Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

Likud MK: Settlement construction is good for peace with Palestinians

Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Ofir Akunis took Netanyahu’s position that settlement construction is not an impediment to a negotiated solution with the Palestinians to a whole new level. According to a report in Haaretz Tuesday:

… [Akunis asserted] that past experience has shown that a halt to construction has only driven the Palestinians away from negotiating with Israel. “The Likud policy is very consistent. Our call to the Palestinians to enter into direct peace negotiations without precondition is in effect,” he said. (Emphasis mine)

Akunis, the same Likud lawmaker who in the last Knesset proposed a bill to limit all foreign funding for “political organizations” and who said on TV in 2011 that Senator Joe McCarthy was right, essentially stated – as I can only deduce from his backwards statement – that the more Israel builds settlements the better it is for reaching a negotiated agreement with the Palestinians. After all, stopping settlement construction would only push them away.

Meanwhile, former foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman came out with what is probably the most moderate and diplomatically pragmatic statement he has probably ever made, confirming that there has been a de facto building freeze in East Jerusalem since no new tenders are being put through the pipeline. He explained that this “temporary hiatus” is meant to give U.S. Secretary of State Kerry a chance to succeed in his peacemaking efforts.

As, Noam Sheizaf reported Monday, construction of new housing in the West Bank – as opposed to East Jerusalem –  is at a seven-year high.

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. XYZ

      Akunis is correct. Each major Israeli concession or withdrawal since Oslo in 1993 was followed by a massive wave of violence. The “peace process” is the CAUSE of violence. That is why Peres and Rabin invented the Orwellian term “victims of peace” to explain away all the terrorism victims that came as a result of the Oslo fiasco.
      Building settlements is the ONLY way to ultimately have peace. When Israel makes concessions or withdrawals or destroys settlements it is signalling that it is weak and that further violence from the Arab side will bring even further concessions. HAMAS and FATAH will say “if they gave up Gush Katif, they will end up giving up Tel Aviv if we just keep attacking them”. I realize this is hard for “progressives” to swallow, but the world doesn’t work they way they think it does.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gearoid

        I don’t know how deep you need to stick your head into the sand to make such horrible, stupid logic seem workable, but I suggest you rejoin the real world.

        Building settlements is the BIGGEST impediment to peace. Any Palestinian you ask will tell you that. The leaders will tell you that. Any Israeli that isn’t a coward or a fool will tell you that.

        Each new settlement is less land for the Palestinians. But not only that, it’s a visible monument to inequality. It’s a new series of roadblocks, checkpoints, and IDF patrols. It’s the potential for more violence in an area from settlers. If you can’t see how the settlements are the most visible and harmful part of the occupation, you must be a blind man.

        This sort of racist, ultra-nationalist crap is exactly the problem.

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          “Building settlements is the BIGGEST impediment to peace. Any Palestinian you ask will tell you that.”

          Yeah, that’s one of the greatest Palestinians’ lies.

          A question: why there was no peace BEFORE first settlements were built?

          More specifically: Why did Hebron Jews were massacred in 1929? Have any rational explanation?

          Reply to Comment
          • Gearoid

            Why were Jews attacking Arabs before then? It was not one sided, read some Yishuv records.

            The Hebron massacre is abused by far-right fools like yourself. More Jews were SAVED by Palestinians than those killed. It was mob violence, nothing more. Both Jews and Arabs have had their demagogues. The difference is Jews have been able to use state-sanctioned violence,rather than individual violence.

            You show your blatant racism by assuming that is “one of their biggest lies”. Millions of Palestinians are all liars, lying on the same subject, out to get YOU. Bloody coward.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Why were Jews attacking Arabs before then?

            Before when?
            1st Jewish attack against Arabs occured in 1937, quite a while after the Hebron massacre.

            >It was not one sided, read some Yishuv records.

            It was one-sided until 1930′s

            >The Hebron massacre is abused by far-right fools like yourself.

            Ad hominem attacks are the sign of lack of arguments and a weak mind.

            >More Jews were SAVED by Palestinians than those killed.

            That is not what I asked.

            See? You are incapable of answering even a simple question.

            >It was mob violence, nothing more.

            Bullshit.

            >Both Jews and Arabs have had their demagogues.

            More bullshit.

            The difference is Jews have been able to use state-sanctioned violence,rather than individual violence.

            Yet more bullshit. There was no Jewish violence of any kind until 1930′s, while Arab massacred Jews on quite a few occasions.

            >You show your blatant racism by assuming that is “one of their biggest lies”. Millions of Palestinians are all liars, lying on the same subject, out to get YOU.

            And even more bullshit. I haven’t heard even one Palestinian Arab who would claim that settlements beyond the Green Line are the impedement to peace, but every single one of them would agree that the greates impedments to the peace is Jewish presense in Palestine.

            >Bloody coward.

            I really don’t see how telling the truth makes me a coward. Probably, that is because you have no viable argument…

            Reply to Comment
        • XYZ

          I have always been interested as to why “progressives” say that anyone who points out that the Arabs can not and will not make peace with Israel because of their history, religion and culture is a RACIST. It seems the “progressives” believe that anyone who says that not everyone in the world thinks like the “progressives” do is a RACIST. Please explain to me, Gearoid, why it is racism to point out that the Arabs side in the Arab-Israeli conflict doesn’t necessarily want what you want and why you believe that everyone in the world wants what you want.

          Reply to Comment
        • rsgengland

          The biggest impediment to peace is not the settlements in Judea and Samaria [called the West Bank after Jordan attacked, occupied and annexed it after 1948], but the Palestinians inability to accept the existence of the State of Israel.
          Settlements are a minor issue in comparison with the ‘refugee issue and the right of return’.
          Jewish Law forbids suicide, so Israel will never countenance the ‘Palestinian right of return’, which would result in Israels demise.
          Also there is the question of the Ethnic Cleansing of the Jews from the Arab/Muslim lands after 1948, all a million plus of them

          Reply to Comment
    2. aristeides

      For some definitions of peace that look like a desert.

      Reply to Comment
      • Piotr Berman

        One really needs a new guide for the perplexed. First we read that peace is a very bad idea, any reasonable person should give up and move on, and now, that settlements are good for peace. Does it mean that they are bad?

        Reply to Comment
    3. Piotr Berman

      It reminds me a discussion on dietary benefits of various foods. For example, green tea, canola oil and red wine offer various good effect as documented by research in Japan, France and Canada. The conclusion was that this would be very compelling, if only Canadians verified the benefits of green tea, Japanese of red wine and the French, of canola.

      I have no doubt that properly motivated researchers already document assorted benefits of the settlements in respect of peace, digestion, complexion, muscle tone, nerve disorders etc.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Ken Kelso

      http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=9911 |
      Jibril Rajoub ‘All of Israel is occupied Palestine, from the river to the sea’
      Ahead of visit by Barcelona soccer club, senior Fatah member Jibril Rajoub says: “There was a stupid Israeli attempt to hold a joint sporting event, which we rejected, because the Israelis are trying to use Barcelona as a fig leaf to hide their crimes.”

      Daniel Siryoti and Israel Hayom Staff
      June 11, 2013

      Jibril Rajoub: “The Spaniards must understand that they are coming to occupied lands” | Photo credit: Reuters

      Senior Fatah Central Committee member Jibril Rajoub, who is also president of the Palestinian Football Association and Olympic Committee, said Monday, “All of Israel is in occupied Palestinian territory — from the river to the sea.” Rajoub made the comment in Arabic during an interview with Israel’s Channel 5 sports channel.

      The website Palestinian Media Watch reported Rajoub’s statement, which he made after being asked his view on the planned trip to Israel by Barcelona Football Club, one of the world’s most famous and successful soccer clubs. Rajoub was asked to comment on the possibility of Barcelona playing an exhibition match against a mixed team comprising Israelis and Palestinians.

      Several weeks ago Rajoub was quoted as saying: “If we [Palestinians] had nuclear weapons, we would have already used them against Israel, which is our greatest enemy.”

      During his Channel 5 interview, Rajoub said, “The Spaniards must understand that they are coming to occupied lands, because all of Palestine — from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea — is occupied since 1948.”

      “There was a stupid Israeli attempt to hold a joint sporting event, which we rejected, because the Israelis are trying to use Barcelona as a fig leaf to hide their crimes against the Palestinian people and sport in Palestine,” Rajoub said.

      Meanwhile in the Gaza Strip, Hamas is conducting summer camps for children, teaching them how to shoot rifles and engage in hand-to-hand-combat.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Ken Kelso

      If this dont show how insane the left is, nothing will.

      Here’s the article.

      http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/168763#.Uberw-c3uSp
      Meretz’s ‘Peace Partner’ Rajoub: All of Israel is ‘Occupied’
      PA official Jibril Rajoub, touted last week as a “man of peace” by Meretz, told an Arab station that all of Israel is “occupied Palestine.”
      Arutz Sheva Staff
      6/10/2013,

      Reply to Comment
      • aristeides

        Perfectly sensible remarks. Only a deluded Zionist could think otherwise.

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          Thank you for admitting that only “deluded Zionists” could hope to have a homeland.

          Reply to Comment

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel