Israel confirms settlement growth

[Static]

I'm not sure this is the right forum, so if I placed it in the wrong one, let me know.

 

Just curious on everyones thoughts about this. Things were starting to look up for the peace process, but now I fear that things will erupt once more.

 

Edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4367787.stm

 

Israel confirms settlement growth

 

The Israeli government has confirmed plans to increase the size of its largest settlement in the West Bank.

 

Approximately 3,500 homes are planned for Maale Adumim, east of Jerusalem.

 

The settlements at Ariel in the northern West Bank, and Gush Etzion, south of Jerusalem, are also expected to be expanded.

 

Israeli officials confirmed that Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz has approved the construction of the new homes in Maale Adumim.

 

Defence Ministry spokeswoman Shiri Eden said the expansion of the settlement is part of an overall development plan for Maale Adumim approved by the government in 1999.

 

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the Israeli plan threatened hopes of restarting the Middle East peace process.

 

"[This] sabotages all efforts seeking to get the peace process back on track," he told the AFP news agency.

 

 

 

"The Israeli government wants to determine Jerusalem's fate by presenting the settlements and wall as a fait accompli.

 

"We ask the Quartet and American President George Bush: what happened to the two-state vision and how can we have peace while settlements and the wall continue to be built?" Mr Erekat said.

 

Under the peace plan known as the roadmap, Israel pledged to freeze the growth of settlements on land occupied since 1967. The plan is sponsored by the "quartet" of the US, Russia, European Union and United Nations.

 

The international community considers all settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.

 

About 400,000 Jewish settlers live in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem - alongside more than four million Palestinians.

 

Focus on Gaza

 

The BBC's Jonny Dymond in Jerusalem says that most attention in the region over the last few months has been focused on Israel's plans to withdraw from settlements in the Gaza Strip and evacuate settlers from the area.

 

But now the government has made it clear that while it pulls out part of the Palestinian territories, it plans to step up its presence in another, he says.

 

The Israeli defence ministry confirmed to the BBC that 3,500 housing units would be constructed between the largest West Bank settlement, Maale Adumin, and Jerusalem.

 

An official from the prime minister's office is reported as saying that building would continue in two other large settlements, because these settlements would never be transferred to the Palestinian Authority.

 

A spokesman for the US embassy in Tel Aviv said that Washington expected Israel to keep the commitments it made under the roadmap, and for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to abide by the promises he made President Bush.

 

Earlier this month a damaging report commissioned by Mr Sharon found that Israeli ministries had methodically helped to build scores of unauthorised Jewish outposts in the West Bank.

 

Outposts are settlements that the Israeli government has not approved, considers illegal and has committed itself under the roadmap to dismantling.

[ecoli]

Where did you get that article?

[budullewraagh]

i vehemently oppose this annexation of palestinian land

[Sayonara]

Seriously, Static - stop posting uncited copyright material or I'm just going to ban you outright.

 

Two strikes down.

[Static]

Seriously' date=' Static - stop posting uncited copyright material or I'm just going to ban you outright.

 

Two strikes down.[/quote']

 

Umm, the first one was an excerpt I typed up from a book, and I stated that this was the reason that I didn't have a link as I didn't get it from a website. It's not like I was trying to call it my own, hence the title of the thread being "The Culture of Life - By Peter Singer?"

 

And I merely forgot to post the link to this one... *raises her eyebrow*

[ecoli]

Wow...reading this article has shown me how biased the media is.

 

There only showing one side of the story. If you notice, they only have quotations from palestinian leaders, and they don't mention why Israel is doing this...there must be a reason.

 

sheesh...what ever happened to objective journalism.

[ecoli]

Here is an article from an Israeli newspaper, Haaretz... it is, in my opinions much more objective. You'll notice it shows the palestinian side, the Irsraeli left, and Israeli conservative parts.

 

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/555106.html

 

The areas in question are also on the "Israeli" side of the separation fence, in keeping with the route approved by the government last month, with construction in Ma'aleh Adumim and the surrounding areas designed to strengthen Israel's hold on the settlement blocs slated for annexation to Israel under a final-status agreement.

[Static]

Here is an article from an Israeli newspaper' date=' Haaretz... it is, in my opinions much more objective. You'll notice it shows the palestinian side, the Irsraeli left, and Israeli conservative parts.

 

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/555106.html[/quote']

 

Honestly, I'm not really seeing how this article reflects much better on the Israeli government.

 

The areas in question are also on the "Israeli" side of the separation fence, in keeping with the route approved by the government last month, with construction in Ma'aleh Adumim and the surrounding areas designed to strengthen Israel's hold on the settlement blocs slated for annexation to Israel under a final-status agreement.

 

Keep in mind that Israel drew up the route of the fence, which the Palestinians have repeatedly disputed as an attempt at annexing more land from their future state. The "fence" has been internationally condemned, and many others, the Palestinians aside, have poinnted out that the fence impedes on territory that does not belong to Israel.

[ecoli]

Keep in mind that Israel drew up the route of the fence' date=' which the Palestinians have repeatedly disputed as an attempt at annexing more land from their future state. The "fence" has been internationally condemned, and many others, the Palestinians aside, have poinnted out that the fence impedes on territory that does not belong to Israel.[/quote']

 

Just because they keep saying it, doesn't make it so.

 

The land that Israel built the fence on, is the same land the the UN gave to Israel back in 1948. Since then, people have been continually tried to take that land away from Israel.

 

Who cares if the fence has been internationally condemmed. Screw international law. Israel has to protect it's citizen's first.

 

It's probably not the smartest idea to built more homes on the land...seeing how the situation is so fragile already, but Israel is perfectly justified to do so, no matter how foolish.

[Static]

Just because they keep saying it' date=' doesn't make it so.

 

The land that Israel built the fence on, is the same land the the UN gave to Israel back in 1948. Since then, people have been continually tried to take that land away from Israel.

 

Who cares if the fence has been internationally condemmed. Screw international law. Israel has to protect it's citizen's first.

 

It's probably not the smartest idea to built more homes on the land...seeing how the situation is so fragile already, but Israel is perfectly justified to do so, no matter how foolish.[/quote']

 

Justified? How do you define justified, and by whose standards are we justifying Israel?

 

Israel most certainly has a right to protect its citizens, but I strongly dispute this fence as being the best means to do so.

 

Funny how you should say, "screw international law!," but right before that say, "the UN gave them the land in 1948." It's one or the other, you can't have it both ways, dear. Either the UN has the authority to legitimately dictate international law/standards, or they don't. Also, let's not forget who Palestine belonged to before "the UN gave them this land."

[ecoli]

Justified? How do you define justified' date=' and by whose standards are we justifying Israel?

 

Israel most certainly has a right to protect its citizens, but I strongly dispute this fence as being the best means to do so. [/quote']

 

Then what do you think is a better way?

 

Funny how you should say, "screw international law!," but right before that say, "the UN gave them the land in 1948." It's one or the other, you can't have it both ways, dear. Either the UN has the authority to legitimately dictate international law/standards, or they don't.

 

Oh, the UN does have authority...but not when it's desicions threaten the lives of innocent citizens.

[budullewraagh]

"Just because they keep saying it, doesn't make it so.

The land that Israel built the fence on, is the same land the the UN gave to Israel back in 1948. Since then, people have been continually tried to take that land away from Israel.

Who cares if the fence has been internationally condemmed. Screw international law. Israel has to protect it's citizen's first.

It's probably not the smartest idea to built more homes on the land...seeing how the situation is so fragile already, but Israel is perfectly justified to do so, no matter how foolish."

you have to recognize what happened in 1948. the british displaced the palestinians. that wasn't exactly a good idea. many of the palestinians are pretty pissed off; i would be too. this fence would do very little to deter attacks; it would only encourage more. also, you have to recognize the fact that it goes directly through neighbourhoods. i'm surprised it doesn't divide homes into sections. it comes close enough though, and let's not forget the severe lack of gates. consequently the palestinians can't exactly commute to work. there's just another of israel's attempts to screw the palestinian economy.

[ecoli]

maybe so, but you can't deny the effectiveness of the fence. It does save lives.

 

Look at this graph

 

 

It shows the number of terrorist attacks (red line) and number of terrorsits caught since the fence was built.

[Static]

Then what do you think is a better way?

 

I didn't start this thread to discuss how best to ensure peace between the Palestinians and Jews, but I can assure you that building more settlements probably won't cut it.

 

To save the lives of the peoples on both sides, they must keep working through the peace process. Abbas is doing everything possible to reign in scum that don't believe Israel has the right to exist, and Israel has refrained from incursions into the occupied territories. Both are legitimate steps toward a better future, but news like these plans to build even more settlements are extremely disheartening.

 

Oh, the UN does have authority...but not when it's desicions threaten the lives of innocent citizens.

 

How does the international communities concensus that the "fence" is doing nothing more than annexing even more Palestinian territory, and hurting chances at peace for both sides, endangering the lives of innocents?

[Static]

maybe so' date=' but you can't deny the effectiveness of the fence. It does save lives.

 

Look at this graph

 

[img']http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/Images/stat15.jpg[/img]

 

It shows the number of terrorist attacks (red line) and number of terrorsits caught since the fence was built.

 

Where did you find this graph?

[ecoli]

I didn't start this thread to discuss how best to ensure peace between the Palestinians and Jews, but I can assure you that building more[/i'] settlements probably won't cut it.

 

While this is probably true, I can't find anything legally wrong with it.

 

To save the lives of the peoples on both[/i'] sides, they must keep working through the peace process. Abbas is doing everything possible to reign in scum that don't believe Israel has the right to exist, and Israel has refrained from incursions into the occupied territories. Both are legitimate steps toward a better future, but news like these plans to build even more settlements are extremely disheartening.

 

agreed

 

How does the international communities concensus that the "fence" is doing nothing more than annexing even more Palestinian territory, and hurting chances at peace for both[/i'] sides, endangering the lives of innocents?

see above post. The fence saves lives.

[Static]

I guess I will have to do more research into this, but from what I've found through a 2 minute google search, the fence has decreased suicide attacks.

 

Let me remind everyone, including yourself, that this thread is not about moral justification for this security fence, which honestly I honestly have no opinion on as I don't know enough about the ramifications/benefits of it; this thread is about the proliferation of settlements in the occupied territories, which are most definitely detrimental for the security of the Israelis.

[Aardvark]

this thread is about the proliferation of settlements in the occupied territories, which are most definitely [/i'] detrimental for the security of the Israelis.

 

Detrimental to Israels security? How so?

 

Presumably more land under Israels control means more taxes, more economic activity and most importantly, more Israelis.

 

Israel is a small country. The more land and the higher the population the stronger and deeper rooted it will be. The action of taking that land will also displace and weaken the Palestinians who are the historic enemies of Israel. Therefore it is apparent that increasing settlements is a means of securing Israels long term security.

 

It could be argued that such actions are wrong on moral grounds, but on grounds of securing the long term existence of Israel it has a practical justification.

[budullewraagh]

ecoli, that graph doesn't really support your statements. you have to realize that these are very small numbers. any ap stat student can tell you that there really is little correlation.

 

"Detrimental to Israels security? How so?"

pisses people off

 

"Presumably more land under Israels control means more taxes, more economic activity and most importantly, more Israelis."

that's a good thing compared to the alternative?

 

"Israel is a small country. The more land and the higher the population the stronger and deeper rooted it will be. The action of taking that land will also displace and weaken the Palestinians who are the historic enemies of Israel. Therefore it is apparent that increasing settlements is a means of securing Israels long term security."

palestine is a small country. this paragraph is completely irrational. exploitation of a people and annexation of their land is justified by their small size and the prospect of gaining political power? what about the palestinians' long term security? or should they just not exist?

[Aardvark]

"Detrimental to Israels security? How so?"

pisses people off

 

Boo hoo.

 

"Presumably more land under Israels control means more taxes' date=' more economic activity and most importantly, more Israelis."

that's a good thing compared to the alternative?[/quote']

 

For Israel it self evidently is.

 

"Israel is a small country. The more land and the higher the population the stronger and deeper rooted it will be. The action of taking that land will also displace and weaken the Palestinians who are the historic enemies of Israel. Therefore it is apparent that increasing settlements is a means of securing Israels long term security."

palestine is a small country. this paragraph is completely irrational. exploitation of a people and annexation of their land is justified by their small size and the prospect of gaining political power? what about the palestinians' long term security? or should they just not exist?

 

I did not state that Israels actions are justified by its small size and the prospect of gaining power so your criticisms are invalid.

 

I stated that these actions would be beneficial to Israel because it would make Israel stronger and Palestine weaker. True.

 

I also stated that these actions could be criticised on moral grounds. At no point did i state that Palestinians have no rights to exist or are any less deserving of long term security.

 

Perhaps you should actually read my posts before jumping to a knee jerk reaction.

[Sayonara]

Umm' date=' the first one was an excerpt I typed up from a book, and I stated that this was the reason that I didn't have a link as I didn't get it from a website. It's not like I was trying to call it my own, hence the title of the thread being "The Culture of Life - By Peter Singer?"

 

And I merely forgot to post the link to this one... *raises her eyebrow*[/quote']

Hurrah for the interweb:

 

http://www.lib.duke.edu/libguide/cite/works_cited.htm

 

Actually, I'm going to add this link to the forum rules. It may help others in the future.

[Static]

Detrimental to Israels security? How so?

 

Presumably more land under Israels control means more taxes' date=' more economic activity and most importantly, more Israelis.

 

Israel is a small country. The more land and the higher the population the stronger and deeper rooted it will be. The action of taking that land will also displace and weaken the Palestinians who are the historic enemies of Israel. Therefore it is apparent that increasing settlements is a means of securing Israels long term security.

 

It could be argued that such actions are wrong on moral grounds, but on grounds of securing the long term existence of Israel it has a practical justification.[/quote']

 

You seem to be completely discardng the fact that the Palestinians are the indeginious populace. You don't seem to believe that the Palestinians should have any rights on their own land, and therefore, it wouldn't make much sense to attempt to explain the obvious to you: The settlements are built on Palestinian land. But jeez, who knows why that would infuriate the Palestinians? *rolls her eyes*

 

Hurrah for the interweb:

 

http://www.lib.duke.edu/libguide/cite/works_cited.htm

 

Actually, I'm going to add this link to the forum rules. It may help others in the future.

 

I guess I didn't realize that this was such an important thing around here, especially when someone is obviously not trying to plagiarize. Also, with my first post, I did indeed include the authors name and the name of the book the excerpt was taken from.

[Sayonara]

I guess I didn't realize that this was such an important thing around here, especially when someone is obviously[/i'] not trying to plagiarize. Also, with my first post, I did indeed include the authors name and the name of the book the excerpt was taken from.

Yes, I did notice. But a spade is a spade, and the second one came after a warning. Let's not blow this out of proportion.

[Aardvark]

You seem to be completely discardng the fact that the Palestinians are the indeginious populace[/i'].

 

No. I'm simply looking at the reasons that Israel is taking certain actions.

 

 

You don't seem to believe that the Palestinians should have any rights on their own land

 

Read my entire post before commenting on it. If you can be bothered to do that you will see that i quite clearly state that Israels actions can be criticsed on moral grounds.

 

' date=' and therefore, it wouldn't make much sense to attempt to explain the obvious to you: [i']The settlements are built on Palestinian land. But jeez, who knows why that would infuriate the Palestinians? *rolls her eyes*

 

I'm perfectly aware that these settlements infuriate the Palestinians. If you had bothered to read my post you will see that i state that the result of these settlements is to weaken the Palestinians.

 

 

If you response to posts without actually bothering to read or understand them it makes you look stupid. Try and remember that in future.

[ecoli]

ecoli, that graph doesn't really support your statements. you have to realize that these are very small numbers. any ap stat student can tell you that there really is little correlation.

 

Small numbers??? What are you taking about?? Look, for example May, 2002. Between 15 and 20 terrorists were executed. How can you say this isn't a lot? How many people must die before Israel is considered justified in protecting it's people?

 

Here is a list of terrorist activity in Israel from 1993 to last February, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/victims.html

How can you call these numbers small?

 

You seem to be completely discardng the fact that the Palestinians are the indeginious populace. You don't seem to believe that the Palestinians should have any rights on their own land, and therefore, it wouldn't make much sense to attempt to explain the obvious to you: The settlements are built on Palestinian land. But jeez, who knows why that would infuriate the Palestinians? *rolls her eyes*

 

It looks like someone needs a history lesson. If you think Palestinians are the indegenous people of the area, you are sadly mistaken. (Although, please note I have no objections to them being there now)

 

A timeline of Jerusalem: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/jerutime.html

 

You'll notice that Muslims didn't even occupy the area until almost 5,000 years after the area was first settled.

 

 

No. I'm simply looking at the reasons that Israel is taking certain actions.

 

I appreciate you doing so.