the settlements would make it more difficult...

to establish any borders that require evacuation/ relocation of the settlements. Not impossible. People can be relocated and compensated. But it would be easier not to have the settlements in the first place, in any place which has a fair chance of changing borders.

[breakaleg]

24. If that is the case, why is it when there is any talk of a peace agreement, the removal of many of

the existing settlements is not on the table for negotiation? What is there to negotiate if there is nothing on the table?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

26. Israel is long the master of the land-grab. Why change successful strategy now? nt

[Dick Dastardly]

32. Are you talking about the settlements in the Sinai, Gaza or

the roughly 3% of the WB the settlements occupy?