Some insight into Jerusalem "settlements"

[Bob]

Hi everyone, since "settlements" are such a contentious issue regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict, I thought I'd give you some insight into what these settlements actually are. I've been living in Jerusalem for about two months, now, and I've learned that there is a "housing crisis" here with respect to costs of ownership and average incomes/salaries. Don't forget that the standard of living in Israel is quite a bit lower than in Canada. Specifically, for the same level of education and expertise, one will typically earn a lower salary in Israel and NOT enjoy a proportional decrease in the cost of living. In other words, assume you would earn 25% less in Israel doing the same job you're doing now with the same qualifications, your cost of living would perhaps be 10% lower - meaning you will sacrifice some material comforts.

Although I don't have time now, I'll come back soon with some information that I can find which will help us all appreciate the need for appropriate construction in Jerusalem to accommodate natural growth. As the population and economy grows, as will construction (new apartments, buildings for business/industry, school, government offices, and all other things you can think of) of appropriate buildings. Unfortunately, given the politicization of this issue, many people (including the Obama administration) seem to think it is fair to ask Israel to put its needs on hold for year-after-year while the "peace process" proceeds.

Without going into too much detail now, if you didn't already now (I surely didn't know until I arrived here), there is a short supply of housing and business real estate in this city, and in order to bring costs down for housing and business to be more accessible to more people, the supply needs to be increase. Furthermore, many people are religious Jews, and many religious Jewish people want to work closer to the old city to be in easier contact with the old city, as many of them have involvement there (work, religious associations, schools, etc).

I'll take some pictures of "settlements" in the near future and share them with you soon.

Personally, I say "build baby, build!".

[Bob]

So apparently I live in a "settlement". I am currently living in a neighborhood/area called Armon Hanetziv (beautiful area, by the way) in Jerusalem. I was just spending a few moments online looking at what our enemies are describing as "settlements" and "obstacles to peace". After watching this video, it turns out I have been living in a "settlement". Does that make me a "settler"? Anyways, I'll take some photographs of these neighbourhoods just to give you folks a taste of what these places are all about. They're just neighbourhoods, with school, apartments, commercial areas, government areas, etc... all the things any normal city needs and develops over time.

[Bonam]

I think the reality that Jerusalem will experience some natural growth, while there is no set border, is obvious. Settlements that are out in the middle of the West Bank really can be problematic though, since under any future agreement it would be hard to imagine them being part of a contiguous Israel with a viable Palestinian state existing beside it. I think it is in Israel's best interest to see a sovereign Palestinian state created as soon as possible, even if it means some sacrifices on Israel's part, and settlements can definitely be an impediment to that.

Personally what I think Israel needs to do is to start building West. Starting filling in the Sea west of Tel Aviv and Haifa and building on it. Many countries with high population densities have begun doing this as a way to create more space.

[Bob]

I think the reality that Jerusalem will experience some natural growth, while there is no set border, is obvious. Settlements that are out in the middle of the West Bank really can be problematic though, since under any future agreement it would be hard to imagine them being part of a contiguous Israel with a viable Palestinian state existing beside it. I think it is in Israel's best interest to see a sovereign Palestinian state created as soon as possible, even if it means some sacrifices on Israel's part, and settlements can definitely be an impediment to that.

Personally what I think Israel needs to do is to start building West. Starting filling in the Sea west of Tel Aviv and Haifa and building on it. Many countries with high population densities have begun doing this as a way to create more space.

Hey Bonam,

I completely understand what you're saying. But that's like saying Canada should build up Ottawa because Montreal is disputed. There are local/municipal needs that need to be addressed in Jerusalem. There are many people who want to live near the Old City for a variety of reasons. So building in East Jerusalem addressed these needs, be they commercial, residential, or institutional. Especially the religious component of our society, and many religious Jewish people live in Jerusalem. They want to be near the Old City because that is where they work, learn, and practise their spiritual development. They're not going to do a three-and-a-half hour commute from Haifa in order to satisfy their needs because Muhammad bin-Abdul is upset.

Jerusalem is our city, and we're not going to be bullied into strangling its needs to order to appease our enemies.

With respect to far out settlements in Judea and Samaria, yes they propose a problem to a potential peace-agreement seeing a Palestinian state. Those details will be ironed out if a deal is made.

Regarding whether or not a Palestinian state is ideal towards Israel's long-term security, that's questionable. We need to define what is and is not acceptable. Most certainly, there will need to be some limitations on the state which will raise the issue of "sovereignty" among the leftists. They must be disarmed, and their imports must be screened to prevent weapons coming in. The Palestinian track record with respect to violence and terrorism is despicable, and they must now pay a price for it in order to address our security concerns. Needless to say, they cannot be trusted to not arm themselves and conduct terrorism simply because their leader(s) signed a peace of paper in Washington. We're not going to allow a sovereign state to be another Iranian/Syrian proxy for terrorism from which they can murder us. At least for the long-term foreseeable future, Palestinians cannot and should not have a fully-autonomous state as we are familiar with on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Oour lives and safety are more important than some academic debate over whether or not they have full sovereignty. Know what I mean?

[Bonam]

Regarding whether or not a Palestinian state is ideal towards Israel's long-term security, that's questionable. We need to define what is and is not acceptable. Most certainly, there will need to be some limitations on the state which will raise the issue of "sovereignty" among the leftists. They must be disarmed, and their imports must be screened to prevent weapons coming in. The Palestinian track record with respect to violence and terrorism is despicable, and they must now pay a price for it in order to address our security concerns. Needless to say, they cannot be trusted to not arm themselves and conduct terrorism simply because their leader(s) signed a peace of paper in Washington. We're not going to allow a sovereign state to be another Iranian/Syrian proxy for terrorism from which they can murder us. At least for the long-term foreseeable future, Palestinians cannot and should not have a fully-autonomous state as we are familiar with on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Oour lives and safety are more important than some academic debate over whether or not they have full sovereignty. Know what I mean?

I do know what you mean but I think I disagree. A sovereign state actor is much easier to deal with than a bunch of individual disjointed terrorist groups. I think if a Palestinian state comes into existence, it would be important for it to have a reasonable level of military and police capability. If the state's government decided to take violent action against Israel, that would be an act of war, and Israel would be justified in reacting with the full force of its military to quickly ensure its security. Meanwhile, in a disarmed Palestinian state that has trouble asserting its sovereignty, you'll instead have terrorist groups that individually launch rockets at Israel, while the government of Palestine distances itself from such attacks. In this case it is diplomatically damaging for Israel to take harsh retaliatory measures against the Palestinian state, in essence, it would be just a continuation of the status quo except that Israel will presumably have let the West Bank have somewhat greater autonomy than it presently does.

Anyway, I think there is a better chance of peace between two sovereign, armed, countries in a tense standoff between state actors than between a a sovereign, armed, country (Israel) and a half-state where military force is projected only by terrorist groups.

[Bob]

I do know what you mean but I think I disagree. A sovereign state actor is much easier to deal with than a bunch of individual disjointed terrorist groups. I think if a Palestinian state comes into existence, it would be important for it to have a reasonable level of military and police capability. If the state's government decided to take violent action against Israel, that would be an act of war, and Israel would be justified in reacting with the full force of its military to quickly ensure its security. Meanwhile, in a disarmed Palestinian state that has trouble asserting its sovereignty, you'll instead have terrorist groups that individually launch rockets at Israel, while the government of Palestine distances itself from such attacks. In this case it is diplomatically damaging for Israel to take harsh retaliatory measures against the Palestinian state, in essence, it would be just a continuation of the status quo except that Israel will presumably have let the West Bank have somewhat greater autonomy than it presently does.

Anyway, I think there is a better chance of peace between two sovereign, armed, countries in a tense standoff between state actors than between a a sovereign, armed, country (Israel) and a half-state where military force is projected only by terrorist groups.

You're wrong. Let's examine reality for moment. Palestinians are largely hostile towards Israel's existence as a Jewish state and largely anti-semitic. If their autonomy is increased, with them being armed and being permitted to decide for themselves what they can import (all sorts of weapons), the risk to Israel is increased one-hundred-fold. How can you sit in Seattle and tell us to take this risk? Are we going to allow an Iranian or Syrian proxy to occupy another stretch of our borders?

The same problem that Israel always faces when it defends itself still applies to the hypothetical independent Palestinian state. If terrorism continues to occur in this hypothetical independent Palestinian State scenario, and it most certainly will, Israel will still have its hands tied when defending itself. We know that Palestinians and all their terrorist affiliated fight in the most sickening and cowardly ways imaginable. From denying responsibility and saying the terrorism came from a "lone wolf" (a PA favourite), to using civilian infrastructure as terrorist infrastructure (shooting from homes, mosques, schools, and training and concealing arms and ammunition in homes, power/water plants, government offices), to using children and women as human shields and kidnapping people and soldiers.... there's nothing they won't do and nothing they haven't done. The existence of a Palestinian state will not absolve Israel from the political pressure it always faces AGAINST doing what it must do to defend itself. If anything, the Israeli military presence in Judea and Samaria saves lives.

Look, all things considered I hope and pray for peace. I know that we must achieve a peaceful reconciliation with the Palestinians and broader Arab-Muslim collective. I do not think that a short-term "two-state solution" is the answer, though. Palestinians must undergo slow steps towards some form of statehood that will not compromise our security. Let's not pretend that our security concerns are entirely grounded in a history of decades of wars, murders, and terrorism.

To summarize, your position seems flawed in two fundamental ways. First, you are assuming that Palestinian statehood will liberalize Israel's permissions to respond to threats militarily - it most certainly WILL NOT given what we know about the international community's pandering to Palestinians and their allies as well as the MO of the terrorists. Second, you seem to think that a more autonomous Palestinian authority will have an easier time combating terrorism, which isn't true because they're already armed and trained by Israel and given significant security control over their areas. The reason Palestinian authorities don't do a very good job combating terrorism isn't because of some imagined Israeli interference, but rather the result of at a minimum - apathy towards terrorism, and at a maximum - complicity in terrorism.

Cheers.

[GostHacked]

You're wrong. Let's examine reality for moment. Palestinians are largely hostile towards Israel's existence as a Jewish state and largely anti-semitic. If their autonomy is increased, with them being armed and being permitted to decide for themselves what they can import (all sorts of weapons), the risk to Israel is increased one-hundred-fold. How can you sit in Seattle and tell us to take this risk? Are we going to allow an Iranian or Syrian proxy to occupy another stretch of our borders?

Well, Bob, I am glad you found your home in Israel. Seems like a rough road ahead. Meanwhile in Canada, it's a little cold. And I had to borrow money from my boss today, because I forgot my wallet at home, and was almost out of gas. C'est la vie.

[M.Dancer]

Meanwhile in Canada, it's a little cold.

It was 24 and sunny today...

[Bonam]

To summarize, your position seems flawed in two fundamental ways. First, you are assuming that Palestinian statehood will liberalize Israel's permissions to respond to threats militarily - it most certainly WILL NOT given what we know about the international community's pandering to Palestinians and their allies as well as the MO of the terrorists. Second, you seem to think that a more autonomous Palestinian authority will have an easier time combating terrorism, which isn't true because they're already armed and trained by Israel and given significant security control over their areas. The reason Palestinian authorities don't do a very good job combating terrorism isn't because of some imagined Israeli interference, but rather the result of at a minimum - apathy towards terrorism, and at a maximum - complicity in terrorism.

Ok, but, how will the creation of a disarmed, impotent, Palestinian state help anything? Such a state would still contain all the terrorists that hate Israel and want to destroy it, and they would continue to commit terrorist acts. Security would not be improved through the implementation of a two state solution with an impotent Palestinian state. It seems to me that such a "solution" would be the continuation of the status quo in everything but name.

For an example, let's look at Syria, another state on the border with Israel that has many people who hate Israel. Now, Syria has its own military. But, Syria keeps its own people in check, because they know that a military confrontation with Israel would be to Syria's disadvantage. The same can be said for Jordan. If there existed a Palestinian leadership that was serious about peace with Israel and creating their own viable state, then such a leadership would need the military and police capability to control their own people and prevent the terrorists from attacking Israel from within the new state's territory. Now, I do not make the claim that there currently exists a Palestinian leadership willing and capable of doing this, but IF such a leadership ever does come to exist, that is when a two-state solution could feasibly be implemented, and in that scenario, Israel would be better off if that Palestinian state was fully sovereign, including having the right to have a military.

If all this happened, Israel would have one more hostile neighbor state: a situation far better than what it finds itself in today.

[M.Dancer]

If all this happened, Israel would have one more hostile neighbor state: a situation far better than what it finds itself in today.

That makes no sense. The ability to inflict severe harm on Israel is far greater with the established states than with the impotent palestinians.

The only option to enhance Israel's security is a Palestinian state committed to peace. Otherwise a neutered PA is the next best option.

[Bonam]

That makes no sense. The ability to inflict severe harm on Israel is far greater with the established states than with the impotent palestinians.

The ability might be there, technically (Israel could whoop their ass inside a day or two though), but the ability is not used, which is the important thing. In the past 10+ years, the majority of the harm inflicted on Israel has been done by non-state actors, by terrorists.

The only option to enhance Israel's security is a Palestinian state committed to peace.

I agree, and this state, committed to peace, would need to have some military and police capability, without which it could not exert sovereignty over its own territory.

[dre]

There aint gonna be no Palestinian State.

Theres no compelling reason at all for Israel to give up control of the west bank and they have absolutely no intention of doing so. The plan is to keep the status quo going for as long as possible and keep expanding the settlements.

Just forget about it.

[Bob]

Ok, but, how will the creation of a disarmed, impotent, Palestinian state help anything? Such a state would still contain all the terrorists that hate Israel and want to destroy it, and they would continue to commit terrorist acts. Security would not be improved through the implementation of a two state solution with an impotent Palestinian state. It seems to me that such a "solution" would be the continuation of the status quo in everything but name.

For an example, let's look at Syria, another state on the border with Israel that has many people who hate Israel. Now, Syria has its own military. But, Syria keeps its own people in check, because they know that a military confrontation with Israel would be to Syria's disadvantage. The same can be said for Jordan. If there existed a Palestinian leadership that was serious about peace with Israel and creating their own viable state, then such a leadership would need the military and police capability to control their own people and prevent the terrorists from attacking Israel from within the new state's territory. Now, I do not make the claim that there currently exists a Palestinian leadership willing and capable of doing this, but IF such a leadership ever does come to exist, that is when a two-state solution could feasibly be implemented, and in that scenario, Israel would be better off if that Palestinian state was fully sovereign, including having the right to have a military.

If all this happened, Israel would have one more hostile neighbor state: a situation far better than what it finds itself in today.

The state I am considering wouldn't be impotent, though. The current Palestinian leadership isn't impotent, either. They have guns and training. When I talk about a hypothetical disarmed Palestinian state, I am talking about military disarmament. There is quite a difference between having sidearms for the police and military aircraft with ordnance.

With respect to Syria, it is still a terrorist-state. It supplies weapons and training to Israel's enemies. You're making the mistake in thinking that the concept of autonomy allows Israel to defend itself appropriately, which simply isn't the case. Much of the world will always hate Israel and everything it stands for, and the double-standard between our actions and the those of our enemies will persist. We know how our enemies operate in terrorism, their strategy will not change if given sovereignty. Our ability to respond will also not change, as we are always hampered politically due to the double standard.

Basically, we need to have confidence that a proposal for a Palestinian state, whatever its degree of autonomy/sovereignty, would not increase the risk posed to us - that this state would not become a launchpad form terrorism as is the case with Gaza.

[Bob]

The ability might be there, technically (Israel could whoop their ass inside a day or two though), but the ability is not used, which is the important thing. In the past 10+ years, the majority of the harm inflicted on Israel has been done by non-state actors, by terrorists.

I agree, and this state, committed to peace, would need to have some military and police capability, without which it could not exert sovereignty over its own territory.

The proposal for a Palestinian state would never be accepted should it not be demilitarized. Their improvised explosives and guns are bad enough, and already murdering and maiming Jews. You don't need a military to exert civil control. I get the impression that you think the PA and Hamas are impotent. They are most certainly not. Their ability to maintain order and stop terrorism isn't impacted by current circumstances, i.e. the closure of Gaza's borders or the IDF presence in Judea and Samaria.

[GostHacked]

There aint gonna be no Palestinian State.

Theres no compelling reason at all for Israel to give up control of the west bank and they have absolutely no intention of doing so. The plan is to keep the status quo going for as long as possible and keep expanding the settlements.

Just forget about it.

Regardless of anyone's view on this matter, the expansion of the settlements will continue, and Israel will eventually claim all that land as her own and defend it to the death. Palestine won't exist.

[M.Dancer]

In the past 10+ years, the majority of the harm inflicted on Israel has been done by non-state actors, by terrorists.

In the czse of israel, the terrorism against it is indeed state sponsored, whether it is Iranian, Syrian or PA.

[GostHacked]

In the czse of israel, the terrorism against it is indeed state sponsored, whether it is Iranian, Syrian or PA.

And in the BLUE corner we have the USA, Canada and Europe sponsoring Israel.

It's nothing more than a proxy war for something bigger.

[M.Dancer]

And in the BLUE corner we have the USA, Canada and Europe sponsoring Israel.

It's nothing more than a proxy war for something bigger.

Are you suggesting that the USA, Canada and Europe are directing Israel's military activities against enemy beligerents or are you suggesting that you really don't understand the terms being used, the issues or the difference between acts of terror and military responce to acts of terror?

[bud]

Hi everyone, since "settlements" are such a contentious issue regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict, I thought I'd give you some insight into what these settlements actually are. I've been living in Jerusalem for about two months, now, and I've learned that there is a "housing crisis" here with respect to costs of ownership and average incomes/salaries. Don't forget that the standard of living in Israel is quite a bit lower than in Canada. Specifically, for the same level of education and expertise, one will typically earn a lower salary in Israel and NOT enjoy a proportional decrease in the cost of living. In other words, assume you would earn 25% less in Israel doing the same job you're doing now with the same qualifications, your cost of living would perhaps be 10% lower - meaning you will sacrifice some material comforts.

Although I don't have time now, I'll come back soon with some information that I can find which will help us all appreciate the need for appropriate construction in Jerusalem to accommodate natural growth. As the population and economy grows, as will construction (new apartments, buildings for business/industry, school, government offices, and all other things you can think of) of appropriate buildings. Unfortunately, given the politicization of this issue, many people (including the Obama administration) seem to think it is fair to ask Israel to put its needs on hold for year-after-year while the "peace process" proceeds.

Without going into too much detail now, if you didn't already now (I surely didn't know until I arrived here), there is a short supply of housing and business real estate in this city, and in order to bring costs down for housing and business to be more accessible to more people, the supply needs to be increase. Furthermore, many people are religious Jews, and many religious Jewish people want to work closer to the old city to be in easier contact with the old city, as many of them have involvement there (work, religious associations, schools, etc).

I'll take some pictures of "settlements" in the near future and share them with you soon.

Personally, I say "build baby, build!".

the housing crisis in israel does not make it okay to evict the palestinians from their land and annex the land like it belongs to them. it also does not make it okay to illegally build on another person's land.

many orthodox jewish groups have become a big burden on the israeli society. they have the highest unemployment rate and most do not serve in the military. a military that is fighting a battle for their illegal settlements.

the illegal settlements (including those in arab east jerusalem) are a cancer and removing them is a big part of the solution to the peace process. anyone who lives there, including yourself, know that the settlements are a multi-million dollar real estate industry that is making a few rich while fueling the desperate situation for the palestinians and continuing to stall any process. corrupt israeli politicians like ohmert and every other mayor after teddy kollek have made millions filling their pockets and the few cronies around them by constructing cheap housing on arab land. these settlements are filled with many who 'choose' not to work and who see no vision but the vision of 'greater israel'. they are against the establishment of a palestinian state and they are part of a systematic land theft that has been going on for over 40 years.

[DogOnPorch]

the housing crisis in israel does not make it okay to evict the palestinians from their land and annex the land like it belongs to them. it also does not make it okay to illegally build on another person's land.

many orthodox jewish groups have become a big burden on the israeli society. they have the highest unemployment rate and most do not serve in the military. a military that is fighting a battle for their illegal settlements.

the illegal settlements (including those in arab east jerusalem) are a cancer and removing them is a big part of the solution to the peace process. anyone who lives there, including yourself, know that the settlements are a multi-million dollar real estate industry that is making a few rich while fueling the desperate situation for the palestinians and continuing to stall any process. corrupt israeli politicians like ohmert and every other mayor after teddy kollek have made millions filling their pockets and the few cronies around them by constructing cheap housing on arab land. these settlements are filled with many who 'choose' not to work and who see no vision but the vision of 'greater israel'. they are against the establishment of a palestinian state and they are part of a systematic land theft that has been going on for over 40 years.

It sucks when the Arabs lose a war that the Arabs started. But thems the breaks. I doubt Poland will be handing over East Prussia/Pomerania anytime soon without some really sweet-azz deal.

[GostHacked]

Are you suggesting that the USA, Canada and Europe are directing Israel's military activities against enemy beligerents or are you suggesting that you really don't understand the terms being used, the issues or the difference between acts of terror and military responce to acts of terror?

I've been listening to this whole thing play out for the past 30 years. Ever since I was a kid, this conflict has been a thorn in everyone's side. No one really had an idea of how to solve it then, and today, no one has an idea on how to solve it. It's a catch 22. Israel won't back down unless Hamas surrenders. And Hamas won't back down until they get their land back. Palestinians want to have control over what little they have left. Israel will not allow that to happen, with the intention of containing the terrorists. Israel supports a sovereign Palestine as long as they don't have a military or properly equipped police force to deal with the terrorist element. We essentially have two sides that don't want compromise, and do not want to work together. The only solution for each side is to drive the other out of existence.

[GostHacked]

It sucks when the Arabs lose a war that the Arabs started. But thems the breaks. I doubt Poland will be handing over East Prussia/Pomerania anytime soon without some really sweet-azz deal.

The Poland angle is irrelevant. Different conflict different situation.

[DogOnPorch]

The Poland angle is irrelevant. Different conflict different situation.

Hardly...both Germany and the Arabs started a war which they both lost.

[bud]

We essentially have two sides that don't want compromise, and do not want to work together. The only solution for each side is to drive the other out of existence.

don't kid yourself. the palestinian side has already compromised and accepted the 1967 border and israel's existence. what they don't accept is the continuation of more land theft by israel and the horrible condition that israel has put them in, in the name of security. like seriously, there are people who want you to believe that the wall that cuts deep into the palestinian land is for 'security' reasons and not for stealing more land.

the terrorism is a result of israel's bullying and the ineffectiveness of the international community to step in and pressure israel to follow international law. while terrorism should always be condemned, we should be honest with ourselves and accept the main problem, which is israel's right wing establishment which is still seeing the vision of greater israel.

[bud]

here is more insight into illegal settlements. this one in the west bank:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMNEKvOAiv4