Unfortunately I cannot link it because I do not know how to translate the article into English, but yesterday I read an article, in Hebrew, about the jewish West Bank "settlements".
(For those of you who like to analyze my use of quotation marks, I will explain "settlements". The word settlement, at least in this context, has the negative implication of wrongfully taking and settling land that belong to someone else. As of the end of the 6-day war in 1967, the West Bank has officially been a part of Israel. To my knowledge, all "settlements", villages, and towns in the West Bank are entirely legal.)
The official stance of the Israeli government regarding these "settlements" has changed from administration to administration. Prime Minister Olmert did not give many building permits. Prime Minister Netanyahu has given more. Despite this official difference, in practice, the "settlements" have been growing at a steady rate throughout. The majority of building permits issued to legalize the construction of housing units (apartments or houses) in the West Bank were and are issued by the local governments directly to local contractors who then just go ahead and build. So why is the federal government the one yelled at for the continued construction of "settlements"? Why does it matter what the federal government wants? Are the high-up politicians to squash the hopes of young families in the "settlements" who want their own home? Is the U.S.A., itself obsessed with housing everyone, going to continue to demand the federal government of Israel do this?
I wonder...
(I apologize if my bias ever offends anyone; however, I will not apologize for my bias. It is slight in most matters and my opinions are primarily based off fact.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"To my knowledge, all "settlements", villages, and towns in the West Bank are entirely legal."
ReplyDeleteLegal according to the Israeli government. However, it is believed by many to be a violation of international law. The UN and European Union don't consider the settlements legal. (Also the entire W. Bank wasn't actually annexed by Israel-- it is governed by Israeli law but technically just 'occupied' by the military). Granted, there are some prominent legal scholars that think they are legal, and a fair amount of counter arguments.
The US has mixed views, and mainly sees the significant amount of settlement expansion to which Netanyahu has given the green light as an extremely counter-productive gesture after decades of failed peace talks.
I think you downplay the difference between Netanyahu and Olmert significantly with respect to why the international community has responded negatively to Netanyahu. Netanyahu has planned 900 more housing units at least in E. Jerusalem, and hardly seems to agree with the idea of a two-state solution, even though it's the most realistic option for peace negotiations. On the other hand, Olmert thought a two-state solution was absolutely necessary for Israel and proposed getting rid of the majority of Israeli settlements. It's ultimately up to the federal government of Israel to make changes about the settlements, so the difference in approach and gestures of the PMs is very significant, even if the illegal/locally-approved settlement expansions remain a constant between elections.
"Are the high-up politicians to squash the hopes of young families in the "settlements" who want their own home?"
With settlement expansion comes Israeli military and checkpoints, which restricts the freedom of movement of the Palestinians in West Bank. Don't Palestinians essentially want their own home, as well?
Also, I'm still sort of confused that you put settlements in quotation marks, as if there's something inaccurate about calling them settlements. That's just what they're called.
"Don't Palestinians essentially want their own home, as well?
ReplyDeleteYes, they do want their own home. But, like a family fued, one or both sides will always refuse an offer that suit the other side, even if it is a great offer for them.
(Also the entire W. Bank wasn't actually annexed by Israel-- it is governed by Israeli law but technically just 'occupied' by the military).
Two comments here: Why did you write 'occupied' in quotes?
Could we make an analogy here to the U.S. and Puerto Rico? Are Americans not allowed to go and live in Puerto Rico?....if the situations are to different, then feel free to ignore the above analogy.