Source to JPost: Egypt 'caves' to Israeli pressure, pulling UN resolution

[montelatici]

I know more than you do about this. You just don't get irony.

 

[Lipush]

You don't know shit, dude, sorry but that's how it is.

As for Irony, I notice it when it's clear and with a bit of class, not like in your posts.

 

[Coyote]

If you look at a map...it doesn't look like there are no obstacles - you can't create a viable and secure country that looks like swiss cheese. The more settlements there are, the harder it will be to create a coherent area. I think settlements are an obstacle to PEACE - one of many.

Agree, but about the need, but I'm not sure that it will not happen in the foreseeable future.

What sort of scenario do you invision here?

Collectively, all the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria take up less than 2% of the land, so it is certainly possible to form a contiguous state around them; furthermore, Gaza and the West Bank are separated by Israel, so in the event of peace accommodation would have to be made to allow them to operate as a single state, and that same accommodation would allow Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria without obstructing the creation of a Palestinian state. Therefore either Gaza and the West Bank cannot become a single state or Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria is not an obstacle to the formation of a Palestinian state.

I think that would lead to a security nightmare. It already creates substantial problems with people unable to access portions of their land. I really don't think it could be done to create a feasible state nor do I think Gaza and WB could be unified into one state.

The 2% claim is also very deceptive: How much Palestinian land do Israeli settlements really eat up?

1. What the 2 percent figure omits.

Those who cite the 2 percent figure rarely clarify that this refers purely to the built-up area of the settlements. As described in a Human Rights Watch report earlier this year, while “the built-up area of residential settlements covers 6,000 hectares”, there are also “approximately 20 Israeli-administered industrial zones in the West Bank covering about 1,365 hectares, and Israeli settlers oversee the cultivation of 9,300 hectares of agricultural land.”


2. The settlements’ local authorities.

Settlement areas in the West Bank, including local and regional councils marked in grey (UN OCHA, 2009)


The 2 percent figure also obscures a perhaps more significant reality. 23 Jewish local authorities operate in the West Bank: “three municipalities, fourteen local councils and six regional councils.” According to a 2009 United Nations report, 39 percent of the West Bank falls under these authorities’ jurisdiction. Israel has “consistently refused to allocate such land for Palestinian use.”


As an example, the report describes how “almost all of the [Jordan Valley and Dead Sea] area falls under the jurisdiction of two [settler] Regional Councils” – the “practical implication” of which “is that, in almost the entirety of the Jordan Valley, Palestinian construction is prohibited.”


Israeli NGO B’Tselem, meanwhile, describing how Palestinians are prevented from using land in ‘Area C’ (around 60 percent of the West Bank), states that settlements and their regional councils constitute 36.6 percent of the West Bank as a whole.


Furthermore, “the areas of jurisdiction of the Jewish local authorities, most of which extend far beyond the built-up area, are defined as ‘closed military zones’…[and] Palestinians are forbidden to enter these areas without authorization from the Israeli military commander.”​

Here is a map...how would it work?

Furthermore, not only are these communities not obstacles to peace, but they are oases of peace in a turbulent region. Each day tens of thousands of Palestinians go to work in these communities earning two to six times what they could otherwise earn and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would gladly work there if there were enough jobs. Israel has extended its labor protection laws to everyone who works for an Israeli employer, so there is no exploitation of the Palestinian workers. The Palestinian Authority passed a law a few years ago making it a crime to work in Israeli communities but it is universally ignored.

They are clearly obstacles to peace. That is repeatedly stated by the Palestinian side - whether you agree or not, the Palestinians feel that they are and they are one of the negotiating partners.

There is no plausible scenario under which the Palestinians can form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel in the foreseeable future, so there is no plausible path to a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future.

The status quo, with the Palestinians Authority in areas A and B having 95+% of the powers of a sovereign state - unless feuding among the terrorist groups destroys what government structure they have - and Israel retaining control of are C, indefinitely because there is no viable alternative. Israel will continue to build within its existing communities and to create more communities, but only within its master plan which means no more that about 8% of Judea and Samaria will be developed for Israeli use. The Palestinians will prosper within this framework if they choose to live in peace with Israelis.

At the moment, the "status quo" puts the Palestinians under military law in much of the area and Israel controls their trade, power, and water rights as well as movement. Not sure I can see how they can prosper even IF they give up violence and accept a permenent second class status. And, looking at the map - it is far more than 8%.

Today, tens of thousands of Palestinians prosper by going to work in Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria, and they also go there to shop as Israelis from these communities go to many of the nearby Arab villages to shop, and it is these mutually beneficial transactions that are the path to peace, not UN resolutions that give the Arabs false hopes and inspire terrorism that will make their lives more difficult. The more Israel builds in Judea and Samaria, the more peace and prosperity it brings to the Arabs in the area.

The reality is - the more the Palestinians are squeezed out and restricted. Israel restricts their ability expand, and build new settlements. I don't see how that brings more "peace and prosperity".

The Palestinians don't have enough to lose, which is why this happens to begin with.

Israel is obligated and expected to protect the people of Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem, especially following this Antisemitic resultion.

I disagree that it is an antisemitic resolution. I think it's dangerous to frame all aspects of this conflict in "anti-semitic" terms. Opposing settlement building is not anti-semitic.

That tresulution is directly against Jews, about half million of them, to be exact. It allowes to mark products and to refrain from having business with them. I don't want to sound populistic, and I am myslef not a fan of Nazi Germany comparisons of any sort, but let's not play dumb, this is how things started back then, with "stamping" Jews. The moment the UN will condemn the illegal Arab building, then I will take my words back.

I thought the resolution was specifically against settlements. Are there illegal Arab settlements as well?

 

[Coyote]

Ok, how many new Arab settlements?

I'm not sure anyone has ever bothered to check. I know that there is growth in Palestinian settlements in Area B that spill into Area C. No one seems to define that as "settlements" though. The conversation centers around where Jews are buying and building homes. (And do you see that THIS is the problem?)

I can see how that is a problem.

But - I also see the other side - Palestinians being prevented from buying into certain areas. And...as an adjunct, Palestinians preventing Palestinians from selling to Jews.

In Palestinian law, selling lands or houses to Jews is a serious crime. How come no one ever looks at the problem in the same way?

They should.

 

[Coyote]

Ok, how many new Arab settlements?

I'm not sure anyone has ever bothered to check. I know that there is growth in Palestinian settlements in Area B that spill into Area C. No one seems to define that as "settlements" though. The conversation centers around where Jews are buying and building homes. (And do you see that THIS is the problem?)

I can see how that is a problem.

But - I also see the other side - Palestinians being prevented from buying into certain areas. And...as an adjunct, Palestinians preventing Palestinians from selling to Jews.

Israelis are also prevented from building in certain areas by the Israeli government.

Yes...but there is considerable laxity there. Many times officials look away from it, and then legalize it or at the least provide infrastructure.

 

[Lipush]

Collectively, all the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria take up less than 2% of the land, so it is certainly possible to form a contiguous state around them; furthermore, Gaza and the West Bank are separated by Israel, so in the event of peace accommodation would have to be made to allow them to operate as a single state, and that same accommodation would allow Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria without obstructing the creation of a Palestinian state. Therefore either Gaza and the West Bank cannot become a single state or Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria is not an obstacle to the formation of a Palestinian state.

I think that would lead to a security nightmare. It already creates substantial problems with people unable to access portions of their land. I really don't think it could be done to create a feasible state nor do I think Gaza and WB could be unified into one state.

The 2% claim is also very deceptive: How much Palestinian land do Israeli settlements really eat up?

1. What the 2 percent figure omits.

Those who cite the 2 percent figure rarely clarify that this refers purely to the built-up area of the settlements. As described in a Human Rights Watch report earlier this year, while “the built-up area of residential settlements covers 6,000 hectares”, there are also “approximately 20 Israeli-administered industrial zones in the West Bank covering about 1,365 hectares, and Israeli settlers oversee the cultivation of 9,300 hectares of agricultural land.”


2. The settlements’ local authorities.

Settlement areas in the West Bank, including local and regional councils marked in grey (UN OCHA, 2009)


The 2 percent figure also obscures a perhaps more significant reality. 23 Jewish local authorities operate in the West Bank: “three municipalities, fourteen local councils and six regional councils.” According to a 2009 United Nations report, 39 percent of the West Bank falls under these authorities’ jurisdiction. Israel has “consistently refused to allocate such land for Palestinian use.”


As an example, the report describes how “almost all of the [Jordan Valley and Dead Sea] area falls under the jurisdiction of two [settler] Regional Councils” – the “practical implication” of which “is that, in almost the entirety of the Jordan Valley, Palestinian construction is prohibited.”


Israeli NGO B’Tselem, meanwhile, describing how Palestinians are prevented from using land in ‘Area C’ (around 60 percent of the West Bank), states that settlements and their regional councils constitute 36.6 percent of the West Bank as a whole.


Furthermore, “the areas of jurisdiction of the Jewish local authorities, most of which extend far beyond the built-up area, are defined as ‘closed military zones’…[and] Palestinians are forbidden to enter these areas without authorization from the Israeli military commander.”​

Here is a map...how would it work?

Furthermore, not only are these communities not obstacles to peace, but they are oases of peace in a turbulent region. Each day tens of thousands of Palestinians go to work in these communities earning two to six times what they could otherwise earn and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would gladly work there if there were enough jobs. Israel has extended its labor protection laws to everyone who works for an Israeli employer, so there is no exploitation of the Palestinian workers. The Palestinian Authority passed a law a few years ago making it a crime to work in Israeli communities but it is universally ignored.

They are clearly obstacles to peace. That is repeatedly stated by the Palestinian side - whether you agree or not, the Palestinians feel that they are and they are one of the negotiating partners.

There is no plausible scenario under which the Palestinians can form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel in the foreseeable future, so there is no plausible path to a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future.

The status quo, with the Palestinians Authority in areas A and B having 95+% of the powers of a sovereign state - unless feuding among the terrorist groups destroys what government structure they have - and Israel retaining control of are C, indefinitely because there is no viable alternative. Israel will continue to build within its existing communities and to create more communities, but only within its master plan which means no more that about 8% of Judea and Samaria will be developed for Israeli use. The Palestinians will prosper within this framework if they choose to live in peace with Israelis.

At the moment, the "status quo" puts the Palestinians under military law in much of the area and Israel controls their trade, power, and water rights as well as movement. Not sure I can see how they can prosper even IF they give up violence and accept a permenent second class status. And, looking at the map - it is far more than 8%.

Today, tens of thousands of Palestinians prosper by going to work in Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria, and they also go there to shop as Israelis from these communities go to many of the nearby Arab villages to shop, and it is these mutually beneficial transactions that are the path to peace, not UN resolutions that give the Arabs false hopes and inspire terrorism that will make their lives more difficult. The more Israel builds in Judea and Samaria, the more peace and prosperity it brings to the Arabs in the area.

The reality is - the more the Palestinians are squeezed out and restricted. Israel restricts their ability expand, and build new settlements. I don't see how that brings more "peace and prosperity".

The Palestinians don't have enough to lose, which is why this happens to begin with.

Israel is obligated and expected to protect the people of Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem, especially following this Antisemitic resultion.

I disagree that it is an antisemitic resolution. I think it's dangerous to frame all aspects of this conflict in "anti-semitic" terms. Opposing settlement building is not anti-semitic.

That tresulution is directly against Jews, about half million of them, to be exact. It allowes to mark products and to refrain from having business with them. I don't want to sound populistic, and I am myslef not a fan of Nazi Germany comparisons of any sort, but let's not play dumb, this is how things started back then, with "stamping" Jews. The moment the UN will condemn the illegal Arab building, then I will take my words back.

I thought the resolution was specifically against settlements. Are there illegal Arab settlements as well?

Yes, and many of them also within the green line.

 

[Lipush]

That resolution will not change Israel's policy in any way.

 

[Coyote]

I think that would lead to a security nightmare. It already creates substantial problems with people unable to access portions of their land. I really don't think it could be done to create a feasible state nor do I think Gaza and WB could be unified into one state.

The 2% claim is also very deceptive: How much Palestinian land do Israeli settlements really eat up?

1. What the 2 percent figure omits.

Those who cite the 2 percent figure rarely clarify that this refers purely to the built-up area of the settlements. As described in a Human Rights Watch report earlier this year, while “the built-up area of residential settlements covers 6,000 hectares”, there are also “approximately 20 Israeli-administered industrial zones in the West Bank covering about 1,365 hectares, and Israeli settlers oversee the cultivation of 9,300 hectares of agricultural land.”


2. The settlements’ local authorities.

Settlement areas in the West Bank, including local and regional councils marked in grey (UN OCHA, 2009)


The 2 percent figure also obscures a perhaps more significant reality. 23 Jewish local authorities operate in the West Bank: “three municipalities, fourteen local councils and six regional councils.” According to a 2009 United Nations report, 39 percent of the West Bank falls under these authorities’ jurisdiction. Israel has “consistently refused to allocate such land for Palestinian use.”


As an example, the report describes how “almost all of the [Jordan Valley and Dead Sea] area falls under the jurisdiction of two [settler] Regional Councils” – the “practical implication” of which “is that, in almost the entirety of the Jordan Valley, Palestinian construction is prohibited.”


Israeli NGO B’Tselem, meanwhile, describing how Palestinians are prevented from using land in ‘Area C’ (around 60 percent of the West Bank), states that settlements and their regional councils constitute 36.6 percent of the West Bank as a whole.


Furthermore, “the areas of jurisdiction of the Jewish local authorities, most of which extend far beyond the built-up area, are defined as ‘closed military zones’…[and] Palestinians are forbidden to enter these areas without authorization from the Israeli military commander.”​

Here is a map...how would it work?

They are clearly obstacles to peace. That is repeatedly stated by the Palestinian side - whether you agree or not, the Palestinians feel that they are and they are one of the negotiating partners.

At the moment, the "status quo" puts the Palestinians under military law in much of the area and Israel controls their trade, power, and water rights as well as movement. Not sure I can see how they can prosper even IF they give up violence and accept a permenent second class status. And, looking at the map - it is far more than 8%.

The reality is - the more the Palestinians are squeezed out and restricted. Israel restricts their ability expand, and build new settlements. I don't see how that brings more "peace and prosperity".

The Palestinians don't have enough to lose, which is why this happens to begin with.

Israel is obligated and expected to protect the people of Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem, especially following this Antisemitic resultion.

I disagree that it is an antisemitic resolution. I think it's dangerous to frame all aspects of this conflict in "anti-semitic" terms. Opposing settlement building is not anti-semitic.

That tresulution is directly against Jews, about half million of them, to be exact. It allowes to mark products and to refrain from having business with them. I don't want to sound populistic, and I am myslef not a fan of Nazi Germany comparisons of any sort, but let's not play dumb, this is how things started back then, with "stamping" Jews. The moment the UN will condemn the illegal Arab building, then I will take my words back.

I thought the resolution was specifically against settlements. Are there illegal Arab settlements as well?

Yes, and many of them also within the green line.

How many?

 

[Lipush]

The Palestinians don't have enough to lose, which is why this happens to begin with.

Israel is obligated and expected to protect the people of Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem, especially following this Antisemitic resultion.

I disagree that it is an antisemitic resolution. I think it's dangerous to frame all aspects of this conflict in "anti-semitic" terms. Opposing settlement building is not anti-semitic.

That tresulution is directly against Jews, about half million of them, to be exact. It allowes to mark products and to refrain from having business with them. I don't want to sound populistic, and I am myslef not a fan of Nazi Germany comparisons of any sort, but let's not play dumb, this is how things started back then, with "stamping" Jews. The moment the UN will condemn the illegal Arab building, then I will take my words back.

I thought the resolution was specifically against settlements. Are there illegal Arab settlements as well?

Yes, and many of them also within the green line.

How many?

I honestly don't know. I can try and look for the number, but it is not something I know by heart or memory. For the record, I do not know all the name of the Jewish settlements or outposts, either. But even if the mu,bers are not exactly the same, it doesn't mean that when it comes to Jews, let's vote and condemn, and when it comes to the Arabs, let's brush it under the rug.

 

[toomuchtime_]

If you are talking about Judea and Samaria, Israel is sharing the land, and the Arabs are objection to it. Arab Israelis are free to move to the Israeli communities if they want to, but citizens of the Palestinian Authority are not, just as they are not free to move to any other country without applying for permission.

How many new Palestinian settlements have there been in Area C?

Few I would imagine, but there are numerous Arab towns and villages in area C so Israeli is sharing the land.

It's not really sharing if they are restricting expansion. It's tolerating. If there are no new Arab settlements...and Arabs are restricted from moving to Jewish settlements how is that really sharing?

Arab Israelis are not restricted from moving into the communities, but citizens of the PA are foreigners so they would have to apply for residency from the Israeli government. There are Arab communities in area C and there are Israeli communities in area C so of course they are sharing the land.

Non-Jews, even if Israeli citizens, are prevented, legally, from living in the Jewish settlements which are built on Jewish Fund land. The Jewish Fund specifically limits the leasing of land to Jews.

Israelis are foreigners in the occupied territories, the do not apply for residency to the P.A. LOL It's amazing how far these Zionists will go (and lie) to defend the indefensible.

Actually, that is no longer true. The government has an arrangement with the Jewish Fund to swap land with them to allow non Jewish communities to be built anywhere the government believes is appropriate. In any case, none of the land in Judea or Samaria is owned by the Jewish Fund.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Collectively, all the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria take up less than 2% of the land, so it is certainly possible to form a contiguous state around them; furthermore, Gaza and the West Bank are separated by Israel, so in the event of peace accommodation would have to be made to allow them to operate as a single state, and that same accommodation would allow Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria without obstructing the creation of a Palestinian state. Therefore either Gaza and the West Bank cannot become a single state or Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria is not an obstacle to the formation of a Palestinian state.

I think that would lead to a security nightmare. It already creates substantial problems with people unable to access portions of their land. I really don't think it could be done to create a feasible state nor do I think Gaza and WB could be unified into one state.

The 2% claim is also very deceptive: How much Palestinian land do Israeli settlements really eat up?

1. What the 2 percent figure omits.

Those who cite the 2 percent figure rarely clarify that this refers purely to the built-up area of the settlements. As described in a Human Rights Watch report earlier this year, while “the built-up area of residential settlements covers 6,000 hectares”, there are also “approximately 20 Israeli-administered industrial zones in the West Bank covering about 1,365 hectares, and Israeli settlers oversee the cultivation of 9,300 hectares of agricultural land.”


2. The settlements’ local authorities.

Settlement areas in the West Bank, including local and regional councils marked in grey (UN OCHA, 2009)


The 2 percent figure also obscures a perhaps more significant reality. 23 Jewish local authorities operate in the West Bank: “three municipalities, fourteen local councils and six regional councils.” According to a 2009 United Nations report, 39 percent of the West Bank falls under these authorities’ jurisdiction. Israel has “consistently refused to allocate such land for Palestinian use.”


As an example, the report describes how “almost all of the [Jordan Valley and Dead Sea] area falls under the jurisdiction of two [settler] Regional Councils” – the “practical implication” of which “is that, in almost the entirety of the Jordan Valley, Palestinian construction is prohibited.”


Israeli NGO B’Tselem, meanwhile, describing how Palestinians are prevented from using land in ‘Area C’ (around 60 percent of the West Bank), states that settlements and their regional councils constitute 36.6 percent of the West Bank as a whole.


Furthermore, “the areas of jurisdiction of the Jewish local authorities, most of which extend far beyond the built-up area, are defined as ‘closed military zones’…[and] Palestinians are forbidden to enter these areas without authorization from the Israeli military commander.”​

Here is a map...how would it work?

Furthermore, not only are these communities not obstacles to peace, but they are oases of peace in a turbulent region. Each day tens of thousands of Palestinians go to work in these communities earning two to six times what they could otherwise earn and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would gladly work there if there were enough jobs. Israel has extended its labor protection laws to everyone who works for an Israeli employer, so there is no exploitation of the Palestinian workers. The Palestinian Authority passed a law a few years ago making it a crime to work in Israeli communities but it is universally ignored.

They are clearly obstacles to peace. That is repeatedly stated by the Palestinian side - whether you agree or not, the Palestinians feel that they are and they are one of the negotiating partners.

There is no plausible scenario under which the Palestinians can form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel in the foreseeable future, so there is no plausible path to a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future.

The status quo, with the Palestinians Authority in areas A and B having 95+% of the powers of a sovereign state - unless feuding among the terrorist groups destroys what government structure they have - and Israel retaining control of are C, indefinitely because there is no viable alternative. Israel will continue to build within its existing communities and to create more communities, but only within its master plan which means no more that about 8% of Judea and Samaria will be developed for Israeli use. The Palestinians will prosper within this framework if they choose to live in peace with Israelis.

At the moment, the "status quo" puts the Palestinians under military law in much of the area and Israel controls their trade, power, and water rights as well as movement. Not sure I can see how they can prosper even IF they give up violence and accept a permenent second class status. And, looking at the map - it is far more than 8%.

Today, tens of thousands of Palestinians prosper by going to work in Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria, and they also go there to shop as Israelis from these communities go to many of the nearby Arab villages to shop, and it is these mutually beneficial transactions that are the path to peace, not UN resolutions that give the Arabs false hopes and inspire terrorism that will make their lives more difficult. The more Israel builds in Judea and Samaria, the more peace and prosperity it brings to the Arabs in the area.

The reality is - the more the Palestinians are squeezed out and restricted. Israel restricts their ability expand, and build new settlements. I don't see how that brings more "peace and prosperity".

The Palestinians don't have enough to lose, which is why this happens to begin with.

Israel is obligated and expected to protect the people of Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem, especially following this Antisemitic resultion.

I disagree that it is an antisemitic resolution. I think it's dangerous to frame all aspects of this conflict in "anti-semitic" terms. Opposing settlement building is not anti-semitic.

That tresulution is directly against Jews, about half million of them, to be exact. It allowes to mark products and to refrain from having business with them. I don't want to sound populistic, and I am myslef not a fan of Nazi Germany comparisons of any sort, but let's not play dumb, this is how things started back then, with "stamping" Jews. The moment the UN will condemn the illegal Arab building, then I will take my words back.

I thought the resolution was specifically against settlements. Are there illegal Arab settlements as well?

There are no illegal Israeli settlements.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Ok, how many new Arab settlements?

I'm not sure anyone has ever bothered to check. I know that there is growth in Palestinian settlements in Area B that spill into Area C. No one seems to define that as "settlements" though. The conversation centers around where Jews are buying and building homes. (And do you see that THIS is the problem?)

I can see how that is a problem.

But - I also see the other side - Palestinians being prevented from buying into certain areas. And...as an adjunct, Palestinians preventing Palestinians from selling to Jews.

Israelis are also prevented from building in certain areas by the Israeli government.

Yes...but there is considerable laxity there. Many times officials look away from it, and then legalize it or at the least provide infrastructure.

Sometimes they are legalized and some times they are torn down. Israel has been in control of the land since 1967, a half century, and still the communities take up less than 2% of the land, so clearly Israel has acted with great restraint, perhaps too much restraint, in building in area C.

 

[montelatici]

They are all illegal. A UN Security Council Resolution has the force of law. LOL

 

[Coyote]

Ok, how many new Arab settlements?

I'm not sure anyone has ever bothered to check. I know that there is growth in Palestinian settlements in Area B that spill into Area C. No one seems to define that as "settlements" though. The conversation centers around where Jews are buying and building homes. (And do you see that THIS is the problem?)

I can see how that is a problem.

But - I also see the other side - Palestinians being prevented from buying into certain areas. And...as an adjunct, Palestinians preventing Palestinians from selling to Jews.

Israelis are also prevented from building in certain areas by the Israeli government.

Yes...but there is considerable laxity there. Many times officials look away from it, and then legalize it or at the least provide infrastructure.

Sometimes they are legalized and some times they are torn down. Israel has been in control of the land since 1967, a half century, and still the communities take up less than 2% of the land, so clearly Israel has acted with great restraint, perhaps too much restraint, in building in area C.

That's not reflected in the maps at all.

 

[Coyote]

I think that would lead to a security nightmare. It already creates substantial problems with people unable to access portions of their land. I really don't think it could be done to create a feasible state nor do I think Gaza and WB could be unified into one state.

The 2% claim is also very deceptive: How much Palestinian land do Israeli settlements really eat up?

1. What the 2 percent figure omits.

Those who cite the 2 percent figure rarely clarify that this refers purely to the built-up area of the settlements. As described in a Human Rights Watch report earlier this year, while “the built-up area of residential settlements covers 6,000 hectares”, there are also “approximately 20 Israeli-administered industrial zones in the West Bank covering about 1,365 hectares, and Israeli settlers oversee the cultivation of 9,300 hectares of agricultural land.”


2. The settlements’ local authorities.

Settlement areas in the West Bank, including local and regional councils marked in grey (UN OCHA, 2009)


The 2 percent figure also obscures a perhaps more significant reality. 23 Jewish local authorities operate in the West Bank: “three municipalities, fourteen local councils and six regional councils.” According to a 2009 United Nations report, 39 percent of the West Bank falls under these authorities’ jurisdiction. Israel has “consistently refused to allocate such land for Palestinian use.”


As an example, the report describes how “almost all of the [Jordan Valley and Dead Sea] area falls under the jurisdiction of two [settler] Regional Councils” – the “practical implication” of which “is that, in almost the entirety of the Jordan Valley, Palestinian construction is prohibited.”


Israeli NGO B’Tselem, meanwhile, describing how Palestinians are prevented from using land in ‘Area C’ (around 60 percent of the West Bank), states that settlements and their regional councils constitute 36.6 percent of the West Bank as a whole.


Furthermore, “the areas of jurisdiction of the Jewish local authorities, most of which extend far beyond the built-up area, are defined as ‘closed military zones’…[and] Palestinians are forbidden to enter these areas without authorization from the Israeli military commander.”​

Here is a map...how would it work?

They are clearly obstacles to peace. That is repeatedly stated by the Palestinian side - whether you agree or not, the Palestinians feel that they are and they are one of the negotiating partners.

At the moment, the "status quo" puts the Palestinians under military law in much of the area and Israel controls their trade, power, and water rights as well as movement. Not sure I can see how they can prosper even IF they give up violence and accept a permenent second class status. And, looking at the map - it is far more than 8%.

The reality is - the more the Palestinians are squeezed out and restricted. Israel restricts their ability expand, and build new settlements. I don't see how that brings more "peace and prosperity".

The Palestinians don't have enough to lose, which is why this happens to begin with.

Israel is obligated and expected to protect the people of Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem, especially following this Antisemitic resultion.

I disagree that it is an antisemitic resolution. I think it's dangerous to frame all aspects of this conflict in "anti-semitic" terms. Opposing settlement building is not anti-semitic.

That tresulution is directly against Jews, about half million of them, to be exact. It allowes to mark products and to refrain from having business with them. I don't want to sound populistic, and I am myslef not a fan of Nazi Germany comparisons of any sort, but let's not play dumb, this is how things started back then, with "stamping" Jews. The moment the UN will condemn the illegal Arab building, then I will take my words back.

I thought the resolution was specifically against settlements. Are there illegal Arab settlements as well?

There are no illegal Israeli settlements.

If you say so. Even Israel considers some of them illegal...

 

[montelatici]

Ok, how many new Arab settlements?

I'm not sure anyone has ever bothered to check. I know that there is growth in Palestinian settlements in Area B that spill into Area C. No one seems to define that as "settlements" though. The conversation centers around where Jews are buying and building homes. (And do you see that THIS is the problem?)

I can see how that is a problem.

But - I also see the other side - Palestinians being prevented from buying into certain areas. And...as an adjunct, Palestinians preventing Palestinians from selling to Jews.

Israelis are also prevented from building in certain areas by the Israeli government.

Yes...but there is considerable laxity there. Many times officials look away from it, and then legalize it or at the least provide infrastructure.

Sometimes they are legalized and some times they are torn down. Israel has been in control of the land since 1967, a half century, and still the communities take up less than 2% of the land, so clearly Israel has acted with great restraint, perhaps too much restraint, in building in area C.

You are such a brainwashed liar.

"In total, more than 40% of the West Bank is under the direct control of settlers or settlements and off-limits to Palestinians, regardless of the fact that only a small portion of this land has been built on by settlers."

Americans for Peace Now

 

[toomuchtime_]

I'm not sure anyone has ever bothered to check. I know that there is growth in Palestinian settlements in Area B that spill into Area C. No one seems to define that as "settlements" though. The conversation centers around where Jews are buying and building homes. (And do you see that THIS is the problem?)

I can see how that is a problem.

But - I also see the other side - Palestinians being prevented from buying into certain areas. And...as an adjunct, Palestinians preventing Palestinians from selling to Jews.

Israelis are also prevented from building in certain areas by the Israeli government.

Yes...but there is considerable laxity there. Many times officials look away from it, and then legalize it or at the least provide infrastructure.

Sometimes they are legalized and some times they are torn down. Israel has been in control of the land since 1967, a half century, and still the communities take up less than 2% of the land, so clearly Israel has acted with great restraint, perhaps too much restraint, in building in area C.

That's not reflected in the maps at all.

The map you posted merely shows where areas A, B and C are located and doesn't show Israeli communities, so it is irrelevant tot he discussion.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I'm not sure anyone has ever bothered to check. I know that there is growth in Palestinian settlements in Area B that spill into Area C. No one seems to define that as "settlements" though. The conversation centers around where Jews are buying and building homes. (And do you see that THIS is the problem?)

I can see how that is a problem.

But - I also see the other side - Palestinians being prevented from buying into certain areas. And...as an adjunct, Palestinians preventing Palestinians from selling to Jews.

Israelis are also prevented from building in certain areas by the Israeli government.

Yes...but there is considerable laxity there. Many times officials look away from it, and then legalize it or at the least provide infrastructure.

Sometimes they are legalized and some times they are torn down. Israel has been in control of the land since 1967, a half century, and still the communities take up less than 2% of the land, so clearly Israel has acted with great restraint, perhaps too much restraint, in building in area C.

You are such a brainwashed liar.

"In total, more than 40% of the West Bank is under the direct control of settlers or settlements and off-limits to Palestinians, regardless of the fact that only a small portion of this land has been built on by settlers."

Americans for Peace Now

Just more bullshit from you. The 40% is under the control of the Civil Administration as agreed on by the Palestinian Authority and endorsed by the UN, and it is not off limits to Palestinians. Tens of thousands of Palestinians go to work each day in Israeli communities earning much more than they otherwise could and hundreds of Palestinian businesses do business with these communities. They cannot build in area C until there is peace and that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The Palestinians don't have enough to lose, which is why this happens to begin with.

Israel is obligated and expected to protect the people of Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem, especially following this Antisemitic resultion.

I disagree that it is an antisemitic resolution. I think it's dangerous to frame all aspects of this conflict in "anti-semitic" terms. Opposing settlement building is not anti-semitic.

That tresulution is directly against Jews, about half million of them, to be exact. It allowes to mark products and to refrain from having business with them. I don't want to sound populistic, and I am myslef not a fan of Nazi Germany comparisons of any sort, but let's not play dumb, this is how things started back then, with "stamping" Jews. The moment the UN will condemn the illegal Arab building, then I will take my words back.

I thought the resolution was specifically against settlements. Are there illegal Arab settlements as well?

There are no illegal Israeli settlements.

If you say so. Even Israel considers some of them illegal...

They are unauthorized but not illegal, that is to say, of there is nothing inherently illegal about Israelis building in area C as long as they get the proper authorization first. The same goes for Palestinians.
The point is, it is entirely a matter of Israeli law.

 

[Coyote]

I disagree that it is an antisemitic resolution. I think it's dangerous to frame all aspects of this conflict in "anti-semitic" terms. Opposing settlement building is not anti-semitic.

That tresulution is directly against Jews, about half million of them, to be exact. It allowes to mark products and to refrain from having business with them. I don't want to sound populistic, and I am myslef not a fan of Nazi Germany comparisons of any sort, but let's not play dumb, this is how things started back then, with "stamping" Jews. The moment the UN will condemn the illegal Arab building, then I will take my words back.

I thought the resolution was specifically against settlements. Are there illegal Arab settlements as well?

There are no illegal Israeli settlements.

If you say so. Even Israel considers some of them illegal...

They are unauthorized but not illegal, that is to say, of there is nothing inherently illegal about Israelis building in area C as long as they get the proper authorization first. The same goes for Palestinians.
The point is, it is entirely a matter of Israeli law.

Yet the Palestinians can't get authorization. You're also contradicting yourself - on the one hand you say that unauthorized they are not illegal...but they are not illegal if they get proper authorization first. That doesn't make sense.