+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

14,000 new settlers in last 12 months

14,000 new Jewish settlers moved to the West Bank the last year alone – not including East Jerusalem. Total number today, IBA radio reported, is 334,000.

The settlements are not an obstacle to peace, Israel says.

(via @notidfspokesperson)

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Empress Trudy

      So allow me to ask you specifically, what is the exact threshold of the ratio of Jews to non Jews in YESHA beyond which even you would be vaguely uncomfortable ethnically cleansing? Today if you add East Jerusalem about 1 in 5 souls in YESHA is Jewish. So if it’s acceptable to ethnically cleanse one fifth of a state’s population, where is upper limit of that? A third? Half? 66%?

      It’s a serious question and one leftists never actually answer.

      Reply to Comment
    2. @EMPRESS TRUDY

      Good question. while I don’t accept the term “ethnic cleansing” with regards to the evacuation of settlements, there is a valid moral point to make about the removal of second and thing generation of settlers.
      This is part of the reason I started exploring – and I advise other to do so – the one-state solution, which could be implemented with limited transfer of population.

      see my piece for Haaretz on rightwing support for one-state:
      http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/endgame-1.302128
      also this post:
      http://972mag.com/now-is-the-time-to-discuss-the-one-state-solution-a-response-to-apns-lara-friedman/
      and finally, a debate I co-moderated on this site:
      http://972mag.com/is-it-time-to-move-on-to-the-one-state-solution/

      Reply to Comment
    3. Danny

      Trudy, evacuation of the settlers is not ethnic cleansing for the simple reason that most of them (including the second and third generations)are recent arrivals to this land and did so against the well-known and unequivocal stance of the international community against civilian settlement on occupied land. Therefore, they have absolutely no one to blame for their eventual resettlement but their own foolish government and their own gullible selves. A second important point is that all of these illegal squatters will get substantial financial compensation for giving up land that was not theirs to begin with, making them the most wealthy (if not happy) ethnically-cleansed people in the history of the world.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Ben Israel

      Noam-
      As I understand it, the original UN partition plan of 1947 had a formula for a porous border in which Jews and Arabs could live on either side of the border yet have citizenship in the ethnic state of which they identify with the ability to travel freely across that border on a daily basis. How do you feel about implementing something along those lines? Of course, Israeli Arabs who currently have Israeli citizenship would be able to maintain it, but the option would be for them to take Palestinian citizenship. This way the Jewish right to settle throughout the country would be maintained, no one would be forced to leave their homes yet the Palestinians would have their own state. There would be no problem defining the border along the pre-67 lines without worrying about drawing the ridiculous lines that would be needed to maintain the settlement blocs under the current KADIMA-Left proposals calling for a 2-state solution with maximum separation.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Ben Israel

      “the Jewish right to settle throughout the country would be maintained”

      The right no longer exists since Israel was declared as the Jewish Homeland State, independent of Palestine. http://wp.me/pDB7k-pE

      Reply to Comment
    6. If Israel and Palestine achieved peace, then Palestine could maintain a 20% minority, as Israel maintains a 20% minority.

      The prospective selected borders then would not need to be “perfect” ethnically, if real and actual equal rights are afforded to minorities in each community.

      They could even be the 67 borders.

      The single state is less democratic than a partitioned one if the communities retain any significant national orientation, which looks more than likely at this point.

      A single state with 51/49 national relationship, would represent the status of 49% feeling “other-governed” rather than self-governed.

      The two-state leaves 80% feeling self-governed.

      The only proviso that I can see is if a non-nationalist party in Israel and in Palestine achieved more than say 30% of each population’s total vote. And, that doesn’t seem likely.

      It would be more likely if dissent was presented in positive terms, rather than only condemnatory.

      I wonder about your numbers. Is that migration to the settlements or babies?

      Reply to Comment
    7. Empress Trudy

      That might be the single stupidest thing ever put to paper. You have to be second or third generation somewhere to ‘earn’ the right stay?

      I guess that means that the 3rd generation Arabs who live in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan should be given civil rights in those countries too? Funny how I don’t here the left clamoring for Lebanon to allow those Arabs who flocked there in 49 and again in 70 to actually be given the right to go to school or have jobs….which they do not.

      Also I’d add, that as a second generation native born American citizen, your sentiment that I should be ejected from my country because I haven’t the ‘right’ to be here smacks of…well it smacks of one of those German countries in the 1930’s. I suppose you can’t have National Socialism, without socialism is an undercurrent of the left. Viva la Plan Ost!

      Reply to Comment
    8. @E-M

      obviously, you ignored the heart of my comment regarding the one-state solution, because you couldn’t resist the urge to attack me. reading your comments here and in other posts, I find that you are not really interested in a debate at all. In the future, I’ll know better than to answer your comments.
      And the next time you will write things like “he single stupidest thing ever put to paper,” you will be banned from this blog altogether.

      Reply to Comment
    9. @Ben Israel – would that include a right for Palestinians to settler west of the Green Line as well?

      Reply to Comment
    10. Mitchell Cohen

      @Danny, who does Judea and Samaria belong to? In 1948, Jordan conquered it in an offensive war against the newborn state of Israel. Before that the British ruled it and before that the Ottoman Turks. Who is to say the Jewish residents of J & S have any less right there than the Arab residents of J & S? And, you conveniently leave out the massacre of Jewish communities in J & S who had been living there for generations. Lastly, I can see how the mere thousands of evacuees from Gush Katif became the “wealthiest of refugees in history”, am many are still living in temporary caravillas and are unemployed. How do you expect the government to compensate hundreds of thousands?

      Reply to Comment
    11. Mitchell Cohen “who does Judea and Samaria belong to?”

      According to UNSC Res 1860 the West Bank as it is now legally named, belongs to Palestine.

      “How do you expect the government to compensate hundreds of thousands”

      That’s Israel’s problem, should have thought about creating illegal facts on the ground in 1949 instead of illegally acquiring territory by war, illegal annexation, illegal settlements. The Palestinians didn’t create Israel’s illegal problems, Israel did.

      Reply to Comment
    12. Mitchell Cohen

      @TalkNic,

      NOTHING in UNSC Res 1860 about Judea and Samaria belonging to “Palestine”:

      http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/type,RESOLUTION,UNSC,PSE,496c51fa2,0.html

      “That’s Israel’s problem, should have thought about creating illegal facts on the ground in 1949 instead of illegally acquiring territory by war, illegal annexation, illegal settlements. The Palestinians didn’t create Israel’s illegal problems, Israel did.” [end of quote]

      Using that logic (assuming the Jewish communities in Yesha are “illegal”: http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-16.htm), the Arab refugees are the Arabs problem for declaring a war on the newborn state and convincing their fellow Arabs to leave their homes, so the Jews can be pushed into the sea.

      What’s good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander?

      Reply to Comment