...the new construction and housing minister will receive plans for significantly enlarging West Bank settlements...
...According to the plans, which were formulated by Construction and Housing Ministry officials over the last few years, some 73 thousand housing units will be built, including 19,000 apartments in Jewish settlements on the Palestinian side of the security barrier,...More than 3,000 of the new housing units are expected to be built in the disputed E1 region, between Jerusalem and Ma'aleh Adumim.
Now, in my humble opinion, this is bullsh*t.
Not that some people (okay, like myself) think that this is possible and doable.
But 73,000 units?
No, this is an attempt by someone in the Ministry or even outside, like in Peace Now, to generate a "media storm" with some conniving reporter and affect the relations between Israel and the US on the eve of Hillary Clinton's visit.
In other words, undemocratic sabotage based on wishful thinking by someone who is anti-settlement.
It's a planned prejudicial media leak, intended to stir things up.
The reporter gets great credit and exposure for reporting a "revelation" and the antis force someone in government to deny after Hillary is now forced to press the issue since some American, or probably Israeli reporter, will ask her a question oin this at a press conference.
Reminds of "when was the last time you beat your wife?"
==========================
UPDATE
Housing ministry spokesman Eran Sidis insisted in an interview with the AFP news agency that the plans "refer only to potential construction" and "in practice only a very small part of these urbanism projects are implemented".
Responding to the report, the Housing Ministry said Peace Now was making "a big deal out of nothing." It said the plans gave only a general picture of the potential for settlement building and actual projects and construction were conditional on policies set by the ministers of housing and defence.
UPDATE TWO
Housing Min. slams 'baseless' report of 73,000 new settlement homes
Housing Minister Ze'ev Boim on Wednesday called a report released earlier this week over a government plan to build more than 73,300 new housing units in the West Bank "delusional and baseless."
"There are a total of 11,530 housing units in Judea and Samaria that were approved by Housing and Construction institutions," Boim told Knesset. "The report about 73,000 housing units is delusional and baseless."
...Responding to the report, the Housing Ministry said on Monday Peace Now was making "a big deal out of nothing."
It said the plans gave only a general picture of the potential for settlement building and actual projects and construction were conditional on policies set by the ministers of housing and defense.
MK Yaakov Katz of the right wing National Union on Monday welcomed the news that Israel is pushing ahead with construction in the West Bank.
"We will make every effort to realize the plans outlined by [Peace Now official Yariv] Oppenheimer," Katz told Army Radio on Monday. "I expect that, with God's help, this will all happen in the next few years, and there will be one state here."
Posts
17 comments:
So you are saying that someone who has to do with the army radio is broadcasting news about new land grabbing (settlements) because they are against them? The same military who censors all news during war times in Israel, including all comments on online papers like Jerusalem Post and Nazareth that sympathize with the Palestinians?
Hope you are right and the ploy works, the certain thing to kill all hopes of peace in Israel would be more "settlements."
Housing ministry spokesman Eran Sidis insisted in an interview with the AFP news agency that the plans "refer only to potential construction" and "in practice only a very small part of these urbanism projects are implemented".
Or; when was the last time you killed some Muslim neighbors?
Errata: In first comment the paper Nazareth should have been Haaretz.
"the plans "refer only to potential construction""
Why is Israel planning to build on the land that doesn't belong to it or is under dispute?
Obviously, there's the other option: the land doesn't belong to Arabs and Israel doesn't think it in dispute.
So the law says that the land is in dispute, the world says that the land is in dispute, but Israel doesn't think it is in dispute. Did God whisper it to you again? You are delusional.
This is a fair and simple summary of rights but if I had the time, I'd expand.
Your summary is nothing but an OPINION.
And just like i said.
" I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel, and that it has a right to the land, because God said so"
i don't buy any of the 7 reasons.
3rd is probably the most pathetic one
"The third reason that land belongs to Israel is the practical value of the Israelis being there"
Sure, so it is for Palestinians who lived there for ages.
Mr. Medad, I don't get your complete disregard for international law. People can't simply migrate all over the world and claim "God told me to live there" or that "this land could be of practical value for me", or that "i have been discriminated against in my country, now i am going to live at your home".
YOU GOT TO ABIDE BY LAWS JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think I spotted your problem. You assume that Jews came to the Land of Israel many years after the Arabs arrived as foreign occupiers in 638, like in Jerzl's time or so. And you assume that when the Jews did live there, because you know we did live there in antiquity, it was so long ago that it doesn't count anymore and that throughout the centuries, Jews never lived there after being expelled in 135 after the second revolt against Rome.
Ah.
Well, Try this
and this
here, too
and here for modern times
This should be ebough reading for now.
No, you spotted my problem wrong. I have a problem with Jews coming back from all over the world and expellling Arabs from their homes that they lived in for years and years, rounding them up, putting the armed soldiers on every corner of Palestinian land, cutting off the supplies which they are depend on for everyday life, imposing an economic siege, putting their young men in jails, killing innocent civilians, occupying the land despite the law, expanding the settlements.
And i have a problem with Iraeli doing all that as a side effect of reclaiming God promised land. It's a collateral damage for you, it's a genocide of Palestinian people for me.
I see you really haven't read anything from the Jewish side of the Zionist history. You don't have to believe it, all or partial, but to write what you did is simply to prove you have no real idea of the framework of the conflict, what happened in the 1880/90s, the 1920s, 1936-39, as well as later. That's too bad
Oh, and using the term "genocide" in this way proves that while dialoguing, you haven't learned anything from being here. You don't have to agree with my opinions or my facts but to continue to employ such terms proves to me that your emotions do not allow you even to engage in a simple discussion. I have, for example, stayed away from employing any such terms (Nazi; Holocaust) in direct reference to my Arab enemies but you seem to need to do so rabidly which proves the old adage: when your argument is weak, raise your voice.
"you have no real idea of the framework of the conflict, what happened in the 1880/90s, the 1920s, 1936-39, as well as later"
How so? So according to you, if i "had an idea" I would be able to justify the expelling people from their homes and imposing economic siege, illegal destruction of their property, killing of innocent civilian and not being investigated on the charges?
And is "genocide" too strong word for you? Well,let's see the definition
"Article 2, of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Israel's policies on Palestine fits the definition don't you think? With maybe the only difference that you are doing it a bit slower while backing it up with a massive PR compaign,(bc otherwise it would look really bad since Israel is a "democracy")
a. I see Peter removed his comment. One source wasn't me you must have realized (when you Google, you have to be careful) and the second, I wrote that in a sense it was worse than the Holocaust so I think your criticism is wrong.
b. knowing the history of the conflict doesn't "justify" and I don't justify things that are done illegally but I do justify, for example an act of expulsion if the original intention of those expelled, for example, was to expel me or other Jews. It's called tit for tat.
Let's see: if four Arabs have used their tractors to kill or attempt to kill Jews, should Arab tractor drivers be reviewed as to their security threat background?
c. as for genocide, we have no intent other than to defend ourselves from those who started off genociding us and even went to Hitler to help him out.
Post a Comment