Human settlements are changeable and are being changed. The processes that come into play here are manifold: abandonment, interruption, relocation, shrinking, growth, change of status, re-naming and re-settlement.
The United States was very concerned about Israeli settlements. When Carter met Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Ha’aretz reported, he told the Israeli prime minister “that the U.S. objects to any settlement in the occupied territories.”57 Carter, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Samuel Lewis recalled, “viewed them as illegal and unjustified.”58
In early May, Carter had U.S. officials privately protest the establishment of a new Israeli settlement at Mes’ha.59 In the summer of 1977, Vance privately told Israeli leaders the United States did not accept the “legitimacy” of settlements.60 In mid-1977, Begin promised Vance that Israel would limit itself to six to eight new settlements “on land within present military bases or on government-owned land.”61 After Israel approved three new settlements in August, Carter reminded Begin privately that settlements were illegal and that Carter might need to reaffirm publicly the 1967 border if Begin continued in this direction. The State Department also publicly condemned the Israeli move.62
In a September 1977 meeting at the White House, Carter reminded Dayan that the “U.S. has always felt that Israeli settlements on the West Bank are illegal.” With Carter, Dayan promised settlers would only enter in six “military camps” – what Israel called Nahal units – and, more broadly, “no settlement would stand in the way of peace.” Carter reacted by saying he was “still quite concerned about settlements. We consider them to be in violation of the Geneva conference.”63 Dayan’s promise was “the second best and not the best.” The president also asked Dayan to minimize the publicity surrounding settlements or new settlers.64
In early January 1978, Israel announced new settlements in Sinai, angering Carter and sparking another U.S. missive. In a letter to Begin a few days later, Carter clearly spelled out the U.S. position: “On numerous occasions since [September 26, 1967], United States representatives have expressed the disapproval of, and opposition to, the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories” because they contravene the Geneva convention and “are prejudicial to the achievement of a Middle East peace settlement.” Carter noted Dayan’s words the previous September. Later in the letter Carter warned Begin that it “would be particularly regrettable if a serious setback to the 20 current peace process were to be perceived as a result of Israeli action on settlements.”65
For the rest of 1978, the Israeli government did not establish any more settlements.66
In April 1978, Brzezinski was again reviewing the settlement situation for the president. For Begin, Brzezinski wrote, the Dayan statements were “no longer valid.” A different, temporary Israeli freeze also had “now ended.” Begin declined to stop West Bank settlements but would have “due regard for political considerations,” apparently a faint nod to U.S. opposition. Brzezinski concluded: “On ideological and political grounds, Begin is simply not prepared to agree to a full moratorium on all settlement activity. If we hope to persuade Begin to show restraint on this issue, we will have to remind him frequently of our strong opposition to further settlement activity.”67 U.S. officials recognized the Begin government’s deep attachment to the settlement project but were committed to continuing to try to slow it to help advance the diplomatic process...
57 Quandt to Brzezinski, “Israeli and Arab Reactions and Comments,” March 17, 1977, NSA, Brzezinski, Country file, Box 34, folder: “Israel 1-3/1977,” JCL. See also Quandt, Camp David, p. 45; and Carter, White House Diary, pp. 123, 125, 162, 167, 173, 176, 180.
58 Lewis interview, August 9, 1998.
59 In addition to calling in Israeli ambassador Simcha Dinitz, Secretary Vance raised the issue with Israeli Foreign Minister Yigal Allon on May 11, 1977. Brzezinski to Carter, “Israeli Settlement at Mes’ha and Vance-Allon Meeting,” May 16, 1977, NSA, Brzezinski, Country file, Box 34, folder: “Israel 4-6/77,” JCL. These exchanges were consistent with what Brzezinski told Carter to tell the U.S. Amb. to Israel, Samuel Lewis, regarding settlements: “We will continue to make our opposition to these policies known.” Brzezinski to Carter, “Your meeting with Ambassador Samuel Lewis, Wednesday, May 4, 1977, 2:00 pm,” same folder.
60 Sick to Brzezinski, “Summary of Vance’s Middle East Trip,” August 12, 1977, NLC-SAFE 16 A-13-18- 1-2, p. 6. 61 Sick to Brzezinski, “Summary of Vance’s Middle East Trip,” August 12, 1977, NLC-SAFE 16 A-13-18- 1-2, p. 5. On settlements, see also Quandt, Camp David, pp. 81, 83, 111.
62 Quandt, Camp David, p. 100.
63 On this draft transcript of the meeting, most or all of the word conference is crossed out and something is written above it. The word might be convention.
64 Transcript, “Meeting of Foreign Minister Day[an] with President Carter, Monday, 19 September 1977, at White House, Washington, D.C.,” BDP, Geographic, box 14, folder: “Middle East - Negotiations [9/75- 9/77], JCL, pp. 1-2, 11, 14-15; and Quandt to Brzezinski, “Aide Memoire,” September 20, 1977, NSA, 45 Brzezinski, Country file, Box 35, folder: “Israel 8-9/77,” JCL. For a brief assessment of Dayan’s promise, see Quandt to Brzezinski, “Israeli Settlements since September 1977,” memo, February 1, 1978, NSA, Brzezinski, Country file, Box 35, folder: “Israel 1-3/78,” JCL. Quandt also sent “a chronology of our most important private exchanges with the Israelis on the question of settlements” and noted that Carter “has frankly spoken out in press conferences about the illegality of the settlements.” See Quandt to Brzezinski, “Chronology on Discussions Concerning Settlements,” February 1, 1978, same location. The chronology itself was not in the folder but again suggests the frequent attention Carter officials paid to the settlement question. See also Quandt, Camp David, p. 113; and Moshe Dayan, Breakthroughs: A Personal Account of the Egypt-Israel Peace Negotiations (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1981), pp. 59-63.
65 “White House to American Embassy, Tel Aviv,” January 10, 1978, NLC-16-101-3-2-7. See also Brzezinski to Carter, “Previous US Votes on UN Resolutions Concerning Israeli settlements,” October 27, 1977, NSA, Brzezinski, Country file, Box 35, folder: “Israel 11-12/77,” JCL; and Quandt, Camp David, p. 179.
66 Gush Emunim, an extra-parliamentary settlers’ movement, established one in late January in Shiloh. Quandt, Camp David, pp. 161-162.
67 Brzezinski to Carter, “Israeli Settlements,” April 19, 1978, NSA, Brzezinski, Country file, Box 35, folder: “Israel 4/78,” JCL.
“It’s unhelpful both because it changes the map over time … but also because of the political impact and the way it suggests to Palestinians that decisions are being made before they are at the negotiating table.”
Palestinian security forces have arrested one of the most prominent human rights activists in the occupied territories after he criticised the arrest of a Palestinian journalist in a Facebook post.
Issa Amro, who lives in the southern West Bank city of Hebron, is the highest profile victim of a growing campaign by Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, against journalists and dissent on social media.
Amro is the founder of Youth Against the Settlements, which has long-documented alleged abuses by the Israeli military and settlers in Hebron. He was already facing charges in an Israeli military court for his activism.
We strongly condemn the Israeli government's recent decision to advance a plan that would create a significant new settlement deep in the West Bank.
Proceeding with this new settlement, which could include up to 300 units, would further damage the prospects for a two state solution. The retroactive authorization of nearby illegal outposts, or redrawing of local settlement boundaries, does not change the fact that this approval contradicts previous public statements by the Government of Israel that it had no intention of creating new settlements. And this settlement's location deep in the West Bank, far closer to Jordan than Israel, would link a string of outposts that effectively divide the West Bank and make the possibility of a viable Palestinian state more remote.
Israel gave final approval on Wednesday for plans to build 300 new homes in a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank, announcing the move as it carried out a court demolition order against two vacant apartment blocks in the same enclave.
Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz...gave approval for the construction of 300 new homes for Jewish settlers in the West Bank. The construction was planned for Maale Adumim, the largest Israeli settlement in the West Bank, and further expansion was anticipated for the smaller settlements of Nokdim and Bracha.No. That was back in December 2005. Eleven years ago.
Moves jeopardise any hope of peace talks, say Palestinians. Israel to build 300 new settlement homes in West Bank
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has approved the marketing of land for the construction of 454 homes in two settlements
The Israeli government has approved the construction of hundreds of new housing units in West Bank settlements and neighborhoods in the eastern part of Jerusalem, the Prime Minister's Office confirmed to CNN.Of those settlements, 560 will be built in Ma'ale Adumim, which is already one of the largest settlements in the West Bank.Another 240 will be built in Jerusalem in neighborhoods that Israel says are Jewish but Palestinians claim as the future capital of a Palestinian state in the eastern part of the city.
Israel has authorised construction of 300 new homes at a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank,
300 Old Settlement Rd,Lafayette, LA
But it's not settlements. It is an idea about moving a settlement that the people in question have rejected.
Worse: Not homes. Possible plans about homes likely to not be realized, for years if ever.
But here there is condemnation of building that has high chance of never happening, and not about new settlers, but moving old ones.
missing #Obama renouncing #Bush-#Sharon 2004 deal.
'We're not building a new settlement'________________
The Foreign Ministry responded to the American attacks on building in Judea and Samaria earlier.
"98 units in Shilo do not constitute 'a new settlement.' The units will be built on state land within the confines of the existing community of Shilo. They are meant to solve a housing problem for the residents of Amona who were forced to leave their homes in accordance with a demolition order by the Supreme Court," the Ministry said.
The Ministry also emphasized: "Israel is still obligated to the Two-State solution, in which a proclaimed Palestinian State recognizes Israel as the Jewish State. The real obstacle to peace is not the settlements, but the continual Palestinian rejection of Israel's existence."
Verbal clashes between Israel and the U.S. over resettlement plans of the illegal outpost of Amona escalated Wednesday evening, after a Foreign Ministry statement rejected American criticism and claimed that the construction plans approved last week do not constitute the creation of a new settlement."The settlements are not the obstacle to peace," said the Foreign Ministry statement.The Prime Minister's Office did not issue an official response, but Haaretz has learned that the Foreign Ministry statement was worded and approved by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his advisers alongside Foreign Ministry staff.The 98 housing units approved in Shilo do not constitute a "new settlement," read the statement. "This housing will be built on state land in the existing settlement of Shilo and will not change its municipal boundary or geographic footprint. The units are intended to provide a housing solution for the residents of Amona who must leave their homes in accordance with the demolition order issued by Israel's High Court of Justice."The Israeli Foreign Ministry statement added that Israel remains committed to the two-state solution, "in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state of Israel.""The real obstacle to peace is not the settlements – a final status issue that can and must be resolved in negotiations between the parties - but the persistent Palestinian rejection of a Jewish state in any boundaries," said the statement.
The financial instrument of the Zionist movement. Its establishment was suggested at the First Zionist Congress, held at Basel in 1897; the first definite steps toward its institution were taken at Cologne, May, 1898. It was conceived by the political Zionists as a financial instrument which should hold in trust the moneys of the Zionists for the direct purposes of the movement, and, at the same time, should act as a bank and carry on business according to the methods of the commercial world.
Weizmann had dared to criticize Herzl as "too visionary," and in 1900, at the Fourth Zionist Convention, he emerged as the leader of the Democratic Zionist faction. This group opposed both the political Zionists, who wanted political guarantees for the establishment of a Jewish home in Palestine, and the practical Zionists, who wanted to settle Jewish colonies in the Holy Land without regard to political guarantees. Dr. Weizmann helped reconcile their differences.
Do I detect a bit of political criticism here?I want to make it clear that I understand perfectly how easy it is for foreigners like me to come to Israel and be critical of the political situation. In Italy, no one has a reason to be afraid of taking a bus or going to church. It’s easy to be tolerant and respectful of human rights when your children aren’t risking their lives.
Are human rights a subject close to your heart?A week ago I completed my master’s degree in law, specializing in international law. When I was here last time, it was to write my thesis.
About Israel?The application of human rights in the occupied territories – a very complex subject.
Tell me about itOverall, I think there is a line that runs between good and bad, and sometimes that line snaps and it’s impossible to know who’s good and who’s bad. On paper, Israel is violating international law in a number of ways, but I understand why a state will do all it can to protect its citizens. My thesis is about international law, according to which – and this is the accepted belief in international courts – Palestine is occupied, and human rights and international law apply there. The Israeli opinion, which has no legal basis, is that the Geneva Convention is inapplicable in the territories, because Palestine is neither a state nor is it a territory under Israeli jurisdiction. But everyone has human rights, it’s not a matter of geographical boundaries.
Is there anyone on Israel’s side in this issue?The United States. In Guantanamo, the U.S. put forward exactly the same argument: that Guantanamo is extraterritorial and therefore the Geneva Convention does not apply.
How do we move ahead?There are many possibilities, but from a legal standpoint it’s first of all a theoretical question: Should humanitarian law and human rights be applied in Palestine?
What’s the answer?That Israel is not doing it, but should.
Israel ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1951. In principle, Israel rejects the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as it considers those territories as captured in 1967 as the result of a defensive war against countries that had illegally occupied them in 1948...the governments of Israel had undertaken to act in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the Israeli High Court of Justice considered that Israel holds the Palestinian territories by virtue of belligerent occupation.
the chorus of recriminations against Israeli settlements disregards the (by no means trivial) segment of settlements in the West Bank, undertaken by Israeli nationals individually – at times, on private land owned by Jews since the days of the British Mandate...or on parcels of private land purchased for full market value from those having title to it – without any financial or other sponsorship from the Israeli Government (indeed, in not a few instances, against the official policy of the Government). When settlers act entirely on their own initiative, when they do not arrogate to themselves land belonging to others or expropriated from its rightful owners, and when they do not benefit from any overt or covert governmental inducement,
Thirdly, in not seeking the full implementation of humanitarian law to Jews in those areas, the international community is derelict in its neutrality. In the first place, Jordan's illegal occupation was ignored. In the second place, other ongoing illegal occupations in Morocco, Tibet, Cyprus, etc. are ignored. And in the third place, Jews lived in those territories for centuries and were ethnically cleansed, in many cases through extreme violence, pogroms and massacres, but the world that wages battle against Israel in forums using 'international law' are blind to those Jewish rights.
Landscapes of Settlement in the Ancient Near East
Chairs: Emily Hammer, University of Chicago; Jesse Casana, University of Arkansas
Description: This session brings together scholars investigating regional-scale problems of settlement history and archaeological landscapes across the ancient Near East. Research presented in the session is linked methodologically through the use of regional survey, satellite remote sensing, geophysics, geoarchaeology, and paleoenvironmental studies to document ancient settlements, communication routes, field systems, irrigation networks, and other evidence of human activity that is inscribed in the landscape. Session participants are especially encouraged to offer analyses of these regional archaeological data that explore political, economic, and cultural aspects of ancient settlement systems as well as their dynamic interaction with the natural environment.
British bank Barclays agreed to pay $20 million to settle a class-action suit from investors who lost money in the Libor interest rate-rigging conspiracy, according to a US court filing.
[Jeremiah] Heaton, [who ran for Congress out of Virginia’s 9th district in 2012 and lost]...was journeying through the desolate southern stretches of Egypt and into an unclaimed 800-square-mile patch of arid desert. There, on June 16 — Emily’s seventh birthday — he planted a blue flag with four stars and a crown on a rocky hill. The area, a sandy expanse sitting along the Sudanese border, morphed from what locals call Bir Tawil into what Heaton and his family call the “Kingdom of North Sudan.”
There, Heaton is the self-described king and Emily is his princess.
...Sheila Carapico, professor of political science and international studies at the University of Richmond, told the Bristol Herald Courier last week that Heaton would need legal recognition from neighboring countries, the United Nations or other groups to have actual political control of the land.
Complex Communities explores how sedentary settlements developed and flourished in the Middle East during the Early Iron Age nearly four thousand years ago. Using archaeological evidence, Benjamin Porter reconstructs how residents maintained their communities despite environmental uncertainties. Living in a semi-arid area in the present-day country of Jordan, villagers faced a harsh and unpredictable ecosystem....Settlements developed what archaeologists call "communal complexity," a condition through which small-scale societies shift between egalitarian and hierarchical arrangements. Complex Communities provides detailed, scientifically grounded reconstructions of how this communal complexity functioned in the region.
These settlements emerged during a period of recovery following the political and economic collapse of Bronze Age Mediterranean societies. Scholars have characterized west-central Jordan's political organization during this time as an incipient Moabite state...
Releasing violent prisoners is always wrenching for Israel and especially for the families of victims—but can be justified if it helps lead to a peace agreement that would end the conflict and guarantee Israel’s future as a democracy and a homeland for the Jewish people. Even as a prisoner release poses short-term threats, a two-state solution would obviously bring long-term security opportunities.
But if at the same time it is releasing prisoners, the Israeli government continues building settlements in a way calculated to sabotage the peace talks, then we should all ask whether the safety of Israeli civilians and soldiers is being sacrificed on the altar of the all-powerful settlement movement.
Let's be clear:
the issue of Jewish civilian residency communities, constructed in the regions of Judea and Samaria, part of the area that was to become the Jewish National Home and where the right of "close settlement" was assured by the League of Nations (Article 5 Mandate decision 1922), is a "final status" concern as per the Oslo Accords (an agreement broken numerous times by the Pals.)
so, too, is the issue of "refugees".
If you/whoever insist that no construction take place, then I would suggest you also demand the halt of all UNRWA programs that promote a "right of return" to "Israel 67 borders" since that is never going to happen.
And if it is, well get off our backs and let us continue living in Judea & Samaria as Jews did until, under the Mandate administration, Arabs engaged in a prolonged ethnic-cleansing campaign that not only killed, injured, raped and pillaged Jews throughout the country (what was left after the first partition in 1922 and TransJordan was removed from the area of permitted Jewish settlement) but removed and expelled them from areas in Judea and Samaria where they had lived for many centuries, in some areas even from before Arab occupiers came to in the 7th century.
Thank you for your attention.
Posts
