Israel Defense Ministry plan earmarks 10 percent of West Bank for settlement expansio

[Jos]

Newly released maps indicate Civil Administration secretly setting aside additional land for Jewish settlements, presumably with the intention of expanding them.

For years Israel’s Civil Administration has been covertly locating and mapping available land in the West Bank and naming the parcels after existing Jewish settlements, presumably with an eye toward expanding these communities.

The Civil Administration, part of the Defense Ministry, released its maps only in response to a request from anti-settlement activist Dror Etkes under the Freedom of Information Law In some places the boundaries of the parcels outlined in the maps coincide with the route of the West Bank separation barrier.

The yellow in this map of the West Bank shows the areas earmarked for settlement expansion. The green line is the border. The purple shows the West Bank security fence.

Israel Defense Ministry plan earmarks 10 percent of West Bank for settlement expansion - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
The maps name numerous communities that do not exist!

 

[JStone]

The West Bank is a bogus term invented by arab invaders of Israel.

The historically correct name of the Jewish land is Judah/Judea and Samaria. The Jordanians changed the name to the West Bank in 1948 when Jordan seized the Jewish land and illegally occupied it.

Jews have owned Judah and Samaria dating back 3000 years.

New Testament, Matthew 2

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:

“‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel.’

 

[toomuchtime_]

Newly released maps indicate Civil Administration secretly setting aside additional land for Jewish settlements, presumably with the intention of expanding them.

For years Israel’s Civil Administration has been covertly locating and mapping available land in the West Bank and naming the parcels after existing Jewish settlements, presumably with an eye toward expanding these communities.

The Civil Administration, part of the Defense Ministry, released its maps only in response to a request from anti-settlement activist Dror Etkes under the Freedom of Information Law In some places the boundaries of the parcels outlined in the maps coincide with the route of the West Bank separation barrier.

The yellow in this map of the West Bank shows the areas earmarked for settlement expansion. The green line is the border. The purple shows the West Bank security fence.

Israel Defense Ministry plan earmarks 10 percent of West Bank for settlement expansion - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
The maps name numerous communities that do not exist!

And why shouldn't they? Since the PA has abandoned negotiations that might have led to clear borders and since the Oslo Accords give Israel complete control over Area C, why shouldn't the Israelis focus unilaterally on their national priorities just as the PA is focusing unilaterally on their national priorities.? If the parcels denoted in the maps are on state lands, now that the PA has abandoned negotiations, there are no obstacles that should prevent Israeli West Bank communities from expanding into them, and if they are presently privately owned Arab lands, it is clear the Israeli Supreme Court will not allow such expansion.

 

[JStone]

Jews "settled" in Israel 3000 years ago and 3000 years before fakestinians were invented.

You can even see their houses.

Harvard University Semitic Museum: The Houses of Ancient Israel The Houses of Ancient Israel § Semitic Museum

In archaeological terms The Houses of Ancient Israel: Domestic, Royal, Divine focuses on the Iron Age (1200-586 B.C.E.). Iron I (1200-1000 B.C.E.) represents the premonarchical period. Iron II (1000-586 B.C.E.) was the time of kings. Uniting the tribal coalitions of Israel and Judah in the tenth century B.C.E., David and Solomon ruled over an expanding realm. After Solomon's death (c. 930 B.C.E.) Israel and Judah separated into two kingdoms.

Israel was led at times by strong kings, Omri and Ahab in the ninth century B.C.E. and Jereboam II in the eighth.

Harvard University Semitic Museum: Jerusalem During The Reign Of King Hezekiah--New Exhibition At The Semitic Museum Re-Creates Numerous Aspects Of Ancient Israel Harvard Gazette: Jerusalem during the reign of King Hezekiah

The Semitic Museum has installed a new exhibition that brings the world of biblical Israel into vivid, three-dimensional reality. "The Houses of Ancient Israel: Domestic, Royal, Divine" immerses the viewer in Israelite daily life around the time of King Hezekiah (8th century B.C.), creating an experiential environment based on the latest archaeological, textual, and historical research.

The centerpiece of the exhibition is a full-scale Israelite house, open on one side, filled with authentic ancient artifacts that show how life was lived by common inhabitants of ancient Jerusalem. Agricultural tools, a cooking area, and a stall occupied by a single, scruffy ram fill the ground floor of the cube-shaped, mud-brick structure, which, thankfully, is not olfactorily authentic. The upper story, reached by a ladder, is devoted to eating and sleeping.

 

[patrickcaturday]

The West Bank is a bogus term invented by arab invaders of Israel.

The historically correct name of the Jewish land is Judah/Judea and Samaria. The Jordanians changed the name to the West Bank in 1948 when Jordan seized the Jewish land and illegally occupied it.

Jews have owned Judah and Samaria dating back 3000 years.

New Testament, Matthew 2

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:

“‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel.’

The historically correct name of the land is CAANAN

The name was changed by the Jews in order to remove all traces of the Caanites from the land which they had inhabited for at least 1500 years befor the Hebrews showed up and committed genocide on them.

 

[JStone]

The West Bank is a bogus term invented by arab invaders of Israel.

The historically correct name of the Jewish land is Judah/Judea and Samaria. The Jordanians changed the name to the West Bank in 1948 when Jordan seized the Jewish land and illegally occupied it.

Jews have owned Judah and Samaria dating back 3000 years.

New Testament, Matthew 2

The historically correct name of the land is CAANAN

The name was changed by the Jews in order to remove all traces of the Caanites from the land which they had inhabited for at least 1500 years befor the Hebrews showed up and committed genocide on them.

The ancient Israelites emerged from Canaanite society, according to the consensus of archaeologists and biblical scholars.

Israel was established 3000 years ago verified by the archaeological record.

You're allowed to be dumb.

 

[patrickcaturday]

The historically correct name of the land is CAANAN

The name was changed by the Jews in order to remove all traces of the Caanites from the land which they had inhabited for at least 1500 years befor the Hebrews showed up and committed genocide on them.

The ancient Israelites emerged from Canaanite society, according to the consensus of archaeologists and biblical scholars.

Israel was established 3000 years ago verified by the archaeological record.

You're allowed to be dumb.

Why do you have to be insulting. I have treated you with respect, do you think you could do the same for me
I know you have a hard time withe theses but answer a couple of simple questions for me.

1) Did the Caanites inhabit the land at least 1500 years before the Hebrews showed up ?
2) Was the first mention of the name in the Amara letters from Egypt ?

 

[JStone]

The ancient Israelites emerged from Canaanite society, according to the consensus of archaeologists and biblical scholars.

Israel was established 3000 years ago verified by the archaeological record.

You're allowed to be dumb.

Why do you have to be insulting. I have treated you with respect, do you think you could do the same for me
I know you have a hard time withe theses but answer a couple of simple questions for me.

1) Did the Caanites inhabit the land at least 1500 years before the Hebrews showed up ?
2) Was the first mention of the name in the Amara letters from Egypt ?

Canaan became Israel when the ancient Israelites emerged from Canaan to create Israel.

Now, even you know.

Louve, Paris: The Mesha Stele [ca. 830 BCE]

The stele of King Mesha constitutes one of the most important direct accounts of the history of the world that is related in the Bible. The inscription pays tribute to the sovereign, celebrating his great building works and victories over the kingdom of Israel during the reign of Ahab, son of Omri. The mention of "Israel" is its earliest known written occurence.
The Mesha Stele | Louvre Museum | Paris

Mesha Stele Inscription...

I am Mesha, son of Chemosh, the king of Moab. My father reigned over Moab for thirty years, and I reigned after my father. And I made this high-place for Chemosh [national god] in Qarcho.because he has delivered me from all kings, and because he has made me triumph over all my enemies.

Omri was the king of Israel, and he humbled Moab for many years. And the king of Israel had built Yahaz, and he stayed there throughout his campaign against me; and Chemosh drove him away before my face.

Harvard University Semitic Museum: The Mesha Stele--Israel

Mesha ruled Moab, east of the Dead Sea, during the ninth century BCE. Mesha recounts his principal achievements as king. The most important of these was his recovery from Israel of Moabite lands north of the Arnon River.

There is also a measure of bombast: Mesha proclaims that "Israel perished utterly forever," which certainly was not the case, though in one town alone he says he slaughtered seven thousand Israelite "men, boys, women, girls and concubines" in devotion to Ashtar-Chemosh.

Omri, king of Israel, who ruled a generation before Mesha, is mentioned several times. The earliest known reference to Yahweh [Hebrew God] in a Semitic inscription is also to be found here. At the extant bottom of the stela, Mesha describes an encounter with the House of David, that is, Judah. Although the passage is badly broken, it is clear that Mesha takes credit for a victory over the House of David in the territory south of the Arnon. The words representing king of Israel, Yahweh and House of [Da]vid are highlighted at the top, middle and bottom of the stela respectively.
Mesha of Moab § Semitic Museum

 

[patrickcaturday]

Newly released maps indicate Civil Administration secretly setting aside additional land for Jewish settlements, presumably with the intention of expanding them.

For years Israel’s Civil Administration has been covertly locating and mapping available land in the West Bank and naming the parcels after existing Jewish settlements, presumably with an eye toward expanding these communities.

The Civil Administration, part of the Defense Ministry, released its maps only in response to a request from anti-settlement activist Dror Etkes under the Freedom of Information Law In some places the boundaries of the parcels outlined in the maps coincide with the route of the West Bank separation barrier.

The yellow in this map of the West Bank shows the areas earmarked for settlement expansion. The green line is the border. The purple shows the West Bank security fence.

Israel Defense Ministry plan earmarks 10 percent of West Bank for settlement expansion - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
The maps name numerous communities that do not exist!

And why shouldn't they? Since the PA has abandoned negotiations that might have led to clear borders and since the Oslo Accords give Israel complete control over Area C, why shouldn't the Israelis focus unilaterally on their national priorities just as the PA is focusing unilaterally on their national priorities.? If the parcels denoted in the maps are on state lands, now that the PA has abandoned negotiations, there are no obstacles that should prevent Israeli West Bank communities from expanding into them, and if they are presently privately owned Arab lands, it is clear the Israeli Supreme Court will not allow such expansion.

Sorry to be so officious (sp ) but I have examined the map and if I am reading the map that Jos provided correctly then some of the proposed settlement activity will take place in areas A and B which is supposedly reserved for the Palestinians.

 

[toomuchtime_]

And why shouldn't they? Since the PA has abandoned negotiations that might have led to clear borders and since the Oslo Accords give Israel complete control over Area C, why shouldn't the Israelis focus unilaterally on their national priorities just as the PA is focusing unilaterally on their national priorities.? If the parcels denoted in the maps are on state lands, now that the PA has abandoned negotiations, there are no obstacles that should prevent Israeli West Bank communities from expanding into them, and if they are presently privately owned Arab lands, it is clear the Israeli Supreme Court will not allow such expansion.

Sorry to be so officious (sp ) but I have examined the map and if I am reading the map that Jos provided correctly then some of the proposed settlement activity will take place in areas A and B which is supposedly reserved for the Palestinians.

You're wrong.

 

[JStone]

And why shouldn't they? Since the PA has abandoned negotiations that might have led to clear borders and since the Oslo Accords give Israel complete control over Area C, why shouldn't the Israelis focus unilaterally on their national priorities just as the PA is focusing unilaterally on their national priorities.? If the parcels denoted in the maps are on state lands, now that the PA has abandoned negotiations, there are no obstacles that should prevent Israeli West Bank communities from expanding into them, and if they are presently privately owned Arab lands, it is clear the Israeli Supreme Court will not allow such expansion.

Sorry to be so officious (sp ) but I have examined the map and if I am reading the map that Jos provided correctly then some of the proposed settlement activity will take place in areas A and B which is supposedly reserved for the Palestinians.

Under international law, pallies have no rights in Israel. Now, you know

Eugene Rostow, Legal Scholar, Former Dean of the Yale Law School, Under Secretary of State in the Johnson administration, US State Dept Legal Advisor, Drafter of UN Res. 242 pertaining to Israeli land in the West Bank Eugene V. Rostow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to "close settlement" in the whole of the Mandated territory [Palestine]. The Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, "the Palestine article," which provides that "nothing in the Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments...."

The mandate implicitly denies Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favor of the Jews; the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land. Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Minister, made this reading of the mandate explicit. There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent 'natural law' claim to the area. Neither customary international law nor the United Nations Charter acknowledges that every group of people claiming to be a nation has the right to a state of its own."
Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies

 

[patrickcaturday]

Sorry to be so officious (sp ) but I have examined the map and if I am reading the map that Jos provided correctly then some of the proposed settlement activity will take place in areas A and B which is supposedly reserved for the Palestinians.

Under international law, pallies have no rights in Israel. Now, you know [/

QUOTE]

Eugene Rostow, Legal Scholar, Former Dean of the Yale Law School, Under Secretary of State in the Johnson administration, US State Dept Legal Advisor, Drafter of UN Res. 242 pertaining to Israeli land in the West Bank Eugene V. Rostow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to "close settlement" in the whole of the Mandated territory [Palestine]. The Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, "the Palestine article," which provides that "nothing in the Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments...."

The mandate implicitly denies Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favor of the Jews; the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land. Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Minister, made this reading of the mandate explicit. There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent 'natural law' claim to the area. Neither customary international law nor the United Nations Charter acknowledges that every group of people claiming to be a nation has the right to a state of its own."
Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies

UN res 194 supercedes the Britisn control of what was the mandate.
Actually you are wrong about the palestinians having no rights. The West Bank is considered occupied territory and as such it falls under thye 4th Geneva Convention art. 94 which expressly prohibites individual or mass forcible transfers. Therefore the settlements are illegal

Article 49
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

 

[JStone]

UN res 194 supercedes the Britisn control of what was the mandate.
Actually you are wrong about the palestinians having no rights. The West Bank is considered occupied territory and as such it falls under thye 4th Geneva Convention art. 94 which expressly prohibites individual or mass forcible transfers. Therefore the settlements are illegal

Article 49
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Read, learn...

Eugene Rostow, Legal Scholar, Former Dean of the Yale Law School, Under Secretary of State in the Johnson administration, US State Dept Legal Advisor, Drafter of UN Res. 242 pertaining to Israeli land in the West Bank Eugene V. Rostow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to "close settlement" in the whole of the Mandated territory [Palestine]. The Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, "the Palestine article," which provides that "nothing in the Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments...."

The mandate implicitly denies Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favor of the Jews; the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land. Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Minister, made this reading of the mandate explicit. There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent 'natural law' claim to the area. Neither customary international law nor the United Nations Charter acknowledges that every group of people claiming to be a nation has the right to a state of its own."
Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies

 

[P F Tinmore]

UN res 194 supercedes the Britisn control of what was the mandate.
Actually you are wrong about the palestinians having no rights. The West Bank is considered occupied territory and as such it falls under thye 4th Geneva Convention art. 94 which expressly prohibites individual or mass forcible transfers. Therefore the settlements are illegal

Article 49
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

According to the 1949 Armistice Agreements what is called Israel is occupied Palestinian territory.

 

[Hossfly]

UN res 194 supercedes the Britisn control of what was the mandate.
Actually you are wrong about the palestinians having no rights. The West Bank is considered occupied territory and as such it falls under thye 4th Geneva Convention art. 94 which expressly prohibites individual or mass forcible transfers. Therefore the settlements are illegal

Article 49
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

This just in:

Israel, West Bank Settlers Brace For Showdown : NPR

 

[Ropey]

We've done this before. It's never been enough, will never be enough, until...

 

[Jos]

We've done this before. It's never been enough, will never be enough, until...

Until

?

 

[Ropey]

We've done this before. It's never been enough, will never be enough, until...

Until

?

^^^ Conspiracy Theories

Giving up land to the geen spot has been tried before. It's never been enough. Like you show...

^^^ Israel is the Red Spot. Muslims are the Green Spot.​

 

[Jos]

Who's giving up land, israel is planning to steal more
Ahavat Eretz Israel - Jewish Tradition: Future Israel

Everyone there should move, should run, should grab more hills, expand the territory. Everything that`s grabbed, will be in our hands. Everything we don`t grab will be in their hands.

Ariel Sharon Quotes

 

[Ropey]

4 weeks countdown to the Palestinian unilateral move: The none unity of the Palestinians
Note: This is an abbreviated post summary focusing on one of fives arguments I’ve made earlier to why the UN should, had it been interested in promoting peace, decline the Palestinian unilateral move this September. Click here to read the original full post.

Today, barely four weeks before the Palestinian Authority will seek a unilateral declaration in the United Nations that will once again drive it further away from the peace process, the Palestinians are still divided and the rupture is deeper than ever. This is much more evidentiary this past week, since the terror attack on Israel that escalated the tension between Israel and the Gaza Strip.

Why the U.N. should decline the unilateral Palestinian move

For the past five years that Hamas has been in control of Gaza (until its’ violent overtake in 2007, it has been clinging to false claim that it was the elected government though that is NOT true – it won most of the votes (44%) but failed to form a coalition. That is one of the reasons that let to the war between Fatah and Hamas which ended with said violent overtake and expulsion of Fatah from the strip), the international community has only demanded three things from it:


Abandon the ways of terror
Recognize Israel’s right to exist
Acknowledge and accept all past agreement signed with Israel (mainly the Oslo Accords, meaning – peace process and the formation of Palestinian state alongside Israel, as opposed to in stead of it).