Netanyahu Okays Plan to Build Thousands More West Bank Homes

Move seen as bid to placate hard-liners in wake of Palestinian prisoner release

  • Share
  • Read Later
Baz Ratner / Reuters

Palestinian labourers work on a construction site in Ramat Shlomo, a religious Jewish settlement in an area of the occupied West Bank Israel annexed to Jerusalem, on Oct. 30, 2013

Just hours after Israel released 26 Palestinian prisoners from prison, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave the green light on Wednesday to kick-start plans that will allow for the building of 3,500 additional homes in the West Bank to house Israeli settlers.

Analysts said Netanyahu’s move is an attempt to appease hard-liners within the Israeli government and public after approving the prisoner release as part of a U.S.-backed peace effort.

According to a report by Reuters, representatives from the Palestinian Authority slammed the move “as destructive for the peace process,” while U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the decision was a violation of international law and “an obstacle to peace.”

[Reuters]

12 comments
HermonBenIsrael
HermonBenIsrael

Clearly, any attempt to tell Jews, only because they are Jewish, to limit their living space on earth is a racist thing, anti-Jewish form of racism in this case. And, any attempt to tell Jews to do so in their own ancestral homeland is doubly insulting.


But, it is worse: such a call upon Jews to refrain from dwelling, anywhere between the Jordan River and the Med. Sea, contradicts international law (San Remo conference decisions, 1920; League of Nations decisions, 1922; and, UN Charter, aticle 80, 1945) which explicitly call upon Jews to settle in western Palestine/Erez Israel (Land of Israel) at will. 

Is racism, anti-Jewish racism in this case, such a strong force...??!!

Cristin16475201
Cristin16475201

<!--Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financialy rewarding I've ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8580 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $74, per-hour. visit this site right hereBlue48.ℂℴm -->

andi-70
andi-70

It is looking more and more like the only reason for saving their broken status quo is to keep Palestinians as dirt poor low wage guest workers. The whole thing is just about money. 

TedLeavensworth
TedLeavensworth

You supply him with water, gas, electricity , building materials , give him access to your bank ,  etc...

Hei says he has a household of his own and claims that you don't give him enough. 

What would you do ? 

TedLeavensworth
TedLeavensworth

Imagine :  your neighbour  is not working anyplace, is not  cultivating his acre , is not building anything industrial  -he is just constantly begging , begging  and begging.  He uses your currency , sometimes tries to kill something or somebody and accuses you of all his misfortunes.

What would you do ?       

Ben-Zion.C
Ben-Zion.C

Religious Jewish settlement? Have your editors lost all touch with reality? Or are they perhaps grossly biased Arab propagandists???

Ramat Shlomo is a neighborhood in Jerusalem.

Ben-Zion C

ralph.dratman
ralph.dratman

There is no peace process. Israel is steadily implementing a long-term plan to take over almost all Palestinian territory. I am Jewish, but I oppose that policy. I only mention any of this because I prefer truth and accuracy over falsehood and error.

Iso
Iso

GREAT peace move!

HermonBenIsrael
HermonBenIsrael

@ralph.dratman "Palestinian territory"? Really?


Where in either practice or in law is there such a thing as "Palestinian territory"?


"Palestine", the poster ought to know, is a European coined name of a territory, never a state or nationality. Back in 1921 77% of the territory was handed over to the Arabs. Located between the Jordan River and the Arabian desert, the Arabs subsequently changed their part of the territory to Jordan. In the following year, 1922, the rest of "Palestine", only 23% of the whole, was assigned to the Jews to become the nation-state of the Jewish people. Located between the Jordan River and the Med. Sea, the Jews, subsequently changed the name to Israel. This act of legal partition of former "Palestine" by the League of Nations was then adopted by the UN and etched into its charter, article 80, 1945.


"Palestine", was then practically partitioned during the years 1948 and 1967 between Arabs and Jews, which have been the two predominant national groups in the territory.


It is high time for people of good will to realize this practical and legal reality instead of perpetuating a dream that will only sustain more conflicts and strife. 

ralph.dratman
ralph.dratman

@HermonBenIsrael You are correct. There is no such thing as "Palestinian territory" as a legal entity. Yet those areas in which non-Jews live in large majorities are nevertheless real places. The places do not vanish just because they have no legal standing.

It is perfectly clear that no one can dictate to Israel and Israelis how to handle the many difficulties arising in and around such areas. So I should simply say that I urge Israelis to consider the ethical dimensions of decisions in that realm, and their long-term effect on both Jews and non-Jews.

HermonBenIsrael
HermonBenIsrael

@ralph.dratman @HermonBenIsrael 


Two points:


1) The "areas in which non-Jews live" are, for the most part, Area A and Area B located in Samaria, Judea and Gaza. These areas are under full Arab civil administration and Jews don't construct housing there. The ONLY place where it is Israel - by legal agreement with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) - that is in charge of the civil matters is Area C, and it is in Area C that Israel permits Jews to dwell, expand their families and conduct normal life. The number of Arabs who reside in Area C is estimated at 50,000 and many, if not most of them are nomads. 


2) "...consider the ethical dimensions of decisions..." - It would be unethical, by all accounts, to single out Jews and telling them, strictly because they are members of the Jewish people, to limit their living space on earth. This approach is a pure form of racism, anti-Jewish racism at that. Surely, the poster doesn't consider himself a racist, does he? And, since not, why single out members of the Jewish people and expect them, and only them, to refrain from dwelling peacefully in their ancestral homeland of 4,000 years...??