Israel's Settlements: Unnatural Growth

[Ordie]

Unnatural Growth</SPAN>



By Gershom Gorenberg
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/story_dots_repeat_15.gif


Posted June 2009 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/webOnly.gif
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/spacer.gif
Bibi Netanyahu says the Israeli settlements in the West Bank must grow to accommodate population expansion. He's full of it.






http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/090611_settlement.jpg
Flickr user Decode Jerusalem
Rooms available: Enlarging the settlements only makes them harder to dismantle in the future.

It must be said that Benjamin Netanyahu has learned a little from Barack Obama. True, the Israeli prime minister has been remarkably slow in grasping that when the U.S. president says he wants a freeze on settlement building, he means a freeze. But at least Netanyahu has learned that the way to reframe your foreign policy is to give a big, well-publicized speech at a university campus.
So on Sunday, June 14, Netanyahu will speak at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv. I can't guess what the prime minister will say. But here's one thing he absolutely shouldn't say: "Construction must continue in settlements to accommodate natural growth." If he does make this argument, no one should take it seriously. It's built on layers of myth and misconceptions.
Let's take them one by one.
Obama wants a baby ban: First is the completely misconceived notion -- put out by everyone from Israeli politicians to American pundits -- that Obama's stance is a decree against having babies in settlements. This is silly. The president is reiterating what's stated in the 2003 road map for peace: Israel must freeze "settlement activity," meaning building and expansion of settlements. The issue is construction, not reproduction.
The fact is that even if all building in settlements stopped cold today, the number of Israelis in settlements would keep rising. Young couples who have bought apartments or houses in bedroom communities like Ma'aleh Adumim and Beitar Illit have done so with growing families in mind and have picked homes accordingly. If a couple decides to have more kids than they planned on, they have prosaic middle-class alternatives, just like couples elsewhere in the developed world: They can use the space in their current home differently, or they can shop for a house elsewhere.
Grown children must live next door to their parents: Obama's critics also claim that he's denying homes to young people who have grown up in settlements. But who said that people in modern societies have a basic right to live in the same neighborhood as their parents? Parents living in Israeli cities know that their children won't necessarily live down the street when they grow up. Settlers may also have to drive to visit their grandchildren. They may have to enter Israel. That's not a denial of human rights, or of Zionism.
Pinchas Wallerstein, director-general of the Council of Settlements in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, admitted this week in an interview on Israel Radio that "natural development," as he called it, isn't meant to make room for settlers' own children. Instead, he argued, the number of homes being built should match the number of settler couples getting married -- regardless of who actually lives in those homes. But Wallerstein's yardstick -- the number of marriages -- is arbitrary. His goal is simply to continue and accelerate settlement growth.
Natural increase is the only reason that settlements grow: Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics reports that in 2007 -- the most recent year for which there are figures -- the West Bank settlement population grew 5.6 percent. That's three times faster than the growth of the Israeli population as a whole.
Partly, that's due to a high birthrate. But more than one third of the growth resulted from continued migration into settlements. The influx isn't a product of some "invisible hand" of the real estate market. Far from it. The Israeli government has encouraged growth through planning, state-initiated projects, and subsidies.
Under former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the government pushed development in the major "settlement blocs" -- areas that Olmert hoped to hold onto in a peace agreement. The reason for the rush to build is precisely that no agreement has been reached with the Palestinians over the future of the blocs. By building, Olmert wanted to make withdrawal from those areas more difficult.
That fits an old pattern: Since settlement began in 1967, weeks after Israel's victory in the Six Day War, the purpose has been to "create facts" that will obligate future governments and constrain any diplomatic process. Settlers who are honest with themselves know that their communities were built as part of a political bid to impose a particular vision of the future of the West Bank -- one that could fail at any time. The settlement enterprise has always had the risk of a freeze or an evacuation built into it.
Since we're negotiating, building doesn't matter: Most previous U.S. administrations have avoided confrontation over settlements if peace talks were in progress. Obama is right to avoid this mistake, because construction is aimed at preempting the negotiations.
Unintentionally, Wallerstein made the point clear in his radio interview. There are already 300,000 Israelis living in the West Bank, he noted. (The figure doesn't include the Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem.) If we really make peace, he said, it won't matter if the number has risen to 325,000. A few seconds later, he recalled the trauma to Israeli society caused by evacuating 9,000 settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005.
The classic definition of chutzpah is murdering your parents and begging for the mercy of the court because you're an orphan. Adding thousands of settlers to existing communities so that later you can claim that evacuating them would be too great a trauma could be another definition.
It's OK to build inside existing settlements. Recently, Israeli officials have claimed that there was an understanding, partly oral, with the Bush administration that construction could continue within or next to the built-up areas of settlements. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says there's no record of such an agreement. The kindest reading of the dispute is that what Washington saw as a discussion, Jerusalem interpreted as an agreement.
But if former President George W. Bush did agree to building within existing settlements, he didn't grasp the issue. One reason for building is to increase the size of settlements, and therefore the area that Israel will keep. Another is to increase the number of people in settlements, so that evacuation looks more difficult. Building within the existing area of settlements doesn't serve the first purpose -- but it serves the second purpose well.
The bottom line is that all settlement construction is political. The "natural growth" argument is a ruse meant to disguise the real goal: determining the future of the territory before anyone has a chance to negotiate. If Netanyahu has really learned something from recent tensions, he won't repeat the ruse in his speech on Sunday.




Gershom Gorenberg is the author of The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805082417?ie=UTF8&tag=fp091-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0805082417), and a senior correspondent for The American Prospect. He blogs at SouthJerusalem.com (http://southjerusalem.com/).
Source:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4998&print=1

[sinophile]

Let the debate begin. Here's my response.

1. Israel became a nation in 1312 BCE, Two thousand years before the rise of Islam.
2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.
3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BCE, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past
3,300 years.
4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 CE lasted no more than 22 years.
5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.
6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.
7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.
8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.
9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: in 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent
left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.
10 The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

[AroundTheCorner]

^^ you have some good points

[kahn267]

^^ you have some good points


Not only they good points
but they are all TRUE

what can be said about this whole thing though from a political standpoint and not a historical one is that as much as majority of Israel opposes settlers and their radical ways (which dont stretch as radical as Palestinian radicalism) , the fact is having settlements allows for future bargaining chips in the future...

Just as Palestinians see their useless violence and matyrdom as a means of a resistance that they believe will eventually cause the end of Israel.....
Israeli extreme religious see a less violent way of increasing settlements so that with time, the town of (Insert Settlement here) will be seen as legitimate as any oher Israeli city.

[Telmar]

Let the debate begin. Here's my response.

1. Israel became a nation in 1312 BCE, Two thousand years before the rise of Islam.
2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.
3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BCE, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past
3,300 years.
4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 CE lasted no more than 22 years.
5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.
6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.
7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.
8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.
9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: in 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent
left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.
10 The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

That will help to solve today's problems.:roll:

[Fat Lazy American]

I'm gonna have to disagree with 7 and 8.

In the Tanakh, Jerusalem was conquered by David, not initially built by David. Archeology and historical evidence suggests that Jerusalem was a city for a few hundred years before it was likely conquered by the Hebrews. (Note that the Kingdom of David marks the period where the Tanakh starts to synch up more clearly with other evidence.) Of course, the Tanakh also claims that Hebrews were inhabiting the area hundreds of years prior -- before the Egyptian captivity and the Exodus. But at that point we're really getting into religion, not history or archeology.

And Muslims don't pray "with their backs facing Jerusalem". They pray in a direction that has no bearing whasoever on where Jerusalem is.

My rough map skills suggest that Muslims living in Stockholm, Warsaw, Bucharest, Istanbul and maybe Thule would face approximately towards Jerusalem.

[RoyB]

^That's gotta be the most idiotic (and offensive) interpretation of the bible that I have ever seen around here.
I would have gotten you suspended for this, but lucky for you its not up to me.

[Octavariable]

..........

[GiladS]

In the Tanakh, Jerusalem was conquered by David, not initially built by David. Archeology and historical evidence suggests that Jerusalem was a city for a few hundred years before it was likely conquered by the Hebrews. (Note that the Kingdom of David marks the period where the Tanakh starts to synch up more clearly with other evidence.) Of course, the Tanakh also claims that Hebrews were inhabiting the area hundreds of years prior -- before the Egyptian captivity and the Exodus. But at that point we're really getting into religion, not history or archeology.


The Bible clearly states that Jerusalem was called Jebus and was a Jebusite settlement prior to its capture by King David.

However the Jerusalem we know today, the world's best known religious center, was founded by King David and the Israelites.

[Vorian]

Let the debate begin. Here's my response.

I won't really debate on any solution since there are many hot-heads here but as a history buff and fervent hater of hypocricy I will just adress these points, that really have nothing to do with the current problems in Israel.




1. Israel became a nation in 1312 BCE, Two thousand years before the rise of Islam.

Notions of nations didn't even exist back then. And I would really like to learn where do you draw these accurate dates from, since the only source we have is a biased book that starts recording "history" from Adam and Eve......



2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.

True, though I fail to understand the relevance. They are Arabs living in the region.



3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BCE, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past
3,300 years.

Again such accurate dates..sigh...eh the Jews had doominion over those lands for a few centures at best before being conquered by Assyrians and Babylonians and Persian and Greeks and Romans. The last slaughtered the majority of inhabitants after three failed revolts, scattered them to the world and wiped Jerusalem of the face of the earth.



4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 CE lasted no more than 22 years.

Wut? Ecept from the short interval of Crusader states the territory was in Arab hands till the Ottomans...who were not Arabs but still Muslims.



5. For over 3,300 years,Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

Okay I imagine you are a Jew you should know your own history. Jerusalem was destroyed once by the Babylonians, then rebuilt after the Persian conquests and then again by the Romans who wiped out the city at 70AD and sixty ears built a new city on the same spot called Aelia Capitolina and did not permit any Jews to enter it till the 4th century. It was after Constantine that the city was renamed Jerusalem, a christian city.



6. Jerusalemis mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.

Really why should this matter to people that live there Arabs or Jews? Unless they are relious fanatics. Oh, sorry. Only Muslims can be fanatics.



7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem

David is a semi-mythical King of Israel. I might as well start treating Hector and Achilles as historical persons.



8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem

Muslims pray towards Mecca and still I fail to grasp the importance of prayers.



9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: in 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the of Jews Sixty-eight percent
left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.

Wouldn't know but seems a little one-sided and biased opinion.



10 The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

True and sad.


So, what's this have to do with the fact that Palestininias need a country and the fact that blood should stop being spilled over nothing in that damned region?

You bring up things that happened in Jewish mythology and history over 3,000 years ago? And people call us Balkans mad.....

PS: You forgot a point.

11.God wills it

PS2: It's funny how when you speak about the importance of Jerusalem you remind me of the Serbs and their "obsession" (as people here call it) about the cultural importance of Kosovo. They of course are ridiculed all the time. I guess it's good to have friends.

[spider1]

According to a poll that i saw most of the Israelis support building in Setllements and its very highly unlikely that the prime minister will agree to stop the building maybe maybe a freeze for a short time thats the maximum. If he will stop building he will have serious problems in his party and the coalition itself that can make his government to collapse.

[RoyB]

Why don't we stop arguing about what's written in that book?

[d_man]

According to a poll that i saw most of the Israelis support building in Setllements and its very highly unlikely that the prime minister will agree to stop the building maybe maybe a freeze for a short time thats the maximum. If he will stop building he will have serious problems in his party and the coalition itself that can make his government to collapse.
can you give a link or a source to this poll??
funny i never heard of it.
if there was such a poll it would have made some big news.

[spider1]

can you give a link or a source to this poll??
funny i never heard of it.
if there was such a poll it would have made some big news.
http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=643021&TypeID=1&sid=126
The bad thing in my opinion is that according to this poll most of the Israelis support the two state solution.

[d_man]

http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=643021&TypeID=1&sid=126
The bad thing in my opinion is that according to this poll most of the Israelis support the two state solution.
it also says that only half of the israelis reject freezing the settelments, not most of the israelis.
actually this poll is rather surprising,
i would have expected the exact opposite after last elections...

[spider1]

According to other polls most of the Israelis oppose to withdraw from the West Bank
http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/190258
http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//1495608
In the second one 50% oppose 43% favour 7% dont have an opinion but its pretty sure that at least 1% from 7% are oppose so its a majority.

[Octavariable]

I would take the results with caution, "channel 7" isn't the most objective on this matter

[d_man]

According to other poll most of the Israelis oppose ti withdraw from the west bank
http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/190258
are you seriously taking your facts out of arutz sheva?
its credetability is in the same line as debka.
its an extrem right religious news site and there is a pretty obvious agenda behind its articles...

[spider1]

And channel 10 is objective? Its not a secret that the media here is left wing(the main channels;2,10,1).

[Stainless Steel Rat]

Why don't we stop arguing about what's written in that book?

Because "that book" and books like it are important to a vast number of people--important enough to make war upon others.

Re: Your earlier post (#7), my original is now gone so I apparently offended the Mods too and apologize for being perhaps too flippant in my response (I did say it was tongue-in-cheek). I think Vorian above did a neater and more compelling rebuttal, so I'll just leave it at that.

Press on.

[Ordie]

Take away religion, history and culture from this issue, and all it is a real estate dispute with many moderators and policemen but no artbiter.

If you visit the West Bank, all it is just a rocky hilly plateau between the Dead Sea and the coastal plains.

I don't know why people want to live there in the first place.

[UoUo]

I whould prefer it over Tel aviv, but in the other hand i whould prefer to live in the north or in the negev as well over tel aviv.

[GiladS]

Take away religion, history and culture from this issue, and all it is a real estate dispute with many moderators and policemen but no artbiter.

If you visit the West Bank, all it is just a rocky hilly plateau between the Dead Sea and the coastal plains.

I don't know why people want to live there in the first place.

Many people don't understand why people like myself live in the Negev which is mostly desert.

But I'd much rather live and raise a family here than in the Gush Dan metropolitan area.

Ideology aside, every place has its own beauty.

[spider1]

For security reasons its also better i think to live in the West Bank because the arabs will not fire on the West Bank missiles because they can kill arab.

[GiladS]

For security reasons its also better i think to live in the West Bank because the arabs will not fire on the West Bank missiles because they can kill arab.

I think the threat of a knifing attack or a shooting attack for someone living in the West Bank is greater than the possibility of ICBMs hitting Israeli cities, more Israelis have died due to the first anyway.

Also Hizbollah proved that they don't really mind having Arabs killed due to their indiscriminate rocket fire at the north.

[spider1]

You right and the religous ppl live their because they believe it belongs to the jews from the bible time and some also live their because its cheap and very nice and also the air is very clean there unlike Gush Dan and other places.

[Fat Lazy American]

^That's gotta be the most idiotic (and offensive) interpretation of the bible that I have ever seen around here.
I would have gotten you suspended for this, but lucky for you its not up to me.

Uh, was that referring to what I said?

[RoyB]

Uh, was that referring to what I said?
No.
I wrote '^' as a way to show that I'm replying to the post above my own.
The post that I referred to was deleted.

[ting]

J Street blasts 'distorted' poll that says Israelis against settlement freeze

By Haaretz Service

Tags: Barack Obama, Israel News



The pro-Israel group J Street on Friday blasted a poll released earlier this week that said a majority of Israelis are against a settlement freeze, calling the poll 'politically motivated and distorted'.

The poll, which was later picked up by the Associated Press and other news outlets, said that 56% of Israelis support continued settlement construction.

J Street's statement read: "Today's quasi-poll, sponsored by Ariel University Center, the only settlement university, and published only in the clear rightist Makor Rishon-Hatzofe newspaper and not in any mainstream Hebrew press, is a good example of the half-truths and lies that will be injected into the debate. The politically motivated and distorting wording of the poll questions is clear to anyone who reads them." Advertisement


According to J Street, the poll is an example of the 'trickery and deceit' that settlers and their supporters will use "in an effort to mislead the Obama Administration and the American public about Israeli sentiment regarding settlements."

The J Street statement also mentions a recent poll by Dahaf and one by Israeli daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot that found a majority of Israelis support a settlement freeze and 'acquiescence by Prime Minister Netanyahu to U.S. demands'.

IMRA analysis of the poll

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1092454.html

[spider1]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1092454.html
According to the last elections(that the right wing bloc is the majority) im pretty sure that most of the Israelis support the building in the Settlements and before i gave a link to another poll and also it shows the more support the building then not.

[ting]

According to the last elections(that right wing bloc is the majoprity) im pretty sure that most of the Israelis support the building in the Settlements and before i gave a link to another poll and also it shows the more support the building then not.

Poles can be manipulated quite easily.

Are you saying that those who voted for the parties now in the government support continued construction? I doubt that. I think most of them voted for them because of other issues. Those who voted for Lieberman really wanted pork. etc...p-)

[Ordie]

According to the last elections(that right wing bloc is the majoprity) im pretty sure that most of the Israelis support the building in the Settlements and before i gave a link to another poll and also it shows the more support the building then not.

Is there a market for new housing in the disputed areas?

To what degree will the settlements have an impact on the current housing bubble in Israel? and the neglect of the inner-cities?


How to block the next real estate bubble http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gifBy Sami Peretz (sami@haaretz.co.il) http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gifhttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/twitter1.gif (http://www.twitter.com/haaretzonline)
There's so much talk about how Israeli real estate is an island of stability in the roiling world market, that one has to wonder whether the very complacency contains the seeds of the next real estate bubble.

Bubbles form precisely under the conditions of utter faith in the future: the feeling that what was, will continue to be, and that an uptrend will stay around forever. And when a given market stands firm in the face of a planet-wide storm, as the local real estate market has, the danger of complacency is all the more acute. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gifAdvertisement
The proof of its resilience could in and of itself inflate housing prices, thanks to misplaced belief that the market is immune to jolts. And when people think the market can only go up, they take bigger risks.

If we look at the track record of the Israeli real estate market, we find that it did indeed weather the global economic crisis undamaged. Last week research company Global Property Guide published a survey showing that out of the 32 countries it studied, 27 reported a decline in home prices during the first quarter of 2009, in inflation-adjusted terms. In 12 of these countries, housing prices fell by more than 10%, on top of the drop suffered in 2008.

Israel was one of the few countries where housing prices actually increased. During the first quarter of 2009, according to the Guide, housing prices rose by 6.4% compared with the first quarter of 2008.

In Britain, these prices retreated by nearly 19% in the first quarter; in the United States they fell by 19%; and in Ireland, they dropped by 11%.

But before we pin the gold star of stability on the local housing market's chest, we should ask ourselves why it's been so stable. And also try to determine what could upset that stability.

Israel's real estate market stayed stable because housing prices didn't shoot up during the last decade, as they had elsewhere. In Ireland, for example, prices rose fourfold inside two decades.

We all know stories about an apartment bought for $100,000 that the neighbor's Auntie Sara sold four years later for $200,000. But by and large, prices in the local market haven't changed that much in the last 10 years. The market stayed stable because local prices hadn't spiked, so the financial system was spared the spiral of over-leveraging for the sake of investment in property. None of which means that Israel can't develop a real estate bubble: We may, in fact, be approaching the point where that process is actually beginning to happen.

So, despite the global economic crisis, Israel's real estate prices climbed during the first quarter, and from unofficial figures, it's clear that the market is humming again after a hiatus. The rental market is red hot and prices in prime areas are rising anew.

One of the elements driving activity in the country's real estate market is low interest rates, which pushes investors toward property. Banks are paying less than 1% on deposits, regardless of the size. The Israeli public isn't used to such low interest rates, and therefore it will seek opportunities in the stock market, or the property market.

It is true that low interest rates aren't going to stay around forever, but their effect is going to be felt for a long time.

Investment in real estate is considered to be more conservative than investment in stocks, because over time, home prices are "supposed" to rise, and usually one gains fruits from one's investment in the form of rental income. Interest on mortgages is also as low as it's ever been, which is another reason people are taking out bigger loans now. For example, lowering interest on the loan from 6% to 4% means the person can borrow NIS 67,000 more and repay the same monthly installment.

The result is that the cost of money to buy a home has never been lower. When money is cheap, the tendency to take risks is greater - in the case of lender and borrower alike. Cheap money may drive the industry to greater activity. But it could make serious problems for both the borrowers and lenders in the future, when interest rates increase, and when defaults rise because of forbidding macroeconomic conditions, first and foremost rising unemployment.

What can be done to prevent a bubble from forming? From the perspective of the financial system, the rule of thumb is not to lend based solely on the perception that property prices can't drop. Low interest rates may allow a borrower to borrow more today than he or she could have, say, two years ago. But banks have to consider what the borrower's position will be when interest rates climb again.

From the perspective of the state, the real estate market needs to be reformed. The reform must be based on planning and selling state lands, and on developing better transportation infrastructure to make the country's center more accessible to the periphery, where land is still cheap. Also, deteriorating city centers are in need of restoration through urban renewal plans.
Source:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1091182.html

[Ordie]

Poles can be manipulated quite easily.


I know many Poles who think otherwise.

[spider1]

Poles can be manipulated quite easily.

Are you saying that those who voted for the parties now in the government support continued construction? I doubt that. I think most of them voted for them because of other issues. Those who voted for Lieberman really wanted pork. etc...p-)
Liberman its mostly because his civil marriage and also anti arab rethoric i think but the voters of Likud most of them oppose to an arab state and they support the settlements and in Shas(the orthodox party)also most support it and about Kadima i think they support the building but also unlike the Likud voters most of the Kadima voters support the creation of an arab state.

[ting]

I know many Poles who think otherwise.



Better let them keep thinking it.:lol:

[Moledet]

Is there a market for new housing in the disputed areas?

To what degree will the settlements have an impact on the current housing bubble in Israel? and the neglect of the inner-cities?


Source:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1091182.html
There's no housing bubble in Israel, prices rise and drop throughout the year.
If I may quote the article, "We may, in fact, be approaching the point where that process is actually beginning to happen."
May be approaching...beginning to happen...

A few months ago the prices dropped and contractors were offering free 25000$ worth cars to buyers, now it's rising, big deal.

Thankfully, we have smart regulations and an extremely smart man in the Bank of Israel (Stanley Fischer) in control of the economy and the budget.

[LRPV]

Poles can be manipulated quite easily.




I know many Poles who think otherwise.


Better let them keep thinking it.:lol:


I think the word you want is "poll". To poll is to vote.

The other Pole refers to a pillar like structure used to support something, eg lighting or flags.

This is not to be confused with another type of Pole who's structure supports a bottle of vodka...p-)

[Octavariable]

Liberman its mostly because his civil marriage

funny thing about that, he (his party) had just voted no for such an act, because the preliminary law, which was word to word exactly the same as the proposition made by his party, was put through by Kadima with one minor change, instead of "man and woman" it stated "couple"

so, Leiberman wants civil marrige, as long as it's not gays.

[spider1]

He made a coalition agreement that if i remember well only non jews will be able to marry through civil marrige.

[Octavariable]

He made a coalition agreement that if i remember well only non jews will be able to marry through civil marrige.

Non jews, like a hefty percent of their voters, from former soviet states?

it's my turn to tell you that you make no sense.

from their official site: (http://www.beytenu.org/104/3989/article.html)


Israel Beytenu MKs did not support this week's Kadima bill on civil marriage, thus instigating a virulent attack from some Kadima MKs. Israel Beytenu explained its position:
"Unlike Kadima, which only deals with public relations - when it was the governing party it did not do anything to advance the law for civil union but rather brought it down - Israel Beytenu anchored the law as part of its coalition agreement in order to advance it and to bring it to realization in the plenum," said one party official. " Tzipi Livni's voice is only heard strongly when she is in the opposition, but she disappears and becomes mute when she is serving in the government."


so they voted against it, because Kadima objected it more than half a year ago? and now Kadima, in the opposition are advancing it. politicians will remain politicians, they wanted the prestige of passing this law (with or without the gay issue) and instead of doing what is right for their voters, did what is right for their arses in leather chairs.

[spider1]

The religious parties will not allow civil marige for jews only for non jews, to have a civil marige for jews you need to have a coalition without religious parties.

[ting]

I think the word you want is "poll". To poll is to vote.

The other Pole refers to a pillar like structure used to support something, eg lighting or flags.

This is not to be confused with another type of Pole who's structure supports a bottle of vodka...p-)

Yep, I understod that I had typed wrong, I just could not come up with the right spelling. But after a touch of sleep I figured it out. But hopefully I didnt anger any Polls....:grin:

[Denisius]

Notions of nations didn't even exist back then. And I would really like to learn where do you draw these accurate dates from, since the only source we have is a biased book that starts recording "history" from Adam and Eve......

Yes they did.

Although sinophiles dates are a bit off, he is still mostly correct.



The Israelites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelites) are thought to have come into existence between 1400 and 1100 BCE in Canaan and Egypt, developing an independent kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Monarchy) around 1050 BCE. Around 950 BCE, the kingdom split into the Kingdom of Judah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Judah) and the Kingdom of Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel). The Israelites were exiled by Assyria around 720 BCE, becoming the Lost Tribes of Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Tribes_of_Israel).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel#Birth_of_Judaism_and_Israel_1400_BCE_-_586_BCE


True, though I fail to understand the relevance. They are Arabs living in the region.


The 'relevance' is that the Palestinians are not an ancient people who have had their nation taken from them as they claim, but merely a tool created in the 60's to be used as anti-Israeli propaganda by the Arab league, a job they have done remarkably well.

As they are merely Arabs who immigrated to the region during the 19th century to take advantage of the bustling economic opportunities created by the Jewish immigration to the region, they have no claim to the land.


Again such accurate dates..sigh...eh the Jews had doominion over those lands for a few centures at best before being conquered by Assyrians and Babylonians and Persian and Greeks and Romans. The last slaughtered the majority of inhabitants after three failed revolts, scattered them to the world and wiped Jerusalem of the face of the earth.

Partially true. Even though the Jewish kingdom of Judea has ceased to exist, the Jews have always held a presence in the region, and especially in Jerusalem.


Wut? Ecept from the short interval of Crusader states the territory was in Arab hands till the Ottomans...who were not Arabs but still Muslims.


Here is a time-line of the region:

http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionism_timeline.htm

It's from a website owned by an Israeli Jew, however, he is right down the middle in being objective and not favoring one side or the other. On the homepage, there is both Hebrew and Arabic writing.


Okay I imagine you are a Jew you should know your own history. Jerusalem was destroyed once by the Babylonians, then rebuilt after the Persian conquests and then again by the Romans who wiped out the city at 70AD and sixty ears built a new city on the same spot called Aelia Capitolina and did not permit any Jews to enter it till the 4th century. It was after Constantine that the city was renamed Jerusalem, a christian city.


How does this have to do with what he had said? It does not change the fact that the Arabs did not, and do not hold Jerusalem significant within a religious context. Jews pray towards Jerusalem, Muslims pray towards Mecca.


Really why should this matter to people that live there Arabs or Jews? Unless they are relious fanatics. Oh, sorry. Only Muslims can be fanatics.

It does matter, actually. Since the Arabs claim that the reason they want Jerusalem is because it is religiously significant to them, showing that it is not invalidates their claim.

And no, not only Muslims can be religious fanatics but unfortunately only they go around blowing up buses and pizzerias.


David is a semi-mythical King of Israel. I might as well start treating Hector and Achilles as historical persons.

We are discussing Jerusalem's religious meaning within Judaism and Islam, are we not? And since he mentioned Mohammed, an equally mythical figure it is only proper that his counter-part from Islam can be mentioned.

Again, Muslims do not hold Jerusalem significant within any religious context. Mohammed never even visited Jerusalem, he only have dreamed that he visited it. :roll:

Jerusalem is the city holy to the Jews, Mecca is the city holy to the Muslims.


Muslims pray towards Mecca and still I fail to grasp the importance of prayers.

I, too fail to grasp the importance of prayers, but how does that relate to the debate at hand?

Again, Jerusalem is holy to the Jews, Mecca to the Muslims.


Wouldn't know but seems a little one-sided and biased opinion.

Would you like for me to bring you quotes from the Arab leaders at the time telling the Arabs living in Israel at the time to flee lest they be hurt by the attacking Arab armies?

"Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe." -- Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948, (quoted in Battleground by Samuel Katz).

"The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city.... By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa." -- Time Magazine, May 3, 1948, page 25

The most potent factor was the announcements made over the air by the Arab-Palestinian Higher Executive, urging all Haifa Arabs to quit... It was clearly intimated that Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades." -- London Economist Oct. 2, 1948

"The Arab states which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees." – The Jordanian daily newspaper Falastin, Feb. 19, 1949.


True and sad.

There were actually more Jews forced out of the Arab nations, than those who fled Israel. Their estates and belongings that they left are estimated today at 20 Billion $. Do you think the Arab will compensate them? :roll:


So, what's this have to do with the fact that Palestininias need a country and the fact that blood should stop being spilled over nothing in that damned region?

Palestinians do not need a nation, they already have one, Jordan. What the Palestinians [I]want is for the Jews to be driven to the sea and for Israel to cease to exist.

Besides, why would you want another Arab nation in the hell-hole that is the Middle-East? Are not 21 Arab nations enough for you? What kind of important contributions do you think such a nation will bring to the world?

Just take a look at Gaza, and you'll be able to accurately determine the future of such a 'Palestinian' nation.


You bring up things that happened in Jewish mythology and history over 3,000 years ago? And people call us Balkans mad.....

Since the Arabs themselves invoke religious meaning as part of the reason that they want Israel for themselves, then we are merely replying in the same kind.



PS: You forgot a point.
11.God wills it

Now you are just being silly. Can you show me a single argument in his post where he said that Israel was founded because 'god wills it'?

I'd also like to remind you that Israel was both founded by secular Zionists, and that the main reason it was founded was to provide refuge to the Jewish people. The only ones who think otherwise are religious fanatics, and thankfully a mere minority in Israel.


It's funny how when you speak about the importance of Jerusalem you remind me of the Serbs and their "obsession" (as people here call it) about the cultural importance of Kosovo. They of course are ridiculed all the time. I guess it's good to have friends.

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and is the single most well-known and long living symbol for the Jewish people. And you blame Israel for not wanting to give it up for a bunch of Arabs who will do with it exactly what they did when they got Gush Katif? (Burned down the Synagogues and urinated on their ruins)

Do you really think that the Arabs will respect it's religious meaning for the 3 Abrahamic religions the way Israel does? :roll:

[Moledet]

A way for you guys to understand the security risk:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/he/8/8a/TA-FROM-HARBRACHA.jpg

This is Har Bracha settlement (next to Nablus) and where the arrow is pointing is the center of Tel Aviv (high risers).

[Vorian]

@ Denisius

I am not going to go to the quote-by-quote thing, I don't have the time, I did it once. I am just going to adress this:


The 'relevance' is that the Palestinians are not an ancient people who have had their nation taken from them as they claim, but merely a tool created in the 60's to be used as anti-Israeli propaganda by the Arab league, a job they have done remarkably well.

Did they live there before WW2? I don't care about their name. They were people that lived in the area and now don't or live under terrible conditions in the Palestinian controlled regions. They were not manufatured or arrived illegally.

THe rest are irrelevant. If only being an ancient people qualifies you to have a country then most modern countries shouldn't exist. It's ridiculous.

Oh and one last thing
Palestinians do not need a nation, they already have one, Jordan.

Really? So I suppose you suggest you mass deport them there? How.....clever.

[GiladS]

Really? So I suppose you suggest you mass deport them there? How.....clever.


So I guess that when people talk of deporting the Jewish population in the West Bank it doesn't sound so bad.

[klong]

I won't really debate on any solution since there are many hot-heads here but as a history buff and fervent hater of hypocricy I will just adress these points, that really have nothing to do with the current problems in Israel.




Notions of nations didn't even exist back then. And I would really like to learn where do you draw these accurate dates from, since the only source we have is a biased book that starts recording "history" from Adam and Eve......



True, though I fail to understand the relevance. They are Arabs living in the region.



Again such accurate dates..sigh...eh the Jews had doominion over those lands for a few centures at best before being conquered by Assyrians and Babylonians and Persian and Greeks and Romans. The last slaughtered the majority of inhabitants after three failed revolts, scattered them to the world and wiped Jerusalem of the face of the earth.



Wut? Ecept from the short interval of Crusader states the territory was in Arab hands till the Ottomans...who were not Arabs but still Muslims.



Okay I imagine you are a Jew you should know your own history. Jerusalem was destroyed once by the Babylonians, then rebuilt after the Persian conquests and then again by the Romans who wiped out the city at 70AD and sixty ears built a new city on the same spot called Aelia Capitolina and did not permit any Jews to enter it till the 4th century. It was after Constantine that the city was renamed Jerusalem, a christian city.



Really why should this matter to people that live there Arabs or Jews? Unless they are relious fanatics. Oh, sorry. Only Muslims can be fanatics.



David is a semi-mythical King of Israel. I might as well start treating Hector and Achilles as historical persons.



Muslims pray towards Mecca and still I fail to grasp the importance of prayers.



Wouldn't know but seems a little one-sided and biased opinion.



True and sad.


So, what's this have to do with the fact that Palestininias need a country and the fact that blood should stop being spilled over nothing in that damned region?

You bring up things that happened in Jewish mythology and history over 3,000 years ago? And people call us Balkans mad.....

PS: You forgot a point.

11.God wills it

PS2: It's funny how when you speak about the importance of Jerusalem you remind me of the Serbs and their "obsession" (as people here call it) about the cultural importance of Kosovo. They of course are ridiculed all the time. I guess it's good to have friends.

Thank you Vorian. I think you have very concisely closed the issue of biblical/historical claims. Israelis and Palestinians must deal with the issues of today, and hopefully solve them.

[Eye]

This is not to be confused with another type of Pole who's structure supports a bottle of vodka...p-)
I don't really like vodka. It's not good for my stomach.

[Eye]

Originally Posted by Vorian http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=4195238#post4195238)
Again such accurate dates..sigh...eh the Jews had doominion over those lands for a few centures at best before being conquered by Assyrians and Babylonians and Persian and Greeks and Romans. The last slaughtered the majority of inhabitants after three failed revolts, scattered them to the world and wiped Jerusalem of the face of the earth.

If we wanted to establish current borders according the situation 2000-3000 years ago we should give back both Americas to the Indians. So I don't think looking back so far has any sense.

[sinophile]

If we wanted to establish current borders according the situation 2000-3000 years ago we should give back both Americas to the Indians. So I don't think looking back so far has any sense.

It does if you're an American Indian.

[Vorian]

So I guess that when people talk of deporting the Jewish population in the West Bank it doesn't sound so bad.

There is a slight difference though. One one side you have people that live there since 1948 and before and living under **** conditions because of blockades, wars internal strife etc and on the other side you have people that went there recieving many aids and bonuses from their state in order to take the land for themselves. As I said a slight difference.

Besides there are things to consider like

a)The number of the deported Palesitinians would almost 4 million. How many Jewish settlers are there in West bank
b) The destination country's capability of supporting the deported. Israel can house some thousands (hunderd thousands maybe?) that it sent there in the first place ilegally. Jordan can not provide food and shelter to 4 million.


If we wanted to establish current borders according the situation 2000-3000 years ago we should give back both Americas to the Indians. So I don't think looking back so far has any sense.

That's why I went into the trouble in the first stop, to show how ridiculous it is. However, every single time I read a similar thread there is the response :We were here first, bla bla, it's more important to us bla bla. Guess what. Palestinians or Arabs-that-somehow-live-there call them whatever have every right to a state with a future.

They also have many radicals that call for cleansing of Israel bla bla but did you stop to consider you are producing them. If I lived in a crappy place, with no jobs, no future, Israelis bombing militants and hearing from others about all the injustices and crimes Jews did on us (imagined and real) and to top it, I was uneducated as hell, then I would probably want to kill Israelis too.

[GiladS]

There is a slight difference though. One one side you have people that live there since 1948 and before and living under **** conditions because of blockades, wars internal strife etc and on the other side you have people that went there recieving many aids and bonuses from their state in order to take the land for themselves. As I said a slight difference.


I suggest you don't start making claims based on "historic justice" because there's no shortage in such cases for both sides in this conflic, it will simply never end.




The number of the deported Palesitinians would almost 4 million. How many Jewish settlers are there in West bank


I don't know where you get your numbers mate but the Palestinian population in the West Bank is either 1.4 million (according to Israeli sources) or 2.4 million (if you wish to rely on Palestinian sources). Either way the number you gave is very exaggerated.


The destination country's capability of supporting the deported. Israel can house some thousands (hunderd thousands maybe?) that it sent there in the first place ilegally.

Sent ilegally according to whom? According to many of our Arab friends the whole state of Israel is an ilegal endeavor...



Jordan can not provide food and shelter to 4 million.


As I stated already, the numbers are much lower... also Israel and other countries could pitch in to finance this.


Either way I don't believe a population transfer (in such a scale at least) is realistic.

I do however believe in a land transfer as suggested in the Lieberman Plan.

[spider1]

There is a slight difference though. One one side you have people that live there since 1948 and before and living under **** conditions because of blockades, wars internal strife etc and on the other side you have people that went there recieving many aids and bonuses from their state in order to take the land for themselves. As I said a slight difference.

Besides there are things to consider like

a)The number of the deported Palesitinians would almost 4 million. How many Jewish settlers are there in West bank
b) The destination country's capability of supporting the deported. Israel can house some thousands (hunderd thousands maybe?) that it sent there in the first place ilegally. Jordan can not provide food and shelter to 4 million.



That's why I went into the trouble in the first stop, to show how ridiculous it is. However, every single time I read a similar thread there is the response :We were here first, bla bla, it's more important to us bla bla. Guess what. Palestinians or Arabs-that-somehow-live-there call them whatever have every right to a state with a future.

They also have many radicals that call for cleansing of Israel bla bla but did you stop to consider you are producing them. If I lived in a crappy place, with no jobs, no future, Israelis bombing militants and hearing from others about all the injustices and crimes Jews did on us (imagined and real) and to top it, I was uneducated as hell, then I would probably want to kill Israelis too.
They dont want a two state solution they want a two stage solution thats the problem here. Most of them consider Tel aviv as a Settlement you know that? And also before few monthes ago i saw a picture on the Abu mazzen's office and he has a map of Israel and it says "Palestine" over the picture of the map so from my point of view there is not diffrence between Fatah and Hamas the only different thing is the tactics.

[Moledet]

There is a slight difference though. One one side you have people that live there since 1948 and before and living under **** conditions because of blockades, wars internal strife etc and on the other side you have people that went there recieving many aids and bonuses from their state in order to take the land for themselves. As I said a slight difference.

The difference is that on one side you have people that bought the land, paid the taxes, got their building plans authorized by engineers and went through all the legal process while on the other side there are only illegally built homes.




Besides there are things to consider like

a)The number of the deported Palesitinians would almost 4 million. How many Jewish settlers are there in West bank
b) The destination country's capability of supporting the deported. Israel can house some thousands (hunderd thousands maybe?) that it sent there in the first place ilegally. Jordan can not provide food and shelter to 4 million.

There are 500,000 settlers and 1.5 million Palestinians. By 2020 settlers claim they will be the majority in Judah and Samaria.

No, Israel can't house them. The settlers that left Gaza (8000+-) 4 years ago, 20% of them are unemployed, many of them live in caravans. Now imagine 500,000.
In addition, compensating them will mount to the entire budget of Israel and there will be a need to build them a new city and find them jobs and pay for the entire operation.
You can't create an ethnic Arab country if you go by the 67 borders, they will either need to swap territory and accept Israeli Arabs or live with the Jews of the area and have them as equal rights citizens.
In Jordan they can have an Arab country.

[Vorian]

Numbers of Palestinians I got from wiki....not very reliable but I am in exam period in my university.

And in any case, I didn't even say that every single settler should be deported etc etc. Even if they were I doubt that Israel can't house 500,000. We housed 1 million refugees when our country was bankrupt after 10 years of cnosntant war from 1912 to 1922. I am sure that Israel could manage especially with some funding from US and EU.


By 2020 settlers claim they will be the majority in Judah and Samaria.

Isn't this exactly the point that Paleistinians are trying to make. That Israel is ilegally building settlements in order to change the demographics and absorb larger areas when the final solution is implemented? (if ever)


I suggest you don't start making claims based on "historic justice" because there's no shortage in such cases for both sides in this conflic, it will simply never end.

Wasn't the whole point of my intervention in the thread to stop talking about historical bull* and focus on the fact that both sides need to make some concessions? It's just that in my opinion Israel as the strongest, richest and more civilised and educated side must start first.

[lebinoz]

one thing all you israelis are overlooking --- THE SETTLEMENTS ARE ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO THE REST OF THE WORLD INCLUDING THE U.S.A YOUR BIGGEST ALLY!! there is no justification for them you have enough land in israel it is not overflowing so why do you need to take even more Palestinians land for? and for those of you who are against a 2 state solution...what are you expecting? to take more and more land until the 2-3 million pals are stuck in one little village and decide screw this lets just go somewhere else? it's never going to happen, they will just get more and more radical and it's your own fault!

[spider1]

one thing all you israelis are overlooking --- THE SETTLEMENTS ARE ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO THE REST OF THE WORLD INCLUDING THE U.S.A YOUR BIGGEST ALLY!! there is no justification for them you have enough land in israel it is not overflowing so why do you need to take even more Palestinians land for? and for those of you who are against a 2 state solution...what are you expecting? to take more and more land until the 2-3 million pals are stuck in one little village and decide screw this lets just go somewhere else? it's never going to happen, they will just get more and more radical and it's your own fault!
They can go to Jordan its their state:)

[Moledet]

Numbers of Palestinians I got from wiki....not very reliable but I am in exam period in my university.

And in any case, I didn't even say that every single settler should be deported etc etc. Even if they were I doubt that Israel can't house 500,000. We housed 1 million refugees when our country was bankrupt after 10 years of cnosntant war from 1912 to 1922. I am sure that Israel could manage especially with some funding from US and EU.

No, we can't house them without going bankrupt. Refugees are very different because they are people you do them a "favor", you put them in tents for years, you need not pay them any compensations for their lost property, you don't need to supply them with jobs immediately, the education and medical treatment they are given is minimal, etc... They are cheap to take care of and we did it in 1948 when the one million Jews from Arab countries were ethnically cleansed. The settlers aren't refugees, they are Israeli citizens and always were, it is unacceptable to treat them like refugees and house them in tents for years until enough homes are built.

Anyway, why do you support ethnically cleansing them? They aren't as much human as the Palestinians?



Isn't this exactly the point that Paleistinians are trying to make. That Israel is ilegally building settlements in order to change the demographics and absorb larger areas when the final solution is implemented? (if ever)

Yes it is the plan of the settlers council and it's an excellent one. We need as much of this strategic land as possible, wanna know why? Check previous page and watch the picture.



one thing all you israelis are overlooking --- THE SETTLEMENTS ARE ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO THE REST OF THE WORLD INCLUDING THE U.S.A YOUR BIGGEST ALLY!! there is no justification for them you have enough land in israel it is not overflowing so why do you need to take even more Palestinians land for? and for those of you who are against a 2 state solution...what are you expecting? to take more and more land until the 2-3 million pals are stuck in one little village and decide screw this lets just go somewhere else? it's never going to happen, they will just get more and more radical and it's your own fault!
We have enough land? We are one of the most crowded countries in the world. In Tel Aviv metropolitan area it's 6700people per square kilometer. In Gaza that the media claims it's the most crowded place on earth and other BS, they are 4300 people per square kilometer (if you believe that 1,200,000 people live there).

Go ahead and find Israel on the map
http://www.mapsofindia.com/worldmap/world-map.gif

We've given up land 3 times the size of our country, I think that's enough. We've given up Gaza and got two wars and thousands of rockets. I also suggest you check previous page.
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:TA-FROM-HARBRACHA.jpg

[Vorian]

Anyway, why do you support ethnically cleansing them? They aren't as much human as the Palestinians?

Reading comprehennsion skills alert!! I accused someone of wanting to deport the Palestinians and GiladS brought up the subject of those that want the settlers deported. I merely pointed out that it would be easier for them instead of the Palis.



Yes it is the plan of the settlers council and it's an excellent one. We need as much of this strategic land as possible, wanna know why? Check previous page and watch the picture.

So you admit that your country is doing a land grab and don't even find anything morally or legally wrong wih it. Great.

You are going to ask for Lebensraum too?




We have enough land? We are one of the most crowded countries in the world. In Tel Aviv metropolitan area it's 6700people per square kilometer. In Gaza that the media claims it's the most crowded place on earth and other BS, they are 4300 people per square kilometer (if you believe that 1,200,000 people live there).

Go ahead and find Israel on the map
http://www.mapsofindia.com/worldmap/world-map.gif

We've given up land 3 times the size of our country, I think that's enough. We've given up Gaza and got two wars and thousands of rockets. I also suggest you check previous page.
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:TA-FROM-HARBRACHA.jpg



Belgium and Holland are as small as Israel with even bigger populations but they seem to do just fine.

[lebinoz]

We have enough land? We are one of the most crowded countries in the world. In Tel Aviv metropolitan area it's 6700people per square kilometer. In Gaza that the media claims it's the most crowded place on earth and other BS, they are 4300 people per square kilometer (if you believe that 1,200,000 people live there).

Go ahead and find Israel on the map
http://www.mapsofindia.com/worldmap/world-map.gif

We've given up land 3 times the size of our country, I think that's enough. We've given up Gaza and got two wars and thousands of rockets. I also suggest you check previous page.
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:TA-FROM-HARBRACHA.jpg

in tel aviv metro area....6700 per sq km WHAT DO YOU EXPECT IN THE CAPITAL CITY?? and dont forget most of the people are living in high rise apartments and are doing just fine. Your comparing one city to the whole of Gaza where a whole population is supposed to live, what about the rest of israel? what are the population per sq km figures for the negev? and for northern israel?

[Octavariable]

Belgium and Holland are as small as Israel with even bigger populations but they seem to do just fine.

Belgium and Holland don't have a desert accounting for 60% of their land.

[lebinoz]

Belgium and Holland don't have a desert accounting for 60% of their land.

isnt the whole of the Gaza strip desert? is it good enough for Palestinians to live in but not good enough for Israelis?

[GiladS]

isnt the whole of the Gaza strip desert? is it good enough for Palestinians to live in but not good enough for Israelis?

I have been to the Gaza Strip, its not all desert... plenty of fertile soil there.

Actually when Israelis lived there, there was very successful agricultur.

[LRPV]

I don't really like vodka. It's not good for my stomach.

Try Australian red rum. Bundaberg Rum, it's medicinal. Trust me.

[lebinoz]

I have been to the Gaza Strip, its not all desert... plenty of fertile soil there.

Actually when Israelis lived there, there was very successful agricultur.

what percentage of gaza is fertile land? is there enough for a rapidly growing population of 1.5million? because if it was really that great for agriculture i don't think israel would have given up the land.

[RoyB]

in tel aviv metro area....6700 per sq km WHAT DO YOU EXPECT IN THE CAPITAL CITY??
Sorry to disappoint you but Jerusalem is the capital city.

[LRPV]

isnt the whole of the Gaza strip desert? is it good enough for Palestinians to live in but not good enough for Israelis?

Are you a meathead or just a ****? You know Israel pulled out of Gaza and some 21 - odd settlements were razed. Arabs lived off Israeli settlements and had free access. Arab and Israeli families were close. Tell us who screwed that pootch? Hmmm....must be the Jews...they would want to build businesses and schools just to destroy then several years later. Gaza is not a desert, it has potential. The Arabs in the strip however have less of a future. Gaza needs Israel, its about an economic symbiosos. Less mortars,more vegetables, as it used to be...

[lebinoz]

Try Australian red rum. Bundaberg Rum, it's medicinal. Trust me.

bundy is good stuff! ;)

[Vorian]

Belgium and Holland don't have a desert accounting for 60% of their land.

What can I say? You picked the wrong spot to build the Jewish homeland. Or perhaps God has a twisted sense of humour.


Arabs lived off Israeli settlements and had free access. Arab and Israeli families were close. Tell us who screwed that pootch? Hmmm....must be the Jews...they would want to build businesses and schools just to destroy then several years later. Gaza is not a desert, it has potential. The Arabs in the strip however have less of a future. Gaza needs Israel, its about an economic symbiosos. Less mortars,more vegetables, as it used to be...

Amen to that

[Octavariable]

because if it was really that great for agriculture i don't think israel would have given up the land.

awwww... you poor thing, you thought the whole point of Israel and the juice is to steel arab lands

there there.. everything is going to be okay:hug:

[LRPV]

what percentage of gaza is fertile land? is there enough for a rapidly growing population of 1.5million? because if it was really that great for agriculture i don't think israel would have given up the land.

This post just marked your age.


Anyone old enough to remember the pain of the Gaza withdrawal would know that the land was anything but barren. Gaza was yielded in a silly idealogical land for peace deal. Arabs got land, Jews got missiles and terror.

[lebinoz]

Sorry to disappoint you but Jerusalem is the capital city.

my bad...well tel aviv is your financial capital it is expected that it would be heavily populated as people like to live close to their work, like most cities of the world.

[Moledet]

Reading comprehennsion skills alert!! I accused someone of wanting to deport the Palestinians and GiladS brought up the subject of those that want the settlers deported. I merely pointed out that it would be easier for them instead of the Palis.

Here's your answer: It won't be easier, neither settlers nor Arabs can be moved against their will.



So you admit that your country is doing a land grab and don't even find anything morally or legally wrong wih it. Great.

You are going to ask for Lebensraum too?

100% legal since it's not a land grab, it's a disputed territory that was won in a defensive war, it belongs only to the people that pay for it and have ownership papers.




Belgium and Holland are as small as Israel with even bigger populations but they seem to do just fine.
They also have 66% of their land a desert?



in tel aviv metro area....6700 per sq km WHAT DO YOU EXPECT IN THE CAPITAL CITY?? and dont forget most of the people are living in high rise apartments and are doing just fine. Your comparing one city to the whole of Gaza where a whole population is supposed to live, what about the rest of israel? what are the population per sq km figures for the negev? and for northern israel?

Jerusalem is the capital city.

Gaza is smaller than Tel Aviv's metropolitan but still less crowded. For entire Israel it's 350 people per square kilometer.

Anyway, did you find it yet? Or maybe because we have so much land you aren't able to?

[lebinoz]

Gaza is smaller than Tel Aviv's metropolitan but still less crowded. For entire Israel it's 350 people per square kilometer.

Anyway, did you find it yet? Or maybe because we have so much land you aren't able to?

well there you go 350 ppl per sq km you can fit heaps more people in the land you already occupy no need to whine about tel aviv then and no need to take anymore Palestinian land.

I know where israel is ive looked at it from over the border p-)

[Moledet]

well there you go 350 ppl per sq km you can fit heaps more people in the land you already occupy no need to whine about tel aviv then and no need to take anymore Palestinian land.

I know where israel is ive looked at it from over the border p-)
350 people per sqkm includes the 67 land apart of Sinai.

No one is taking Palestinian land, when people build on land that legally belongs to Palestinians or any other private owner they get evicted.

P.S. Jimmy Carter visited Gush Etzion today, it's a settlements area on the Mountains of Hebron. It existed since 1927 but in 1948 the Jordanian legion took over it and killed/captured most of the residents, the day Kfar Etzion was captured by them and its 127 residents were butchered and only 4 survived is set as the IDF memorial day. In 1967 the offsprings and relatives of the Jewish settlers of Gush Etzion returned to rebuild it and they did, now 34,000 people live there.

He told the residents, "this area is an area that I never imagined that will be evicted and be given to the Palestinians, it's an area next to 1967 borders that will forever stay [Israeli]".

[lebinoz]

350 people per sqkm includes the 67 land apart of Sinai.

No one is taking Palestinian land, when people build on land that legally belongs to Palestinians or any other private owner they get evicted.

wikipedia actually quotes 324/km2 and that's recent. Plenty of land if you ask me...so this land that the settlements are built on, who does it belong to? If it wasn't owned by anyone would you think it would be considered illegal?

[Denisius]

Did they live there before WW2?

No, they did not. The majority of the people who lived in that region were bedouins who, due to previous reforms by the ottoman empire to take the lands away from them and into the hands of the aristocrats who did not live in the Palestine region, were too poor to be able to buy and own lands of their own.

The vast majority of the 'Palestinians' that you see today are immigrants from as near as Syria and as far as North Africa who came to Israel during the 19th century to take advantage of the economic opportunities caused by the Jewish immigration to the region.


I don't care about their name

This is not just about the name, it is about their identity. And fact is, the Palestinians are but a myth.

Even the former leader of the PLO seems to agree with it, and he is hardly a Zionist:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuheir_Mohsen


They were people that lived in the area and now don't or live under terrible conditions in the Palestinian controlled regions

And who's fault is that?

The difficult life for the Arabs in Gaza is the direct result of the members of the Arab League wanting the Pals to live in squalor so as to use as a continued propaganda tool against the Israelis. Why do you suppose Pals are denied citizenship in all the Arab states? Why do you suppose they need permission from Hamas to leave Gaza? Why do you suppose they cannot move out of Gaza? Why do you suppose the oil-rich Arab countries provide so little financial aid to them? Why are they the only refugee group in the history of the world that has second, third and fourth-generation descendants? They need to stop blaming the Jews for their miserable lives and put that blame squarely where it belongs: On the heads of their own cynical and sinister people.

Besides, the Palestinians had been given numerous offers to create a state of their own, the latest being Camp David which Arafat refused. Even Price Bandar, who is no friend to Israel, demanded that Arafat accept Israel's peace proposal, instructing him that the Israeli offer was so generous, he'd likely never see such a good proposal forthcoming from Israel. When Arafat walked away from Camp David, Bandar, furious, scolded Arafat, accusing him of committing "a crime against the Palestinian people and against the entire regon".

The Palestinians do not seem to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.


They were not manufatured or arrived illegally.

Neither did the Jews, the main difference being that the Jews worked to get a state of their own, while the Arabs concentrated on killing the Jews.



THe rest are irrelevant

No, it is not irrelevant.


If only being an ancient people qualifies you to have a country then most modern countries shouldn't exist.

The thing is, the Palestinians do not have any claim to the land. They can have a dozen countries for all I care, but not if it means taking land from Israel.



Really? So I suppose you suggest you mass deport them there? How.....clever.

No, not really. The Arabs who live in Israel today are not as much of a problem as their brethern in Gaza.

And if the Israeli-Arabs find their life in Israel to be too difficult what with not paying taxes and not having to serve in the army, they can always go back to their country, Jordan.


wikipedia actually quotes 324/km2 and that's recent. Plenty of land if you ask me...

The land mass of Israel is about 8,000 square kilometers, that of Jordan is 89,000 square kilometers.

Plenty of land if you ask me.


so this land that the settlements are built on, who does it belong to? If it wasn't owned by anyone would you think it would be considered illegal?

The settlements are completely legal under international law.

[LRPV]

Gents,

During the time of the British Mandate (post WW1) the Jews were labelled "Palestinians". Arabs were called "Arabs".

It is all on British record.

Post 1948 and the reformation of Israel, the Jews became "Israelis".

The term "Palestinian" became dislodged and was re-allocated by media to the Arabs as a descriptive term.

From LRPVs "History is a Bitch" series, available at an ABC shop near you...

[Moledet]

wikipedia actually quotes 324/km2 and that's recent. Plenty of land if you ask me...so this land that the settlements are built on, who does it belong to? If it wasn't owned by anyone would you think it would be considered illegal?
Again 66% is desert, Judah and Samaria isn't desert.

It belongs to people that bought land and have ownership papers, the rest of the land is disputed land.

[lebinoz]

The land mass of Israel is about 8,000 square kilometers, that of Jordan is 89,000 square kilometers.

Plenty of land if you ask me.

are you sure about that? wikipedia quotes 22,072km2 heck even Lebanon is 10,452km2 and israel is much bigger than Lebanon...maybe do your research next time ;)



The settlements are completely legal under international law.

are you sure about that? according to whom? where is the proof? Why is the whole world including the U.S calling them illegal settlements? Is israel above international law?

:bash:...................

[lebinoz]

Again 66% is desert, Judah and Samaria isn't desert.

It belongs to people that bought land and have ownership papers, the rest of the land is disputed land.

but who did they buy the land from? :roll:

[Moledet]

but who did they buy the land from? :roll:
In the past it was Ottomans, then Brits, then Jordan and now from the Israeli government and Palestinians.

[LRPV]

:bash:...................


Leb,
If the evil zionist entity invaded Lebanon (LOL) and the international law said it was legal, would you agree? Or would you put your Leb national flag on and hit the streets?

International law actually favours you Arabs, so play nice. If you want an example see UN Rs + 1967 -1969. Until Israel won the 1967 war all land gained through defence against an aggressor was lost by the aggressor. So in effect if you attack Israel again and win, you can keep it, according to the UNSCR. Of course some people may disagree and form a guerrilla group to free the Lands....p-)

[Denisius]

are you sure about that? wikipedia quotes 22,072km2 heck even Lebanon is 10,452km2 and israel is much bigger than Lebanon...maybe do your research next time

My mistake, it's 20,000 square kilometers. Still, Jordan is four times the amount of land and already has a Palestinian majority. Jordan is Palestine.



according to whom?

According to international law.


where is the proof?

No, you are the one who claims the settlements are illegal and thus the burden of proof lies upon you.

Provide me with evidence that the settlements are illegal, or admit that you do not know what you are talking about.




Is israel above international law?

The settlements are legal according to international law.


but who did they buy the land from? :roll:

Jews only owned about 8% of the land, Arabs only about 12% and the vast majority, about 80% was state owned by the British mandate.

[LRPV]

:bash:...................


Please read the 4th Geneva Convention. Please attend to articles 2 and 49. These are at the heart of the Arab - Israeli conflict. Happy to discuss the various interpretations when you have read them.

[LRPV]

Denisius (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?u=68048)

Arafat was the first to state that "...what you call Jordan is really Palestine." You should credit him if you quote him.p-)

[Vorian]

No, they did not. The majority of the people who lived in that region were bedouins who, due to previous reforms by the ottoman empire to take the lands away from them and into the hands of the aristocrats who did not live in the Palestine region, were too poor to be able to buy and own lands of their own.

The vast majority of the 'Palestinians' that you see today are immigrants from as near as Syria and as far as North Africa who came to Israel during the 19th century to take advantage of the economic opportunities caused by the Jewish immigration to the region.



In other words they lived there before WW2. Do you counter yourself?


This is not just about the name, it is about their identity. And fact is, the Palestinians are but a myth.


The world calls them that way to differentiate them from Jordans for God's shake. Would you prefer calling them Arabs of West bank and Gaza strip? Fine with me. WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?




And who's fault is that?

Both?





Neither did the Jews, the main difference being that the Jews worked to get a state of their own, while the Arabs concentrated on killing the Jews.

cough....the Jews fought to get a state of their own just like the Arabs. Only difference is they won.





The thing is, the Palestinians do not have any claim to the land. They can have a dozen countries for all I care, but not if it means taking land from Israel.

And the claim that Jews had was? Now they do of course cause they live there. Just like the Arabs.



Provide me with evidence that the settlements are illegal, or admit that you do not know what you are talking about.


Geneva Convention article 49 for starters.

[sinophile]

Israelis generally don't understand this dispute is a war of greater inconvenience for the West, and not a battle of principal or morality.

Until recently it was inconvenient to argue Israeli claims to the West Bank, Gaza and Golan. Israel served the interests of the West, facts on the ground favored Israel, and there was a general lack of interest.

Today, the West needs Arab and Persian state economic, energy and security cooperation and everything else is inconvenient by comparison. Israel's concerns are on nobody's radar and principle and morality will be spun for convenience.

The greatest threat to Israel is the decline of Western economic power, but the greatest opportunity for Israel to ensure its security is being viewed as a solution. Israel has the technical and economic resources to be a disproportionate problem solver if you look at the issues causing the most pain in Western societies.

- Healthcare.
- Training, Retraining and Worker Productivity.
- Cutting-edge technology.
- Energy.

In each of these areas Israel has leadership capability. What change in mindset would it take for Israel to launch a "Giving Back" program, where it returns 60 years of Western aid in the form of intellectual property, job-creation and exchange programs that position the country as proactively contributing to resolve the problems that are weakening its own security position.

The answer: a mindset change.

[Denisius]

In other words they lived there before WW2. Do you counter yourself?

Did you miss the part where I said they were too poor to actually own any land? Living in the land does not mean that you have a right to it.

I live in a rented apartment, if the owner decides to sell it to someone I don't really have a say in it, do I now?



The world calls them that way to differentiate them from Jordans for God's shake. Would you prefer calling them Arabs of West bank and Gaza strip? Fine with me. WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?

To show that the Palestinians do not have the claim to the land that they think they do. Since they are Arabs, they should go back to the countries from which they came.

Unfortunately, all 22 of the states in the Arab league refuse to give the Palestinians citizenship. Jee, I wonder why?


Both?

No. If the Palestinians would have wanted a state, they could have gotten one numerous times just as I described in my previous post. The Palestinians do not want a state, they want the Jews to not have one.


cough....the Jews fought to get a state of their own just like the Arabs. Only difference is they won.

Wrong. The Jews accepted the UN partition to have both a Jewish and Arab state, the Arabs refused and declared war.


And the claim that Jews had was? Now they do of course cause they live there. Just like the Arabs.

Jews had a legal claim to the land both from the fact that they have a historic connection to the land, and that the land was given to them both by the League of Nations and the UN. The only nation in the world to be acknowledged by both, actually.


Geneva Convention article 49 for starters.

I assume you are referring to this part:

""The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies.""


The provisions of the Geneva Convention regarding forced population transfer to occupied sovereign territory cannot be viewed as prohibiting the voluntary return of individuals to the towns and villages from which they, or their ancestors, had been ousted. Nor does it prohibit the movement of individuals to land which was not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state and which is not subject to private ownership. In this regard, Israeli settlements have been established only after an exhaustive investigation process, under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Israel, designed to ensure that no communities are established on private Arab land.

It should be emphasised that the movement of individuals to the territory is entirely voluntary, while the settlements themselves are not intended to displace Arab inhabitants, nor do they do so in practice.

[Danielotu]

They can go to Jordan its their state:)

Are you advocating for the expulsion of Palestinians from THEIR own lands to Jordan? Isn't that a crime against humanity?

[Denisius]

Are you advocating for the expulsion of Palestinians from THEIR own lands to Jordan? Isn't that a crime against humanity?

Keep knocking down those strawmen. He said that the Palestinians should go back to Jordan, their Palestine. Not that he believes that they should be forcibly deported into Jordan.

[Moledet]

Are you advocating for the expulsion of Palestinians from THEIR own lands to Jordan? Isn't that a crime against humanity?
Depends, is expulsion of settlers from their own lands a crime against humanity?

[LRPV]

Israelis generally don't understand this dispute is a war of greater inconvenience for the West, and not a battle of principal or morality.

Israel's concerns are on nobody's radar and principle and morality will be spun for convenience.

Correct.

What change in mindset would it take for Israel to launch a "Giving Back" program, where it returns 60 years of Western aid in the form of intellectual property, job-creation and exchange programs that position the country as proactively contributing to resolve the problems that are weakening its own security position.

The answer: a mindset change.

Perhaps you need to understand WHY there was AID?

Is there a debt?

Do tell us how there was a one-way street and Israel was/is beholding?

I note you focus on fiscal deals with Israel but no Arab States? Inconvenient to mention the billions Egypt gets to remain 'restrained'?

[LRPV]

Depends, is expulsion of settlers from their own lands a crime against humanity?


No, but is is against the Geneva Convention.

[Vorian]

Did you miss the part where I said they were too poor to actually own any land? Living in the land does not mean that you have a right to it.


Since they are Arabs, they should go back to the countries from which they came.


It seems you are one of the worst fanatics of your side....arguing with you is a waste of time and effort and eventually will give me an infraction cause you are damn annoying and I have little patience for people like yourself.

I hope your moronic view of the world keeps you at peace, it certainly won't keep peace in your country

[sinophile]

Perhaps you need to understand WHY there was AID?

Is there a debt?

Do tell us how there was a one-way street and Israel was/is beholding?

I note you focus on fiscal deals with Israel but no Arab States? Inconvenient to mention the billions Egypt gets to remain 'restrained'?

The point of my post (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4199463&postcount=88) is to describe the way toward a more secure Israel going forward.

What happened in the past may be important to you or I, but generally speaking the world is fickle and cares more about the present than the past or future.

If you want to discuss Egyptian security feel free to start a thread on it.

[Nameless1]

wikipedia actually quotes 324/km2 and that's recent. Plenty of land if you ask me...so this land that the settlements are built on, who does it belong to? If it wasn't owned by anyone would you think it would be considered illegal?

That's just the thing, it's not Palestinian land.
When a dude wants to build a house he needs ownership papers to get an ok from the court, i.e he has to buy them from the current owner, who might be Palestinian for that matter.
Either that, or he leases state-owned land.
In either case, Palestinians lose nothing.

The myth that every house built on the wrong side of the armistice line means that a Palestinian ends up getting kicked out of his home is just that, a myth, so do us all a favor and stop repeating it.

So in the sense of land ownership it's mostly not Palestinian land, and if it is, as is the case with some outposts, then it's considered illegal by the Supreme court and it gets evicted (Again, see outposts).

In the sense of sovereignity you'll also have a hard time making a valid point.
The last state who had internationally recognized sovereignity over the West Bank is the Ottoman Empire, and guess what, these guys are long gone.
Jordan annexed it and had de-facto sovereignity for 19 years, but it mostly wasn't recognized by the UN.
So at what point in history did Palestinians, as a collective people, own the West Bank in any way or form? Seriously, enlighten us.

[sinophile]

That's just the thing, it's not Palestinian land.

The people who will decide this issue know something you don't... the facts don't matter. As I said here (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4199463&postcount=88), Israel's claims are inconvenient.

That part of the world which relies on Middle East oil and stability, that is to say everyone, wants to a cut a deal with the Islamic world that feels like an end to political and energy instability. (keyword: feel).

The squeaky wheel is getting the grease.

[Moledet]

The people who will decide this issue know something you don't... the facts don't matter. As I said here (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4199463&postcount=88), Israel's claims are inconvenient.

That part of the world which relies on Middle East oil and stability, that is to say everyone, wants to a cut a deal with the Islamic world that feels like an end to political and energy instability. (keyword: feel).

The squeaky wheel is getting the grease.
Doesn't matter, we aren't going to mass suicide for the west.
Iran thought us that in today's world, if you threat with war and stand firm behind your ideology you get your way.

[sinophile]

Doesn't matter, we aren't going to mass suicide for the west.
Iran thought us that in today's world, if you threat with war and stand firm behind your ideology you get your way.

Iran had the oil card to play.

Israel does not.

eom.

[Moledet]

Iran had the oil card to play.

Israel does not.

eom.
Israel has war card, it's like oil card but without the oil. You spike the prices through war.

[sinophile]

Israel has war card, it's like oil card but without the oil. You spike the prices through war.

:cantbeli:

Unnecessary. Israel has a lot more going for it than just a war card. It just needs to sing the right song very loudly instead of beating war drums.

[FAI]

:cantbeli:

Unnecessary. Israel has a lot more going for it than just a war card. It just needs to sing the right song very loudly instead of beating war drums.
The AIPAC song was quite successful so far.....:roll: