Log in

View Full Version : Israel announces new West Bank settlement construction



JDHURF
11th March 2008, 05:58
Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! reports that Israel has openly announced new neo-colonial settlement construction within the West Bank:


Israel Announces New West Bank Settlement Construction

In Israel and the Occupied Territories, Israel has announced the construction of hundreds of new homes in a Jewish-only settlement in the West Bank. It’s the third time Israel has openly announced new settlement-building since renewing US-backed peace talks with Palestinian leaders last November. Israel agreed to freeze settlement construction under the US-backed road map. But it now says the freeze only applies to those settlements it doesn’t want to keep.

As Noam Chomsky observes, "the guiding principle of the occupation has been incessant and degrading humiliation, along with torture, terror, destruction of property, displacement and settlement, and takeover of basic resources, crucially water." There can be no serious discussion of a peace process, of the two-state settlement, when Israel is actively carrying out policies which denigrate the basis of the two-state settlement. Not to mention that Israel's expansion is in violation of international law and every UN resolution related to the Israel-Palestine conflict and no argument can be made that Palestinian terrorist actions, such as the shooting of qassam rockets into Sderot, provoke or necessitate Israeli expansion.

Chomsky continues:


Harvard’s Sara Roy, as she writes that under the terms of disengagement, Gazans are virtually sealed within the Strip, while West Bankers, their lands dismembered by relentless Israeli settlement, will continue to be penned into fragmented geographic spaces, isolated behind and between walls and barriers.

Her judgment is affirmed by Israel’s leading specialist on the West Bank, Meron Benvenisti, who writes that ‘the separation walls snaking through the West Bank will create three Bantustans’ (his words): north, central and south, all virtually separated from East Jerusalem, the center of Palestinian commercial, cultural and political life. And he adds that this, what he calls the soft transfer from Jerusalem, that is an unavoidable result of the separation wall, might achieve its goal. Quoting still, ‘the goal of disintegration of the Palestinian community, after many earlier attempts, have failed.’ ‘The human disaster being planned,’ he continues, ‘will turn hundreds of thousands of people into a sullen community, hostile, and nurturing a desire for revenge.’ So, another example of the sacrifice of security through expansion that’s been going on for a long time.

It is not only [i]wrong, Israel's expansionist program, but, in fact, self-destructive. Anyone who is concerned with the security and livelihood of both Palestinian and Israeli citizens and who seeks a peaceful resolution to the conflict must necessarily oppose Israel's program of expansion, of further stealing Palestinian land and resources, imprisoning Palestinians in their own land, and demand that serious negotiations be resumed, which means that UN resolutions must be respected by both Palestinians and Israelis.

jake williams
11th March 2008, 10:56
I'm starting to think that the Palestinians should just start explicitly trying to emulate Israeli policies. Start building farms and settlements and so on in "Israeli" territory, occasionally bulldoze a few Israeli buildings to clear land for them, and if the Israelis fight back, bomb the shit out of them and call them "terrorists". And once the "international" condemnations start flooding in, dare them to explain the difference between their actions and the standard Israeli MO.

BobKKKindle$
11th March 2008, 11:06
This demonstrates that the Israeli state is incapable of making concessions to the Palestinians, and so we should realize that to place our faith in international agreements is pointless, because such agreements will eventually be broken by the Israeli government, on the false premise that expansion is necessary to guard against a threat to security when, in reality, is is the expansion of settlements, as well as other aspects of Israeli policy such as restricting freedom of movement, that actually encourage young Palestinians to bomb Israel citizens. Contrary to prevailing myth, prior to the growth of the Zionist movement, Jewish people and arabs were able to live together in harmony, and there was no division into ethnic communities, as one sees in Israel today. This means that the conflict can only be resolved with the destruction of the Israeli state, and the creation of a single state, encompassing the entire area divided into two separate states under the post-war partition plan which will accord equal rights to all citizens, regardless of their ethnic origin or religious faith.

Ferryman 5
11th March 2008, 19:15
This means that the conflict can only be resolved with the destruction of the Israeli state, and the creation of a single state, encompassing the entire area divided into two separate states under the post-war partition plan which will accord equal rights to all citizens, regardless of their ethnic origin or religious faith.

I don't understand what this means. Could you expand on it a bit?

BobKKKindle$
11th March 2008, 23:29
I don't understand what this means. Could you expand on it a bit?

It is generally accepted that there are two lines of approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the creation of two separate states, or, alternatively, the creation of one single state. I opt for the latter approach, because I believe that any Israeli state would not be willing to let the Palestinians live in peace, but would instead try and expand it's borders and interfere in the affairs of the other state. This single state should essentially be comprised of Israel's current territory (apart from the Golan heights, which should be returned to Syria) as well as the areas that are, in theory under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian authority but are, in reality, subject to Israeli occupation, in the form of settlements, and the system of roadblocks and military checkpoints which prevent free movement. Unlike the current Israeli state (which does not have a constitution, and is based on institutional discrimination against Israel's arab inhabitants) this state should not award any special privileges on the basis of ethnic origin (meaning the ethnic group you belong to) or religion. For example, Jerusalem should be an open city, open to everyone, because of it's religious significance.

Wanted Man
11th March 2008, 23:43
Bobkindles is right on target, as he has often been lately (keep up the good work).

This once again shows the utter fallaciousness of the arguments that justify Israel. Once a bunch of rockets hit these new settlements, I wonder how long it's going to take for certain people to come out of the woodwork, exclaiming "they are killing innocent Jews!" And then justifying "targeted assassinations" levelling streets and killing dozens, because "the terrorists are hiding behind their own people".

For more on hypocrisy in the Israeli press, see my previous thread: Diary (http://www.revleft.com/vb/diary-taboos-israeli-t72779/index.html?t=72779)

Labor Shall Rule
11th March 2008, 23:44
I agree with Bob.

A single-state solution might be the only alternative to apartheid. But Ohmert's Kadima Party has never been more popular, and just recently, over 67% of all Israelis stated that they support an all-out military incursion into Gaza (http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-02-15-voa22.cfm), so it will be literally impossible to consider that option any time soon.

To achieve such a 'solution', the Palestinian resistance would have to exhaust the Israeli Defense Forces, so that the illusions espoused by right-wing Israelis would shatter in the eyes of the Jewish working class. The weaker the Israeli influence, the less dominant the racial boundaries between the Arabs and Jews will be.

Ferryman 5
12th March 2008, 00:40
It is generally accepted that there are two lines of approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the creation of two separate states, or, alternatively, the creation of one single state. I opt for the latter approach, because I believe that any Israeli state would not be willing to let the Palestinians live in peace, but would instead try and expand it's borders and interfere in the affairs of the other state. This single state should essentially be comprised of Israel's current territory (apart from the Golan heights, which should be returned to Syria) as well as the areas that are, in theory under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian authority but are, in reality, subject to Israeli occupation, in the form of settlements, and the system of roadblocks and military checkpoints which prevent free movement. Unlike the current Israeli state (which does not have a constitution, and is based on institutional discrimination against Israel's arab inhabitants) this state should not award any special privileges on the basis of ethnic origin (meaning the ethnic group you belong to) or religion. For example, Jerusalem should be an open city, open to everyone, because of it's religious significance.

Calling all real Lenients. Have I entered some kind of Dr Who world where everyone talks complete bollocks all the time? Or is this the left "swamp" as Lenin called it? Who are the demented twats arguing about a "constitution" and legal rights in a fucking 'Israeli' NAZI concentration camp which is what Gaza is. "independent working class organization"? bollocks! Independent of what? Grow up u arrogant ignorant pricks.

Sorry if I have offended anyone delicate sensibilities.