Israel/Palestine

Mosby

(17,474 posts) Thu Oct 6, 2016, 12:44 PM Oct 2016

Israel rejects US criticism, says no new settlements planned

Israel on Wednesday rejected harsh criticism from the United States over West Bank building, saying that the controversial construction newly authorized is not a new settlement.

“The 98 housing units approved in Shiloh do not constitute a ‘new settlement’,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. “This housing will be built on state land in the existing settlement of Shiloh and will not change its municipal boundary or geographic footprint.”

The US State Department earlier issued a biting condemnation of Israeli plans to expand the northern West Bank settlement. The new construction will house the residents of Amona, an illegal outpost scheduled for demolition on the orders of the Supreme Court.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-rejects-us-criticism-says-no-new-settlements-planned/

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Israel rejects US criticism, says no new settlements planned (Original Post) Mosby Oct 2016 OP

There is something else going on 6chars Oct 2016 #1

Israeli official: Obama’s settlement critique ‘an alibi’ for planned anti-Israel moves shira Oct 2016 #2

This has happened twice before 6chars Oct 2016 #3

Personally, I think that the US is putting the one-state option on the table. Little Tich Oct 2016 #5

Peace Now: The 98 Housing Units Promoted Near Shiloh: A New Settlement Indeed Little Tich Oct 2016 #4

6chars

(3,967 posts)

1. There is something else going on

Reply to Mosby (Original post)

Thu Oct 6, 2016, 02:50 PM

Oct 2016

When advancing paperwork on 98 units (not even 98 houses) within borders of an existing settlement merits the full throated anger of the world's most powerful nation, it is likely the latter was looking for an opportunity to make a show of anger. We can speculate about why that might be.

shira

(30,109 posts)

2. Israeli official: Obama’s settlement critique ‘an alibi’ for planned anti-Israel moves

Reply to 6chars (Reply #1)

Thu Oct 6, 2016, 04:54 PM

Oct 2016

After Washington castigates plans for 300 new West Bank homes, senior source tells Israeli TV US president is preparing one-sided action

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-official-obamas-settlement-critique-an-alibi-for-planned-anti-israel-moves/

6chars

(3,967 posts)

3. This has happened twice before

Reply to shira (Reply #2)

Thu Oct 6, 2016, 05:50 PM

Oct 2016

First, Biden visit when there was a made up anger about Israeli settlements, with aim of getting Israel to release PLO prisoners I think.

Second, after Netanyahu election, when they said Israel had rejected two-state solution. I think that had aim of softening criticism on Iran deal, can't remember exactly.

In this case, the US is exclaiming its fury that Israel had given assurances. From CNN
The "public assurance" came in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's June 2009 speech at Bar Ilan University where he said, "The territorial issues will be discussed in a permanent agreement. Till then we have no intention to build new settlements or set aside land for new settlements."

So, in this case there was no new land set aside and no new settlement, and it was not a proximate statement. So definitely just for show.

It is either (1) cover from allies who are upset about Israel arms deal, showing we are tough with Israel, (2) preparing for allowing UN resolution against Israel by saying this leaves no choice, (3) something new about to come out about Iran deal???

Anyway, within Israel, I don't imagine they take this fury seriously when it seems to just be for show - boy who cried wolf from their perspective - except for the fact that it might signal some other intent.

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)

5. Personally, I think that the US is putting the one-state option on the table.

Reply to 6chars (Reply #3)

Thu Oct 6, 2016, 10:24 PM

Oct 2016

In the end, the current administration must coordinate with the next administration, and while it's possible that the current one wants to impose some kind of framework for a two-state solution, it's not going to be feasible to do so if the next one would prefer peace talks with no preconditions or outside interference.

It's of course impossible to speculate what the results will be from peace talks with no preconditions, but it's always good to have a backup plan if they would fail (again)...

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)

4. Peace Now: The 98 Housing Units Promoted Near Shiloh: A New Settlement Indeed

Reply to Mosby (Original post)

Thu Oct 6, 2016, 09:58 PM

Oct 2016

Source: American for Peace Now, 10/06/16

Last Saturday, Our Settlement Watch team exposed that the Civil Administration's Higher Planning Committee promoted a plan for a new settlement east of Shiloh. Today, following the statement issued by the U.S. State Department condemning this development, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued its own statement, arguing that the 98 units that were promoted do not consist of a new settlement and do not expand the Shiloh's municipal boundaries.

These are the facts behind our analysis, which illustrate that this is indeed a new settlement:

1. The driving distance between the new settlement and Shilo is 2km (1km from Shvut Rachel).

2. The Municipal boundary of Shiloh was changed in May 2013 to including this new hill.

3. The fact that an area is included in the municipal boundary of a settlement means nothing about the location of it in or out of the existing settlement. According to our study of the municipal areas of settlements, the built-up area of the settlements takes only 9% of their jurisdiction. In other words, 91% of the municipal boundaries of the settlements is out of the built area of the settlement.

4. According to the protocol of the planning committee which took place last week, the architect who presented the plan said that "in terms of its functioning, the neighborhood could be independent, illustrating that this is a de-facto a new settlement, but the government needs politically to call it a neighborhood for political reasons.

For all of the reasons above, it is clear that the housing units promoted are not an integral part of Shiloh, but rather, a new settlement.

Reply to this discussion