Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumIsrael's Spending on Illegal Settlements Hits Two-Decade High of NIS 1.1 Billion
Last edited Tue Aug 7, 2012, 06:10 AM - Edit history (1)
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israeli-government-spent-nis-1-1-billion-on-settlements-in-2011-reports-show-1.454790The government spent NIS 1.1 billion on West Bank settlements last year, and could save at least that much if it were to make its spending proportionate to the number of Israelis who live in the settlements, according to two different reports made public this week.
Last year's government spending on the settlements represents a 38 percent rise over that of 2010. But it is significantly lower than the peak of NIS 2.5 billion (in real terms ) in 1993, when the funds were geared toward infrastructure changes required by the Oslo Accords, according to Central Bureau of Statistics findings reported on Monday by Israeli business newspaper Calcalist.
The report was prepared for U.S. officials to enable them to deduct the annual settlement expenditure from U.S. loan guarantees to Israel. In 2003 Israel stopped granting tax breaks to citizens seeking to move to the West Bank, after pledging to the United States that it would bring the benefits to an end.
In the second report, which also examines the cost of the settlements and is scheduled to be released to the public on Wednesday, Peace Now states that Israel could save NIS 1.6 billion a year if it were to match the level of government expenditure on services such as education and infrastructure in the settlements with the number of people who live there.
snip
-------------------------------------------------
(AP) As Israeli settler population surges under Netanyahu, Palestinian despair grows
http://www.canada.com/news/Israeli+settler+population+surges+under+Netanyahu+Palestinian/6907020/story.html
- Since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was elected more than three years ago, the Jewish population in the West Bank has ballooned by 18 per cent, drawing tens of thousands of Israelis to the territory the Palestinians claim as the heartland of a future state, according to figures obtained by The Associated Press.
The rate of growth — nearly twice that of Israel proper— has deep implications for an already moribund peace process. The issue is at the heart of a three-year-old impasse in Mideast peace efforts, and critics say each new settlement home makes it ever tougher for the Israelis and the Palestinians to reach the territorial compromise that would be needed for any agreement. The rising settler numbers are "consistent with Netanyahu's commitment to maintain the Israeli control over the Palestinian territories and consistent with his lack of commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution," Palestinian government spokesman Ghassan Khatib said.
Israel, which has a population of almost 8 million, has long sought to cement its hold on the West Bank, captured from Jordan in the 1967 Mideast war, by having masses of Jewish settlers live there. For years, the two sides had discussed the possibility that in a final peace deal, Israel would maintain some settlements while uprooting others. Israel has shown more than once — especially when it removed all of its 8,500 settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005 — that it can tear down settlements when it thinks the price is worth it.
But the numbers in the West Bank are much higher, more than tripling since the first interim peace accord of 1993 to more than 342,000 at the end of 2011, according to Interior Ministry figures. That includes a rise of more than 50,000, or 18 per cent, since Netanyahu was elected in early 2009, driven by a high settler birth rate and the migration of Israelis to the West Bank.
snip
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All these settlements are illegal under international law, which prohibits the forced transfer of civilian populations and forbids military occupiers from transferring any of its population to settle into the occupied area.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The figure is not in dollars.
The Israel NS is worth around 25 cents.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Definitely still a pretty high figure - and does not bode well for a peaceful resolution.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... the word "Illegal" into the headline? The word doesn't appear anywhere in the OP.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)Perhaps for the same reason that Shira changed her headline from "Israelis" to "Jews" attacking Gaza?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That sounds about right.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)stockholmer
(3,751 posts)holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)So -- until there is consensus or at least a ruling from a court with jurisdiction -- the illegality or legality of settlements in general remains opinion -- not fact.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)or something else perhaps a committee or something?
stockholmer
(3,751 posts)warming sceptics look like they are have a 50/50 split of the scientific community.
The settlements, both in practice, and in law, are illegal, immoral, and outrageous. The Israeli government is WRONG on this issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... of a binding resolution declaring such or a ruling of a court with jurisdiction, it is opinion, not statute.
If you're going to evoke the law -- you have to understand what a law is.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Isn't this the same argument creationists use to teach their garbage in schools? "We disagree, so our view is equally valid"?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)that virtually every country save Israel and of course the US consider illegal, there I certainly hope this straightens out any misunderstanding 
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I am glad some people appreciate honesty and accuracy.
kayecy
(1,417 posts)- Since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was elected more than three years ago, the Jewish population in the West Bank has ballooned by 18 per cent
Doesn't seem much point in pursuing the Two-state solution does it?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Irrespective of the ballooning Jewish population in the West Bank, it is still just as feasible a plan as it was a decade (or two) ago. The one-to-one land swap idea as envisioned in the Geneva Accords makes the most sense to me, especially under the circumstances. The settlements with the largest populations, near the Green Line, would become part of Israel, while equal amounts of land, with sizable Palestinian populations, within Israel would be turned over to the new Palestinian state. It's really not that complicated - I wish people on both sides had the courage to make a compromise and get this done.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There's no excuse for using settlement expansion as a bargaining tactic, especially since the more settlements are created, the harder it will be to get them out.
You WOULD agree, I hope, that all the settlements are an injustice to the people of Palestine, and that the creation of the settler population, with its overwhelmingly right-wing, hatred-based views, is doing horrible damage to Israeli political culture. Those people on the settlements are never going to be interested in peace or reconciliation, and they'll always have enough seats in the Knesset to make sure that, when it really matters, ANY Israeli government will end up saying "no" to any real peace.
It's not a two-state solution if the settlements remain, because Palestine, WITH the settlements in place, could never be a real state.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Ridiculous.
If the West Bank becomes a state with some settlements in its borders, the inhabitants of those settlements become de facto citizens of the Palestinian State. The settlements cease to be settlements and become towns. Those new (Jewish) citizens of the Palestinian State have options -- they can stay and abide by the laws of the new state or relocate within the borders of Israel.
Are you saying a Palestinian state can't be a real state if there are any Jews in it?
Exit Poll: If those new Palestinian citizens are forced to leave the West Bank should they be allowed to demand unlimited right of return for themselves and all their dependents for the rest of time?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Those settlements, if they were to remain settlements, would be claimed as Israeli territory. Those who lived within them would insist on Israeli citizenship. They aren't there just to live as equals with Palestinians. They're there to claim the land.
And, despite your demagogic insinuation, the issue is settlers, not "Jews". It's not about antisemitism. It would have been(and would still be)legitimate to ask that the pre-1948 Jewish population of the West Bank(or at least some of their descendants) be allowed to return, because THEY have a real connection to the land. But the settlers were mainly drawn from outside the West Bank(a lot of them are American)and came in acting like it was all THEIR land and that the Palestinians were and are nothing. People who came in with that mindset are NOT going to say "ok, we'll just be Palestinian citizens and leave it at that". They are going to fight to keep the settlements Israeli, and a large chunk of the IDF will back them(a lot of active-duty IDF personnel ARE settlers, which is a deeply disturbing situation if you accept the claim that the IDF are simply in the Territories to preserve order and prevent loss of life, a stance that SHOULD obligate the IDF to be neutral between Palestinians and settlers when those sides clash directly).
And the right of return issue you cite is spurious compared to the question of Palestinian RoR. The Palestinians who'd been forced out in 1948 had a real connection to the land. The settlers who were shipped in after 1973 or so don't.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)I'm always amazed by not only your ability to read the thoughts of us all -- but to predict the future. I surely hope you are using your powers for good.
"Those settlements, if they were to remain settlements, would be claimed as Israeli territory"
I'm getting you a map for Chanukah. Settlements aren't a monolithic structure -- Some settlements -- those near the border of the new state -- should be negotiated by both parties and end up on either side of that line the parties determine. Other settlements -- those well within the borders of the state should not remain as settlements (it doesn't make any sense for them to do so). NEGOTIATED borders is the key to a Palestinian State.
"People who came in with that mindset are NOT going to say "ok, we'll just be Palestinian citizens and leave it at that".
Let's ignore, just for a second, your ability to read people's thoughts. As I said before, these people (like all people on Earth) have options. If they don't want to be Palestinians, they have the option to return to Israel. If they reject both options then I wish them well. Settlements are now and have always been bargaining chips in this particular passion play.
"The Palestinians who'd been forced out in 1948 had a real connection to the land. The settlers who were shipped in after 1973 or so don't."
I really hope you're not going to say that Jews have no "connection" to Eretz Yisrael. The argument you're making could -- very easily be extended to all of Israel. Some of those Jews have no connection to Israel because they've only been there since 1948 -- and some of them even came from different countries! Oh my! You're not saying that, are you? What precisely is your pre-established cutoff for a "connection" to develop?
For example -- would a Hispanic citizen of the US who moved there in 1995 and has a house in Oakland not be "connected" to the US? Would he only be connected if he moved there prior to 1967? This sounds like a powerful argument against immigration of all kinds. If you are saying that -- there are some like-minded Minutemen you might want to get to know.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)To Palestine, obviously. Not to Israel. The Palestinians who are currently Nakba survivors who live in Palestine now were not forced out of their country; they were internally displaced. They lived in Palestine then. They live in Palestine now. The fact that they have to live 20 miles away from where they were before is amongst the smallest price paid by those involved in the creation of this (or really ANY) state. Look at the Mizrahi Jews. They actually had to leave their countries, losing all of their property and assets without any hope of compensation whatsoever. The Palestinians merely have to live in a different part of Palestine, they were allowed access to their bank accounts and non-property assets.
The Palestinians who'd been forced out in 1948 had a real connection to the land.
Right. But it is the same land as before. It's still Palestine.
The Palestinians who'd been forced out in 1948 had a real connection to the land.
Except for the ones who did not. Namely, those who were recent immigrants, or who never lived in Palestine or Israel to begin with. You know, like Arafat.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)but it's equally unjust to tie that into what happened to the Palestinians...the Palestinians themselves bore no responsibility for the displacement of the Mizrahi...indeed, simply logic proves that such a displacement is the last thing the Palestinians themselves would ever have wanted.
To tie the two together is to go back to the cynical "population transfer" myth that Ben-Gurion and Begin both used to try to get the world to accept that what was done to the Palestinians wasn't wrong.
There should be an independent investigation of which figures were specifically responsible for the Mizrahi displacement...the states those figures were part of should provide compensation, apologies and acknowledgment to the Mizrahi. But the worst possible response is to take the Palestinian and Mizrahi exodi together and act as if the two events somehow cancel each other out and erase the injustice involved.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Except for the instances where they WERE responsible for it. Such as when they directly expelled them from parts of Palestine, like Hebron or East Jerusalem. Or when Palestinians like the Mufti partnered with the Nazis in an attempt at exacting revenge and succeeded in instigating widespread attacks against native Jews. Look at what happened in Iraq.
But while that is all true, it really misses the forest for the trees. You see, you are trying to look at these two events as though they are entirely separate actions that in no way were influenced by one another. You are looking at it strictly from the perspective of the victims and deducing that they are both victims; neither of which can be held accountable for the injuries against the other. A more accurate way of looking at this would be to take the broad angle into account. This never was just a conflict between the Palestinians and the Zionists. It was a conflict that encompassed the entire region. No single act can be taken out of context or disconnected from all of the other acts surrounding it... what helped cause it, what it helped cause, etc. And while it is certainly true that the poorest victims amongst the Palestinians are not to blame for the plight of the Mizrahim, neither can you remove that plight from the conflict that so deeply involves the Palestinians.
Just as the Mizrahim would not have been expelled had the Palestinians chosen to not fight the Zionists, we can not extract the blame for the Nakba from the blame for the initiation of violence from the decision of the Arab League to use the Palestinians as pawn to their eternal detriment. It was the same Arab states who came to fight the Israelis in 1948 supposedly in the name of aiding the Palestinians who expelled all of their Jewish citizens.
the Palestinians themselves bore no responsibility for the displacement of the Mizrahi
But that's my point. Of course they did! The Mizrahi are victims of the conflict after all. And as one of the two key players in the conflict's instigation and continuation, it was their actions that influenced events leading to their expulsion. This isn't to say that they bear sole responsibility for what occurred. But neither are they blameless in the Mizrahi's plight either.
But the worst possible response is to take the Palestinian and Mizrahi exodi together and act as if the two events somehow cancel each other out and erase the injustice involved.
Is it? Why? The Arabs threw out the Jews and Israel took them in and made them citizens. The Arab states involved refused to do the same for the Palestinian refugees of this same conflict that they expelled their Jews in the name of. But these states can not fight a series of wars against Israel in the name of the Palestinians only to then assume no responsibility for the result. This is a tribal conflict. The Arab states are enough of a shared tribe with Palestine to fight in their name? Then they are equally tribe enough to play the role for the refugees that Israel did for theirs.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Palestinians weren't responsible for THAT...and we can assume that they didn't want that.
It was just as wrong to displace the Palestinians of 1948 as it was to displace the Mizrahi of Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Egypt and the other countries from where the Mizrahi were displaced. The Palestinians didn't want those people driven out of their homes. Why on earth would they?
And the Palestinians and the Mizrahi ARE both victims...why deny that? Why insist on fighting for a fictional narrative that pretends that only those on the side you back in all of this were ever victims? Why insist on denying that, even if the creation of Israel was justified, harm was done in its creation and that the grievances Palestinians hold about that are legitimate in many respects and must be addressed? You and I rightfully join in condemning Holocaust denial. Nakba denial is equally wrong, and must equally be condemned, because peace can only be made in this if mutual and equal suffering is admitted. Admitting that and accepting that is something any decent human being would naturally do.
Yes, there were reasons to create Israel, and yes Israel within the pre-1967 lines has a right to be accepted now and live in peace. But there needs to be an admission that there were mutual wrongs and mutual suffering. It does the Zionist cause no harm to admit that it doesn't hold the monopoly on victimhood IN THE I/P CONFLICT ITSELF.
What you are demanding in that last response is for Palestinians to accept that the other side in the conflict ALWAYS had it worse then they did. And on that point, we need to make a clear distinction between the way European Christians treated Jews(which was and is an unforgiveable blight on history)and the conflict between Israel and the Arab countries on one hand and the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians on the other. The latter two conflicts are not related to the events in European history that drove the creation of Zionism, and there was a major degree of unfairness in the degree to which the State of Israel, in effect, took out the anger people all over the world felt about the Holocaust on a continent and a people that was not complicit in that monstrous act...or in the Kishniev Pogrom...or in the Inquisition and the centuries of the preservation of the ghettos, or, really, of the Dispersal itself.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I don't think all the settlements are "an injustice to the people of Palestine" - especially if you consider East Jerusalem to be a settlement.
There can definitely be a two-state solution with some of the near-the-Green Line-settlements staying in place. They would just be annexed to Israel in exchange for land of equal size and quality near the Green Line being annexed to the new Palestinian state.
Are you opposed to a land swap of that nature?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not as if there's any large sections of Israel that are totally uninhabited. And removing Israeli citizens from land on the Israeli side of the Green Line would cause a massive popular revolt.
Can you name ANY land of equal size and quality that could possibly fit the bill here?
The only way to make peace is to completely end and apologize for the settlement project. There was simply never any excuse to deliberately encourage and subsidize Israeli civilians to live in what would inevitably be a war zone.
Without the settlements, peace might well have been achieved by now.
The damage that has been done be creating a previously nonexistent extreme right-wing faction of territorial zealots who will always end up being included in any Israeli governing coalition is incalculable.
And how can it possibly be defensible that thousands of Palestinians in East Jerusalem have been evicted from their homes and had their property destroyed? It's not as if those people had no right to live where they had always lived.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Here's a map from their website that outlines just such a swap:
http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/geneva-initiativeisrael-palestine-permanent-borders
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)about the quality of the lands proposed for swap compared to the lands Palestinians would be expected to forfeit IN the swaps.
Would you agree that, if the choice were between peace and preserving the settlements, that peace should be the preferred choice?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)You didn't look very closely.
On the side bar are links to detailed information about every segment that would be swapped on both sides.
I'm not sure what other information you are looking for.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)OK Ken, correct me if I'm wrong, but you have never actually been to either Israel or Palestine, nor do you speak any Hebrew or Arabic, right? Because I have to say, your dogmatic insistence on what is required for peace to EVAR be attained which always seems to hinge on some kind of act happening immediately, and that it is done permanently, without much actual research to support your beliefs.
The fact of the matter is that you just don't know nearly enough about this complex conflict to make these kinds of statements with any accuracy at all. Remember when you stated unequivocally that the Arab Spring proved that the Arabs are capable of fomenting democracy and societies based on human rights? That did not end up exactly ending up to be super true so far. Why should anyone give any of these ultimatums of yours any credence?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Nobody can write it off yet.
Basically...your views on this seem to be built on a tactic of repeating variations of Netanyahu's favorite question to those who point out that his hardline views are putting the prospects of any ultimate peace into serious danger:
"How Do You Know?"
Why on Earth do you think that's a worthwhile way to respond? It's actually a fairly childish approach when you get down to it...more or less on the same level as the kid who says "am NOT" or "am SO" to anything anybody else says.
Can you not see how dangerous, and how potentially suicidally reckless, it can be to apply that approach to discussions of the I/P issue?
Why would you ever consider "How Do You Know?" to be a response that's anywhere close to the seriousness of all this?
And what is there to gain by taking the riskiest and most reckless courses of action just because you don't accept that it's absolutely certain that those courses will lead to disaster? What is gained from continuing to build settlements that could ever possibly outweigh the damage continued settlement building does to the chances of actually ever ending the conflict?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)I am not asking "How Do You Know?" in a rhetorical fashion like you described. See Ken, you're making very, VERY specific predictions and demanding that equally specific, far-reaching policies be enacted based on the accuracy of these predictions.
In light of the fact that you consider yourself knowledgeable enough about this to make such cast-in-stone remarks, I think it is fair to ask exactly what your experience IS with all of this.
Can you not see how dangerous, and how potentially suicidally reckless, it can be to apply that approach to discussions of the I/P issue?
No, in fact I consider it to be an important question to ask anyone who thinks that they can predict the outcome of ANY action in the famously "impossible-to-predict" Middle East with such certainty. Especially when that person's ideas have not really been substantiated by any evidence at large but seem to be based mostly on their idea of how things should be, or possibly how THEY imagine they would feel were they in the shoes of the Palestinians or Israelis. (A notoriously inaccurate way of figuring this kind of stuff out.)
Basically...your views on this seem to be built on a tactic of repeating variations of Netanyahu's favorite question to those who point out that his hardline views are putting the prospects of any ultimate peace into serious danger:
Really? I'm not sure I believe you. Can you back this up?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... has already offered that. The other side has rejected it. I can't remember which side did what.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And no matter what your definition of that adjective is, there's probably still several ideas just as workable within that framework.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)The settler population has expanded, not necessarily the collective footprint of the settlements themselves. Any two state solution will probably entail land exchanges anyway, in reality this development does not really affect the possibility of crafting a workable 2 state solution.
What it DOES do is highlight a lack of will on the part of the current Israeli administration to seriously support peace talks at this time. But it is not as though there is any serious commitment to the project on the Palestinian side either, so it's a bit of a wash IMO.
However I do find your comment disturbing in how readily, almost eagerly it seems, you are willing to completely abandon the ONLY feasible path towards peace that currently exists. Worse, it is also the only possible solution that results in self-determination for the two nations involved; keystone requirements for both parties. I find it a little chilling at how easily someone completely removed from the conflict itself can suggest abandoning the possibility that Israel and Palestine can both retain/obtain self-determination AND achieve peace between themselves. The fact of the matter is that any "solution" that requires Israel to abandon its independence is essentially a non-starter. It is a given fact regarding any sort of negotiation that you won't achieve any progress at all unless you are offering a net BENEFIT. To suggest that the cost of peace would be for Israel to first abandon Zionism and dismantle its existence sounds like it might be a rather hard sell, don't you think?
Or did you have some other kind of path to peace? One that isn't a total fantasy?
