You seem to have a problem with the brutality of war in general, but the fact is that Israel did not wake up one day and decide to kill a whole bunch of Palestinians. They had a legitimate reason for operation Cast Lead, despite the fact that you wish not to acknowledge it.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
You seem to have a problem with the brutality of war in general, but the fact is that Israel did not wake up one day and decide to kill a whole bunch of Palestinians. They had a legitimate reason for operation Cast Lead, despite the fact that you wish not to acknowledge it.
what is their legitimate reason for doing what they are doing now? answer me that.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I think what I would appreciate is someone explaining to me HOW a completely black-and-white perspective ("its 100% Israel's fault") will translate into peace, which I think is the fundamental issue we all care about. I have said on numerous occasions that Israel must cease settlement expansion and withdraw to pre-1967 borders as the crucial first step, and I think everyone in this thread can agree with that. Then, I go on to argue that a commitment on the part of the Palestinians to cease rocket and other attacks on Israel would be absolutely crucial if Israel is to stay at a pre-1967 size. And that's where people start arguing with me, for some reason. Tell you what ... If people can convince me that a lasting peace is possible EVEN IF Palestine does not commit to ending terrorism, I'll stop sparking that particular debate. Seriously ... If there is no responsibility or expectations for the Palestinian side, how is this thing going to truly change in a peaceful direction?
And I am talking about an active decision on the part of groups like Hamas to stop any and all attacks on Israel or Israelis. Why is this an unreasonable demand? Israel is going to respond to provocation, and I do not begrudge them that. My whole point is that an active commitment to leave Israel alone after a hypothetical withdrawal would be essential.
I would only add that I don't think Israel will be willing to withdraw before they receive some sort of guarantee that violence directed against them will stop afterward, but otherwise this all seems pretty much on the mark.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I would only add that I don't think Israel will be willing to withdraw before they receive some sort of guarantee that violence directed against them will stop afterward, but otherwise this all seems pretty much on the mark.
And actually that's fair, because I think there needs to be a compromise on some level before either side would really be willing to take peace seriously.
I don't know if asking it this way will even be all that helpful, but I am not sure how else to get the point across. There seems to be a perception that Israel making all the moves will make groups like Hamas disappear, and this is a highly debatable point. I do think that there is more to the ideology of Hamas than fighting against oppression, which is why active work against violence by the Palestinians themselves needs to be part of the solution.
I don't know if asking it this way will even be all that helpful, but I am not sure how else to get the point across. There seems to be a perception that Israel making all the moves will make groups like Hamas disappear, and this is a highly debatable point. I do think that there is more to the ideology of Hamas than fighting against oppression, which is why active work against violence by the Palestinians themselves needs to be part of the solution.
hamas doesn't exist without the crimes of israel ...
like Yosi said - there are factions within Israel that DO NOT want peace, they do not want to give any concessions but rather they seek to take more and oppress more ... those people are dictating policy despite any cosmetics ...
we need to take a step backward and look at what is happening at 30,000 feet ... as each day passes - it gets worse and worse for palestinians meanwhile what is israel truly suffering now? ... they live a posh existence while they subject palestinians to a brutal life ... that is why peace hasn't happened - there really is nothing to gain for israelis ... whereas palestinians would have the ability to self-determine their faith ...
Please don't put words in my mouth. There are indeed factions in Israel that do not want peace, but I would not say they dictate policy. They certainly have to be taken into account when policy is made, but they are decidedly NOT the one's making Israel's policies.
Hamas is not a reaction to Israeli oppression. Their charter explicitly commits the organization to the destruction of Israel...not the ending of the occupation, the destruction of Israel. That is why Hamas started its campaign of suicide bombings in the 1990's at the height of the Oslo process, which at the time seemed to have some momentum, and would have meant the end to the occupation if brought to fruition, because they are opposed to the peace process, which would entail a complete halt to hostilities. I am not going to say that organizations cannot change, but I have not seen anything yet that would make me believe that Hamas has done so.
Israel has everything to gain from peace...an end to terrorism, normal relations with its neighbors, an end to Israeli sons being killed defending their country, and end to Israeli sons having to carry out missions for Israel's security that scar them emotionally, if not physically, because they are not inhuman, but really sympathize with the innocent Palestinians they encounter. Trust me when I say that Israelis desperately want peace.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Please don't put words in my mouth. There are indeed factions in Israel that do not want peace, but I would not say they dictate policy. They certainly have to be taken into account when policy is made, but they are decidedly NOT the one's making Israel's policies.
Hamas is not a reaction to Israeli oppression. Their charter explicitly commits the organization to the destruction of Israel...not the ending of the occupation, the destruction of Israel. That is why Hamas started its campaign of suicide bombings in the 1990's at the height of the Oslo process, which at the time seemed to have some momentum, and would have meant the end to the occupation if brought to fruition, because they are opposed to the peace process, which would entail a complete halt to hostilities. I am not going to say that organizations cannot change, but I have not seen anything yet that would make me believe that Hamas has done so.
Israel has everything to gain from peace...an end to terrorism, normal relations with its neighbors, an end to Israeli sons being killed defending their country, and end to Israeli sons having to carry out missions for Israel's security that scar them emotionally, if not physically, because they are not inhuman, but really sympathize with the innocent Palestinians they encounter. Trust me when I say that Israelis desperately want peace.
first of all - i did not put words into your mouth ... they are essentially your words which you've confirmed here ... the point that i say they dictate policy is mine ..
hamas doesn't exist without israeli occupation - period ... how can you deny that?
lastly - what terrorism do you truly speak of ... what lives? ... are people hiding at home at night - i don't think so ... people go to beaches, eat out and basically live their posh existence ... how many israelis have died over the years from defending israel? ... a nominal amount compared to palestinian casualties ... i trust that YOU think israel wants peace ... but their actions don't back that up ... i do believe their are soldiers who empathize with palestinians but they have been largely ignored as similar to US policy - follow orders or else ... there are soldiers who have spoken out against what they have been ordered to do ... that should tell you that the powers don't want peace ...
the expansion of settlements happens with the approval of israel - those are not the actions of people that want peace ...
Ok, we clearly aren't going to agree. Simply put I think you are reducing a complicated situation to a simple set of moral absolutes, and in doing so you lose sight of the realities of the situation.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Ok, we clearly aren't going to agree. Simply put I think you are reducing a complicated situation to a simple set of moral absolutes, and in doing so you lose sight of the realities of the situation.
maybe it is you who is complicating what is ultimately a fairly simple situation when all is said and done?
I would only add that I don't think Israel will be willing to withdraw before they receive some sort of guarantee that violence directed against them will stop afterward, but otherwise this all seems pretty much on the mark.
And actually that's fair, because I think there needs to be a compromise on some level before either side would really be willing to take peace seriously.
in 2007 there was a single suicide attack against Israel killing 3 people and yet hundreds of Palestinians were killed
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
And I am talking about an active decision on the part of groups like Hamas to stop any and all attacks on Israel or Israelis. Why is this an unreasonable demand? Israel is going to respond to provocation, and I do not begrudge them that. My whole point is that an active commitment to leave Israel alone after a hypothetical withdrawal would be essential.
maybe if Israel didn't continue to expand it's illegal settlements, which both of you say needs to stop, and maybe if netanyahu didn't recently plant trees at a few of them and declared they were "an indisputable part of Israel forever" and maybe if abuses against Palestinians by the settlers or IDF met with some kind of actual punishment many wouldn't feel like their only choices are to accept being dehumanized and taken from and pushed around or react violently.
the major blame is on Israel because they are a nuclear state with 1 of the top militarys in the world backed and protected by the lone super power in the world. they are the ones who continue to take and dehumanize. i'm not saying it's right but if mexico was doing this in parts of texas and california i guarantee you many americans would be reacting just as violently, if not more
the bully can't take your lunch money for years then demand your lunch money + part of your allowance in order to leave you alone and have people view that as a serious effort, many would stay just stop being a fucking bully
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Please don't put words in my mouth. There are indeed factions in Israel that do not want peace, but I would not say they dictate policy. They certainly have to be taken into account when policy is made, but they are decidedly NOT the one's making Israel's policies.
Hamas is not a reaction to Israeli oppression. Their charter explicitly commits the organization to the destruction of Israel...not the ending of the occupation, the destruction of Israel. That is why Hamas started its campaign of suicide bombings in the 1990's at the height of the Oslo process, which at the time seemed to have some momentum, and would have meant the end to the occupation if brought to fruition, because they are opposed to the peace process, which would entail a complete halt to hostilities. I am not going to say that organizations cannot change, but I have not seen anything yet that would make me believe that Hamas has done so.
Israel has everything to gain from peace...an end to terrorism, normal relations with its neighbors, an end to Israeli sons being killed defending their country, and end to Israeli sons having to carry out missions for Israel's security that scar them emotionally, if not physically, because they are not inhuman, but really sympathize with the innocent Palestinians they encounter. Trust me when I say that Israelis desperately want peace.
first of all - i did not put words into your mouth ... they are essentially your words which you've confirmed here ... the point that i say they dictate policy is mine ..
hamas doesn't exist without israeli occupation - period ... how can you deny that?
lastly - what terrorism do you truly speak of ... what lives? ... are people hiding at home at night - i don't think so ... people go to beaches, eat out and basically live their posh existence ... how many israelis have died over the years from defending israel? ... a nominal amount compared to palestinian casualties ... i trust that YOU think israel wants peace ... but their actions don't back that up ... i do believe their are soldiers who empathize with palestinians but they have been largely ignored as similar to US policy - follow orders or else ... there are soldiers who have spoken out against what they have been ordered to do ... that should tell you that the powers don't want peace ...
the expansion of settlements happens with the approval of israel - those are not the actions of people that want peace ...
of course it happens with the approval of Israel, who do you think helps finance them? they also offer subsidies and economic incentives for people to move to some of them
The Bureau of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People expresses its utmost concern about the continuing illegal settlement activities being carried out by the Government of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The situation with regard to settlement construction is deeply alarming and requires immediate attention.
The announcement by Prime Minister Netanyahu on 25 November of a 10-month suspension of construction in settlements in the West Bank was immediately followed by reports of approved construction of tens of new settlement units, casting great doubt on the seriousness of the Government’s intention. Indeed, according to the Israeli organization Peace Now, 3,492 housing units in settlements are cleared for construction during the announced suspension period. Furthermore, on 13 December, the Israeli Cabinet voted to approve a proposal to include settlements in the list of communities designated as “national priority zones”, giving them access to credits worth $41 million. Such Government subsidies and incentives to illegal settlements and settlers only contribute to the continued growth and entrenchment of the settlements, thereby prejudging the outcome of the permanent status negotiations on this critical issue.
Israel’s temporary suspension falls far short of its obligations under the Road Map, namely to freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth, and to immediately dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001. The world community clearly considers Israel’s settlement activities as illegal under international law and is of the view that the unconditional cessation of all settlement activities is a crucial condition for the resumption of serious negotiations between the parties on all permanent status issues leading to a two-State solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There clearly can be no progress made towards a solution, including with regard to the borders of the future State of Palestine, while settlement construction continues. The Bureau of the Committee thus fully supports the position of the Palestinian leadership that a resumption of a political dialogue would be meaningless in the face of continued settlement activity.
The announcement of a temporary and partial halt in settlement construction has been further exposed and undercut by the explicit exclusion of Occupied East Jerusalem, where Israeli colonization measures have been most intense. As recently as 17 November, the “ Jerusalem municipal planning committee” reportedly approved the construction of 900 new housing units in the “Gilo” settlement. Evictions of Palestinian residents, house demolitions, and other discriminatory measures against the Palestinian population also continued to be carried out by Israeli authorities, ignoring the calls of the international community, including the Quartet, on Israel to abide by its obligations under international law. The Bureau of the Committee would like to remind Israel that, as the Occupying Power, it is fully bound by the provisions of international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 49 of the Convention clearly stipulates that, “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.
The wave of recent settler-related violent incidents and provocations in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has also been a matter of great concern to the Bureau of the Committee. There are almost daily reports of attacks against Palestinian civilians perpetrated by extremist settlers and settler groups, who are often armed and acting with complete impunity under the protection of Israeli forces. Settlers have been involved in shooting at Palestinian civilians, damaging their property, vandalizing places of worship, uprooting trees, burning farmland and destroying harvests. They intimidate, harass and physically assault Palestinian men, women and children. Last week’s burning of a mosque in the village of Yasuf, north-east of Salfit, is just another vivid example of settler crimes. The lack of adequate Israeli law enforcement, bordering on permissiveness, when it comes to settler violence, is fuelling tensions and could lead to another escalation of the conflict.
The Committee calls on the international community to take urgent and decisive action against the continued illegal Israeli actions. Israel’s violation of international law goes far beyond the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and may affect conflict situations in other parts of the world by discrediting, disregarding and seriously undermining the existing international legal system. The Committee reiterates its call on the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to take, individually or collectively, the measures they deem appropriate to ensure respect for the Convention, including through the convening of a conference of the High Contracting Parties to address the issue of respect and ensuring respect for the Convention in all circumstances, including with regard to the illegal Israeli settlement campaign in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.
Gov't still offering settlers incentives
tovah lazaroff and rebecca anna stoil
03/03/2010 22:42
First-time home buyers can receive a bigger mortgage if they move to settlements such as Itamar and Eilon Moreh than to the city of Ashkelon, according to the Construction and Housing Ministry Web site.
Banks use the ministry's formula to calculate how much money can be lent to a family, based on the number of children, the time the parents spent in the army, their immigration status and the region where the home is located.
This means, for example, that a family of five can receive a mortgage of NIS 244,020 in the Itamar settlement, located southeast of Nablus and some 28 km. over the 1949-1967 armistice line, but in Ashkelon the formula awards the family a mortgage of NIS 223,620.
The additional NIS 20,400 is one of the last vestiges of a system of grants and tax breaks eliminated under prime minister Ariel Sharon, through which the state encouraged people to choose homes in the settlements over those in the center of the country.
But while grants and tax breaks for settlements are no longer available, some settlements remain on the preferential status lists within different ministries. As a result their residents, along with those of any community on the preferential status list, are eligible for a special loan conditions.
Peace Now, in its June report on the 2009-2010 draft state budget, took issue with the practice. Hagit Ofran said a better loan deal for purchasing a home in the settlements was a type of incentive.
She noted that money was set aside in the Construction and Housing Ministry's budget to guarantee the loans.
"It helps people move to settlements," and in this way the government was hindering a two-state solution, Ofran said.
The ministry could not be reached for comment.
It was unclear if the practice of offering larger loans to residents of some settlements would be eliminated after a Knesset Finance Committee vote Sunday to approve the Areas of National Priority Bill, which would drastically broaden the criteria that determine which communities are entitled to the wide away of perks granted under "national priority" status, which until now had been based primarily on their location. Legislation setting forth this criteria will be included in the 2009-2010 economic arrangements bill.
The change has nothing to do with the fact that settlements are still on a number of lists, some of which, such as the one for the Industry, Trade and Labor Ministry, expire this year, but rather with the desire of legislators to change the definition of special-status communities.
It was unclear even to members of the committee and the committee spokesman whether settlements would be included in the list of preferred-status communities under the new criteria.
MK Uri Ariel (National Union) noted that the word "state" was removed from the bill, under the assumption that the list could in fact include settlements in Judea and Samaria.
But Pinchas Wallerstein, who heads the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, said he believed most of the settlements would be written out of the preferential-status lists once they were completed.
Ultimately, the cabinet, not the Finance Committee, will generate the final list, based on the criteria approved as part of the 2009-2010 economic arrangements bill.
Sunday's Finance Committee vote expanded what had been the solely geographic criteria to include other parameters such as the security situation, the socioeconomic status of the community, the preferred distribution of Israel's population and the relative strength of the community in relation to neighboring communities.
In addition, clause six of the law allows for "additional considerations that relate to the population's needs in the area" - a clause that MK Shai Hermesh (Kadima) accuses of "leaving the law wide open to accommodate any community in Israel."
Rather than dividing the more than NIS 700 million budget for enhanced mortgages among the 240 communities on the list, Hermesh said, the new law would allow the government to compose a list including any communities that it wants.
With the Finance Ministry unwilling to raise the budget for the law, Hermesh said that many periphery communities that previously enjoyed national priority benefits would now have to make do with less.
"The government wants freedom of action to reward communities on an individual level," Hermesh said. "This is a law against national priority areas, not one that supports them."
Hermesh said that despite his reservations, he voted in favor of the bill, which is now expected to pass its plenum readings as part of the economic arrangements bill, because if he didn't, the High Court of Justice had threatened to do away with the entire status - a situation, he said, that would lead to the collapse of social services in many periphery towns.
Rebecca Anna Stoil contributed to this report.
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Please don't put words in my mouth. There are indeed factions in Israel that do not want peace, but I would not say they dictate policy. They certainly have to be taken into account when policy is made, but they are decidedly NOT the one's making Israel's policies.
Hamas is not a reaction to Israeli oppression. Their charter explicitly commits the organization to the destruction of Israel...not the ending of the occupation, the destruction of Israel. That is why Hamas started its campaign of suicide bombings in the 1990's at the height of the Oslo process, which at the time seemed to have some momentum, and would have meant the end to the occupation if brought to fruition, because they are opposed to the peace process, which would entail a complete halt to hostilities. I am not going to say that organizations cannot change, but I have not seen anything yet that would make me believe that Hamas has done so.
Israel has everything to gain from peace...an end to terrorism, normal relations with its neighbors, an end to Israeli sons being killed defending their country, and end to Israeli sons having to carry out missions for Israel's security that scar them emotionally, if not physically, because they are not inhuman, but really sympathize with the innocent Palestinians they encounter. Trust me when I say that Israelis desperately want peace.
first of all - i did not put words into your mouth ... they are essentially your words which you've confirmed here ... the point that i say they dictate policy is mine ..
hamas doesn't exist without israeli occupation - period ... how can you deny that?
lastly - what terrorism do you truly speak of ... what lives? ... are people hiding at home at night - i don't think so ... people go to beaches, eat out and basically live their posh existence ... how many israelis have died over the years from defending israel? ... a nominal amount compared to palestinian casualties ... i trust that YOU think israel wants peace ... but their actions don't back that up ... i do believe their are soldiers who empathize with palestinians but they have been largely ignored as similar to US policy - follow orders or else ... there are soldiers who have spoken out against what they have been ordered to do ... that should tell you that the powers don't want peace ...
the expansion of settlements happens with the approval of israel - those are not the actions of people that want peace ...
of course it happens with the approval of Israel, who do you think helps finance them? they also offer subsidies and economic incentives for people to move to some of them
The Bureau of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People expresses its utmost concern about the continuing illegal settlement activities being carried out by the Government of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The situation with regard to settlement construction is deeply alarming and requires immediate attention.
The announcement by Prime Minister Netanyahu on 25 November of a 10-month suspension of construction in settlements in the West Bank was immediately followed by reports of approved construction of tens of new settlement units, casting great doubt on the seriousness of the Government’s intention. Indeed, according to the Israeli organization Peace Now, 3,492 housing units in settlements are cleared for construction during the announced suspension period. Furthermore, on 13 December, the Israeli Cabinet voted to approve a proposal to include settlements in the list of communities designated as “national priority zones”, giving them access to credits worth $41 million. Such Government subsidies and incentives to illegal settlements and settlers only contribute to the continued growth and entrenchment of the settlements, thereby prejudging the outcome of the permanent status negotiations on this critical issue.
Israel’s temporary suspension falls far short of its obligations under the Road Map, namely to freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth, and to immediately dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001. The world community clearly considers Israel’s settlement activities as illegal under international law and is of the view that the unconditional cessation of all settlement activities is a crucial condition for the resumption of serious negotiations between the parties on all permanent status issues leading to a two-State solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There clearly can be no progress made towards a solution, including with regard to the borders of the future State of Palestine, while settlement construction continues. The Bureau of the Committee thus fully supports the position of the Palestinian leadership that a resumption of a political dialogue would be meaningless in the face of continued settlement activity.
The announcement of a temporary and partial halt in settlement construction has been further exposed and undercut by the explicit exclusion of Occupied East Jerusalem, where Israeli colonization measures have been most intense. As recently as 17 November, the “ Jerusalem municipal planning committee” reportedly approved the construction of 900 new housing units in the “Gilo” settlement. Evictions of Palestinian residents, house demolitions, and other discriminatory measures against the Palestinian population also continued to be carried out by Israeli authorities, ignoring the calls of the international community, including the Quartet, on Israel to abide by its obligations under international law. The Bureau of the Committee would like to remind Israel that, as the Occupying Power, it is fully bound by the provisions of international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 49 of the Convention clearly stipulates that, “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.
The wave of recent settler-related violent incidents and provocations in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has also been a matter of great concern to the Bureau of the Committee. There are almost daily reports of attacks against Palestinian civilians perpetrated by extremist settlers and settler groups, who are often armed and acting with complete impunity under the protection of Israeli forces. Settlers have been involved in shooting at Palestinian civilians, damaging their property, vandalizing places of worship, uprooting trees, burning farmland and destroying harvests. They intimidate, harass and physically assault Palestinian men, women and children. Last week’s burning of a mosque in the village of Yasuf, north-east of Salfit, is just another vivid example of settler crimes. The lack of adequate Israeli law enforcement, bordering on permissiveness, when it comes to settler violence, is fuelling tensions and could lead to another escalation of the conflict.
The Committee calls on the international community to take urgent and decisive action against the continued illegal Israeli actions. Israel’s violation of international law goes far beyond the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and may affect conflict situations in other parts of the world by discrediting, disregarding and seriously undermining the existing international legal system. The Committee reiterates its call on the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to take, individually or collectively, the measures they deem appropriate to ensure respect for the Convention, including through the convening of a conference of the High Contracting Parties to address the issue of respect and ensuring respect for the Convention in all circumstances, including with regard to the illegal Israeli settlement campaign in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.
Gov't still offering settlers incentives
tovah lazaroff and rebecca anna stoil
03/03/2010 22:42
First-time home buyers can receive a bigger mortgage if they move to settlements such as Itamar and Eilon Moreh than to the city of Ashkelon, according to the Construction and Housing Ministry Web site.
Banks use the ministry's formula to calculate how much money can be lent to a family, based on the number of children, the time the parents spent in the army, their immigration status and the region where the home is located.
This means, for example, that a family of five can receive a mortgage of NIS 244,020 in the Itamar settlement, located southeast of Nablus and some 28 km. over the 1949-1967 armistice line, but in Ashkelon the formula awards the family a mortgage of NIS 223,620.
The additional NIS 20,400 is one of the last vestiges of a system of grants and tax breaks eliminated under prime minister Ariel Sharon, through which the state encouraged people to choose homes in the settlements over those in the center of the country.
But while grants and tax breaks for settlements are no longer available, some settlements remain on the preferential status lists within different ministries. As a result their residents, along with those of any community on the preferential status list, are eligible for a special loan conditions.
Peace Now, in its June report on the 2009-2010 draft state budget, took issue with the practice. Hagit Ofran said a better loan deal for purchasing a home in the settlements was a type of incentive.
She noted that money was set aside in the Construction and Housing Ministry's budget to guarantee the loans.
"It helps people move to settlements," and in this way the government was hindering a two-state solution, Ofran said.
The ministry could not be reached for comment.
It was unclear if the practice of offering larger loans to residents of some settlements would be eliminated after a Knesset Finance Committee vote Sunday to approve the Areas of National Priority Bill, which would drastically broaden the criteria that determine which communities are entitled to the wide away of perks granted under "national priority" status, which until now had been based primarily on their location. Legislation setting forth this criteria will be included in the 2009-2010 economic arrangements bill.
The change has nothing to do with the fact that settlements are still on a number of lists, some of which, such as the one for the Industry, Trade and Labor Ministry, expire this year, but rather with the desire of legislators to change the definition of special-status communities.
It was unclear even to members of the committee and the committee spokesman whether settlements would be included in the list of preferred-status communities under the new criteria.
MK Uri Ariel (National Union) noted that the word "state" was removed from the bill, under the assumption that the list could in fact include settlements in Judea and Samaria.
But Pinchas Wallerstein, who heads the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, said he believed most of the settlements would be written out of the preferential-status lists once they were completed.
Ultimately, the cabinet, not the Finance Committee, will generate the final list, based on the criteria approved as part of the 2009-2010 economic arrangements bill.
Sunday's Finance Committee vote expanded what had been the solely geographic criteria to include other parameters such as the security situation, the socioeconomic status of the community, the preferred distribution of Israel's population and the relative strength of the community in relation to neighboring communities.
In addition, clause six of the law allows for "additional considerations that relate to the population's needs in the area" - a clause that MK Shai Hermesh (Kadima) accuses of "leaving the law wide open to accommodate any community in Israel."
Rather than dividing the more than NIS 700 million budget for enhanced mortgages among the 240 communities on the list, Hermesh said, the new law would allow the government to compose a list including any communities that it wants.
With the Finance Ministry unwilling to raise the budget for the law, Hermesh said that many periphery communities that previously enjoyed national priority benefits would now have to make do with less.
"The government wants freedom of action to reward communities on an individual level," Hermesh said. "This is a law against national priority areas, not one that supports them."
Hermesh said that despite his reservations, he voted in favor of the bill, which is now expected to pass its plenum readings as part of the economic arrangements bill, because if he didn't, the High Court of Justice had threatened to do away with the entire status - a situation, he said, that would lead to the collapse of social services in many periphery towns.
Rebecca Anna Stoil contributed to this report.
what's odd is i tried to post that article on my facebook and i keep getting the following error message:
Warning: This Message Contains Blocked Content
Some content in this message has been reported as abusive by Facebook users.
i wonder who would report that article as abusive and why?
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
what's odd is i tried to post that article on my facebook and i keep getting the following error message:
Warning: This Message Contains Blocked Content
Some content in this message has been reported as abusive by Facebook users.
i wonder who would report that article as abusive and why?
zionists!
damn that anti-semitic rag the jersualem post!!!!! :evil:
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
That's fine. I agree with that. Only there are people who actually do hate Jews, or perhaps hold prejudices that are somewhat more genteel, but are still prejudices, who express their prejudice through criticism of Israel. That is not to say that criticism of Israel is invalid, only that not everyone who is criticizing is doing it for noble reasons. Is this really that hard to understand? Triumphant, I do not think you are an antisemite. Period. But I would not be surprised if some of the other people on this thread are. They may not even be aware of how their views are shaped by prejudice. But to my ear the criticism of Israel by certain people on this thread sounds at times so shrill and hysterical that I can't help but wonder what is going on.
whoa..
i disagree. i think you are struggling with different peoples debating styles. . take Byrnzie for example, he is one of the best debators on the board hands down. he sticks to facts and rarely shows emotion.
i think you find it hard to accept that he tears your arguments to pieces and i've a feeling that's what the issue is here. everything you come up with, Byrnzie has an answer for and eventually you have nothing to fight back with other than to try and discredit him in some other way.
First off, Antisemitism doesn't have to mean a raging hatred of Jews. It can be a much more subtle prejudice, the same way that racism against blacks can manifest in subtle ways, even among people who know black people, are friends with black people, and don't think of themselves (and would be shocked to be thought of) as racists. Second, there are many people on these threads who are not from North America, where, I feel, Antisemitism is less generally tolerated. As far as I can tell there are many posters from Europe and a few from the Middle East, and I'm very sorry to say that Antisemitism seems to be on the rise in Europe, and is absolutely virulent in the Middle East, which is only to say that people from these places may be exposed to, and may have internalized prejudices without even being aware of it.
Seeing as you seem to have successfully managed to steer this thread completely off topic, let me ask you a question: What about your prejudice and hatred? You see, I have a strong suspicion that you may feel yourself superior to all Arabs in the world. I also suspect that you feel Jews have a right to ethnically cleanse Palestine, as the founders of Zionism believed. Seeing as you have declared yourself to be a Zionist I have a strong suspicion that you may have been have exposed to some of the vile racial hatred of the Zionist ideology, and may therefore have internalized prejudices without even being aware of it.
Or am I, in my own internalized and subconscious prejudice, making the mistake of holding you to a higher standard than everyone else?
I would only add that I don't think Israel will be willing to withdraw before they receive some sort of guarantee that violence directed against them will stop afterward, but otherwise this all seems pretty much on the mark.
And actually that's fair, because I think there needs to be a compromise on some level before either side would really be willing to take peace seriously.
Because the Palestinians having relinquished 80% of their land isn't compromise enough, right?
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/henry-sieg ... ocess-scam 'The problem is not, as Israelis often claim, that Palestinians do not know how to compromise. (Another former prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, famously complained that ‘Palestinians take and take while Israel gives and gives.’) That is an indecent charge, since the Palestinians made much the most far-reaching compromise of all when the PLO formally accepted the legitimacy of Israel within the 1949 armistice border. With that concession, Palestinians ceded their claim to more than half the territory that the UN’s partition resolution had assigned to its Arab inhabitants. They have never received any credit for this wrenching concession, made years before Israel agreed that Palestinians had a right to statehood in any part of Palestine. The notion that further border adjustments should be made at the expense of the 22 per cent of the territory that remains to the Palestinians is deeply offensive to them, and understandably so.
Nonetheless, the Palestinians agreed at the Camp David summit to adjustments to the pre-1967 border that would allow large numbers of West Bank settlers – about 70 per cent – to remain within the Jewish state, provided they received comparable territory on Israel’s side of the border. Barak rejected this...'
Also, I notice that you decline to ask that the Palestinians 'receive some sort of guarantee that violence directed against them will stop afterward'. Why is that?
First off, Antisemitism doesn't have to mean a raging hatred of Jews. It can be a much more subtle prejudice, the same way that racism against blacks can manifest in subtle ways, even among people who know black people, are friends with black people, and don't think of themselves (and would be shocked to be thought of) as racists. Second, there are many people on these threads who are not from North America, where, I feel, Antisemitism is less generally tolerated. As far as I can tell there are many posters from Europe and a few from the Middle East, and I'm very sorry to say that Antisemitism seems to be on the rise in Europe, and is absolutely virulent in the Middle East, which is only to say that people from these places may be exposed to, and may have internalized prejudices without even being aware of it.
Seeing as you seem to have successfully managed to steer this thread completely off topic, let me ask you a question: What about your prejudice and hatred? You see, I have a strong suspicion that you may feel yourself superior to all Arabs in the world. I also suspect that you feel Jews have a right to ethnically cleanse Palestine, as the founders of Zionism believed. Seeing as you have declared yourself to be a Zionist I have a strong suspicion that you may have been have exposed to some of the vile racial hatred of the Zionist ideology, and may therefore have internalized prejudices without even being aware of it.
Or am I, in my own internalized and subconscious prejudice, making the mistake of holding you to a higher standard than everyone else?
Ok, I'll answer you seriously. I have a personal stake in this conflict due to my family in Israel, and my own experiences living in Israel, and because of that I try to go out of my way to engage in self examination, recognizing that there is ample opportunity for prejudice to seep into my opinions. There have been moments when I have caught myself hating Arabs. I can remember one time in particular, the night the "Moment" cafe was bombed. I was up all night with my friends watching the news coverage. We could hear sirens from all over the city converging on the bomb site, which was only a few minutes walk away from where we were staying. Most of us were crying. And I was just seething. At that moment I absolutely hated Arabs.
That was an extreme situation, and it doesn't reflect my actual feelings about the conflict. But again, since I recognize that it is all too easy to be swept away by emotion when discussing this topic I try to be careful not to let emotion get the best of me. I certainly do not feel superior to all Arabs. I certainly do not think that I have the right to ethnically cleanse anyone. I have, in fact, been exposed to people on the extreme right of Zionism who can truly be said to be racists, and I have tried to speak out publicly against these people whenever I have come across them. I do not support the occupation, and I think the settlement movement is the worst thing that has ever happened to Israel.
Now, I think it should be clear that the caricature you paint of me is simply that, a caricature. You seem to think that I support everything that I am in fact against. I say over and over again that I am against the settlements and the occupation, but simply because I disagree with you over the best way to end the occupation you accuse me of supporting it. I say over and over again that I do not support killing innocent Palestinians, but because you disagree with me about the context within which violence occurs in this conflict you accuse me of supporting massacres. You seem to see Israel as always being the aggressor, think that every act of Palestinian violence is justified by the occupation and is ever and always a response to Israeli actions, and refuse to acknowledge the practical and moral difficulties facing modern militaries fighting in urban areas against enemies who mingle with the civilian population and do not wear distinguishing uniforms. I do not think this way. That doesn't mean I support murder. It just means that I recognize complexity.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I say over and over again that I am against the settlements and the occupation, but simply because I disagree with you over the best way to end the occupation you accuse me of supporting it. I say over and over again that I do not support killing innocent Palestinians, but because you disagree with me about the context within which violence occurs in this conflict you accuse me of supporting massacres. You seem to see Israel as always being the aggressor, think that every act of Palestinian violence is justified by the occupation and is ever and always a response to Israeli actions, and refuse to acknowledge the practical and moral difficulties facing modern militaries fighting in urban areas against enemies who mingle with the civilian population and do not wear distinguishing uniforms. I do not think this way. That doesn't mean I support murder. It just means that I recognize complexity.
As far as the best way to end the occupation, it's pretty simple. You can simply abide by the will of the whole of the international community - excluding the U.S.
This is Norman Finkelstein on resolution 242. If any of what he says below is not true, then go ahead and point it out to me: 'The broad consensus on the "final status" issues of borders, East Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees forms the bedrock of the two-state settlement to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. As understood by the whole of the International community, apart from Israel and the United States (and this or that Pacific atoll), such a settlement calls for full Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories captured in the June 1967 war, the formation of an independent Palestinian state in these territories in exchange for recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security with it's neighbours, and a resolution of the refugee question that acknowledges the Palestinian right of return. A December 2005 U.N General Assembly resolution listed these principles and components for a "peaceful settlement" of the conflict: "inadmissability of the aquisition of territory by war"; "illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem"; "right of all states in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders"; "two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders"; "withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"; "realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent state"; "resolving the problem of Palestine refugees in conformity with...resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948." The resolution passed 156-6 (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 9 abstentions. According to U.S Ambassador to the U.N John Bolton, the General Assembly's overwhelming approval of this and related resolutions on the Israel-Palestine conflict showed "why many people say the U.N is not really useful in solving actual problems." Truly it is cause for perplexity why the world won't follow the useful lead of the United States and Palau.'
And as for your attempts to excuse Israel's killing of civilians, Israel attacked a defenseless civilian population in Gaza a year ago and massacred approx 1000 civilians. Various human rights organizations carried out independent investigations and along with the U.N's own investigation they all concluded that the Israelis committed war crimes, and deliberately targeted civilians - something verified by IDF soldiers themselves. Also the illegal blockade of Gaza is itself a crime against humanity. You check the definitions of these terms as laid out in international law if you have any confusion about them.
That's fine. I agree with that. Only there are people who actually do hate Jews, or perhaps hold prejudices that are somewhat more genteel, but are still prejudices, who express their prejudice through criticism of Israel. That is not to say that criticism of Israel is invalid, only that not everyone who is criticizing is doing it for noble reasons. Is this really that hard to understand? Triumphant, I do not think you are an antisemite. Period. But I would not be surprised if some of the other people on this thread are. They may not even be aware of how their views are shaped by prejudice. But to my ear the criticism of Israel by certain people on this thread sounds at times so shrill and hysterical that I can't help but wonder what is going on.
whoa..
i disagree. i think you are struggling with different peoples debating styles. . take Byrnzie for example, he is one of the best debators on the board hands down. he sticks to facts and rarely shows emotion.
i think you find it hard to accept that he tears your arguments to pieces and i've a feeling that's what the issue is here. everything you come up with, Byrnzie has an answer for and eventually you have nothing to fight back with other than to try and discredit him in some other way.
that's how it looks to me anyway yosi.
About Byrnzie being a good debater. He isn't. He employs slight of hand. A while back I posted a long article that explained in detail the practical difficulties that faced the IDF fighting in Gaza, those being a dense civilian population, and an enemy that did not wear uniforms and fought from behind and amongst civilians. These all contributed to the high death toll during the Gaza fighting. As I recall Byrnzie never actually dealt with any of the substantive issues raised by the article. He simply posted some quotes that talked about Israel massacring people. That isn't debating, and it certainly isn't tearing my argument to pieces.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
And actually that's fair, because I think there needs to be a compromise on some level before either side would really be willing to take peace seriously.
hamas doesn't exist without the crimes of israel ...
like Yosi said - there are factions within Israel that DO NOT want peace, they do not want to give any concessions but rather they seek to take more and oppress more ... those people are dictating policy despite any cosmetics ...
we need to take a step backward and look at what is happening at 30,000 feet ... as each day passes - it gets worse and worse for palestinians meanwhile what is israel truly suffering now? ... they live a posh existence while they subject palestinians to a brutal life ... that is why peace hasn't happened - there really is nothing to gain for israelis ... whereas palestinians would have the ability to self-determine their faith ...
Hamas is not a reaction to Israeli oppression. Their charter explicitly commits the organization to the destruction of Israel...not the ending of the occupation, the destruction of Israel. That is why Hamas started its campaign of suicide bombings in the 1990's at the height of the Oslo process, which at the time seemed to have some momentum, and would have meant the end to the occupation if brought to fruition, because they are opposed to the peace process, which would entail a complete halt to hostilities. I am not going to say that organizations cannot change, but I have not seen anything yet that would make me believe that Hamas has done so.
Israel has everything to gain from peace...an end to terrorism, normal relations with its neighbors, an end to Israeli sons being killed defending their country, and end to Israeli sons having to carry out missions for Israel's security that scar them emotionally, if not physically, because they are not inhuman, but really sympathize with the innocent Palestinians they encounter. Trust me when I say that Israelis desperately want peace.
first of all - i did not put words into your mouth ... they are essentially your words which you've confirmed here ... the point that i say they dictate policy is mine ..
hamas doesn't exist without israeli occupation - period ... how can you deny that?
lastly - what terrorism do you truly speak of ... what lives? ... are people hiding at home at night - i don't think so ... people go to beaches, eat out and basically live their posh existence ... how many israelis have died over the years from defending israel? ... a nominal amount compared to palestinian casualties ... i trust that YOU think israel wants peace ... but their actions don't back that up ... i do believe their are soldiers who empathize with palestinians but they have been largely ignored as similar to US policy - follow orders or else ... there are soldiers who have spoken out against what they have been ordered to do ... that should tell you that the powers don't want peace ...
the expansion of settlements happens with the approval of israel - those are not the actions of people that want peace ...
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
maybe it is you who is complicating what is ultimately a fairly simple situation when all is said and done?
either way - you could answer the questions
in 2007 there was a single suicide attack against Israel killing 3 people and yet hundreds of Palestinians were killed
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
maybe if Israel didn't continue to expand it's illegal settlements, which both of you say needs to stop, and maybe if netanyahu didn't recently plant trees at a few of them and declared they were "an indisputable part of Israel forever" and maybe if abuses against Palestinians by the settlers or IDF met with some kind of actual punishment many wouldn't feel like their only choices are to accept being dehumanized and taken from and pushed around or react violently.
the major blame is on Israel because they are a nuclear state with 1 of the top militarys in the world backed and protected by the lone super power in the world. they are the ones who continue to take and dehumanize. i'm not saying it's right but if mexico was doing this in parts of texas and california i guarantee you many americans would be reacting just as violently, if not more
the bully can't take your lunch money for years then demand your lunch money + part of your allowance in order to leave you alone and have people view that as a serious effort, many would stay just stop being a fucking bully
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
of course it happens with the approval of Israel, who do you think helps finance them? they also offer subsidies and economic incentives for people to move to some of them
from the UN a little over 2 months ago:
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/A73 ... 8E00504808
The Bureau of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People expresses its utmost concern about the continuing illegal settlement activities being carried out by the Government of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The situation with regard to settlement construction is deeply alarming and requires immediate attention.
The announcement by Prime Minister Netanyahu on 25 November of a 10-month suspension of construction in settlements in the West Bank was immediately followed by reports of approved construction of tens of new settlement units, casting great doubt on the seriousness of the Government’s intention. Indeed, according to the Israeli organization Peace Now, 3,492 housing units in settlements are cleared for construction during the announced suspension period. Furthermore, on 13 December, the Israeli Cabinet voted to approve a proposal to include settlements in the list of communities designated as “national priority zones”, giving them access to credits worth $41 million. Such Government subsidies and incentives to illegal settlements and settlers only contribute to the continued growth and entrenchment of the settlements, thereby prejudging the outcome of the permanent status negotiations on this critical issue.
Israel’s temporary suspension falls far short of its obligations under the Road Map, namely to freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth, and to immediately dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001. The world community clearly considers Israel’s settlement activities as illegal under international law and is of the view that the unconditional cessation of all settlement activities is a crucial condition for the resumption of serious negotiations between the parties on all permanent status issues leading to a two-State solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There clearly can be no progress made towards a solution, including with regard to the borders of the future State of Palestine, while settlement construction continues. The Bureau of the Committee thus fully supports the position of the Palestinian leadership that a resumption of a political dialogue would be meaningless in the face of continued settlement activity.
The announcement of a temporary and partial halt in settlement construction has been further exposed and undercut by the explicit exclusion of Occupied East Jerusalem, where Israeli colonization measures have been most intense. As recently as 17 November, the “ Jerusalem municipal planning committee” reportedly approved the construction of 900 new housing units in the “Gilo” settlement. Evictions of Palestinian residents, house demolitions, and other discriminatory measures against the Palestinian population also continued to be carried out by Israeli authorities, ignoring the calls of the international community, including the Quartet, on Israel to abide by its obligations under international law. The Bureau of the Committee would like to remind Israel that, as the Occupying Power, it is fully bound by the provisions of international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 49 of the Convention clearly stipulates that, “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.
The wave of recent settler-related violent incidents and provocations in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has also been a matter of great concern to the Bureau of the Committee. There are almost daily reports of attacks against Palestinian civilians perpetrated by extremist settlers and settler groups, who are often armed and acting with complete impunity under the protection of Israeli forces. Settlers have been involved in shooting at Palestinian civilians, damaging their property, vandalizing places of worship, uprooting trees, burning farmland and destroying harvests. They intimidate, harass and physically assault Palestinian men, women and children. Last week’s burning of a mosque in the village of Yasuf, north-east of Salfit, is just another vivid example of settler crimes. The lack of adequate Israeli law enforcement, bordering on permissiveness, when it comes to settler violence, is fuelling tensions and could lead to another escalation of the conflict.
The Committee calls on the international community to take urgent and decisive action against the continued illegal Israeli actions. Israel’s violation of international law goes far beyond the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and may affect conflict situations in other parts of the world by discrediting, disregarding and seriously undermining the existing international legal system. The Committee reiterates its call on the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to take, individually or collectively, the measures they deem appropriate to ensure respect for the Convention, including through the convening of a conference of the High Contracting Parties to address the issue of respect and ensuring respect for the Convention in all circumstances, including with regard to the illegal Israeli settlement campaign in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.
from the jersuelm post less than a year ago:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:sCn ... JPArticle/
Gov't still offering settlers incentives
tovah lazaroff and rebecca anna stoil
03/03/2010 22:42
First-time home buyers can receive a bigger mortgage if they move to settlements such as Itamar and Eilon Moreh than to the city of Ashkelon, according to the Construction and Housing Ministry Web site.
Banks use the ministry's formula to calculate how much money can be lent to a family, based on the number of children, the time the parents spent in the army, their immigration status and the region where the home is located.
This means, for example, that a family of five can receive a mortgage of NIS 244,020 in the Itamar settlement, located southeast of Nablus and some 28 km. over the 1949-1967 armistice line, but in Ashkelon the formula awards the family a mortgage of NIS 223,620.
The additional NIS 20,400 is one of the last vestiges of a system of grants and tax breaks eliminated under prime minister Ariel Sharon, through which the state encouraged people to choose homes in the settlements over those in the center of the country.
But while grants and tax breaks for settlements are no longer available, some settlements remain on the preferential status lists within different ministries. As a result their residents, along with those of any community on the preferential status list, are eligible for a special loan conditions.
Peace Now, in its June report on the 2009-2010 draft state budget, took issue with the practice. Hagit Ofran said a better loan deal for purchasing a home in the settlements was a type of incentive.
She noted that money was set aside in the Construction and Housing Ministry's budget to guarantee the loans.
"It helps people move to settlements," and in this way the government was hindering a two-state solution, Ofran said.
The ministry could not be reached for comment.
It was unclear if the practice of offering larger loans to residents of some settlements would be eliminated after a Knesset Finance Committee vote Sunday to approve the Areas of National Priority Bill, which would drastically broaden the criteria that determine which communities are entitled to the wide away of perks granted under "national priority" status, which until now had been based primarily on their location. Legislation setting forth this criteria will be included in the 2009-2010 economic arrangements bill.
The change has nothing to do with the fact that settlements are still on a number of lists, some of which, such as the one for the Industry, Trade and Labor Ministry, expire this year, but rather with the desire of legislators to change the definition of special-status communities.
It was unclear even to members of the committee and the committee spokesman whether settlements would be included in the list of preferred-status communities under the new criteria.
MK Uri Ariel (National Union) noted that the word "state" was removed from the bill, under the assumption that the list could in fact include settlements in Judea and Samaria.
But Pinchas Wallerstein, who heads the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, said he believed most of the settlements would be written out of the preferential-status lists once they were completed.
Ultimately, the cabinet, not the Finance Committee, will generate the final list, based on the criteria approved as part of the 2009-2010 economic arrangements bill.
Sunday's Finance Committee vote expanded what had been the solely geographic criteria to include other parameters such as the security situation, the socioeconomic status of the community, the preferred distribution of Israel's population and the relative strength of the community in relation to neighboring communities.
In addition, clause six of the law allows for "additional considerations that relate to the population's needs in the area" - a clause that MK Shai Hermesh (Kadima) accuses of "leaving the law wide open to accommodate any community in Israel."
Rather than dividing the more than NIS 700 million budget for enhanced mortgages among the 240 communities on the list, Hermesh said, the new law would allow the government to compose a list including any communities that it wants.
With the Finance Ministry unwilling to raise the budget for the law, Hermesh said that many periphery communities that previously enjoyed national priority benefits would now have to make do with less.
"The government wants freedom of action to reward communities on an individual level," Hermesh said. "This is a law against national priority areas, not one that supports them."
Hermesh said that despite his reservations, he voted in favor of the bill, which is now expected to pass its plenum readings as part of the economic arrangements bill, because if he didn't, the High Court of Justice had threatened to do away with the entire status - a situation, he said, that would lead to the collapse of social services in many periphery towns.
Rebecca Anna Stoil contributed to this report.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
what's odd is i tried to post that article on my facebook and i keep getting the following error message:
Warning: This Message Contains Blocked Content
Some content in this message has been reported as abusive by Facebook users.
i wonder who would report that article as abusive and why?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
zionists!
damn that anti-semitic rag the jersualem post!!!!! :evil:
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
i disagree. i think you are struggling with different peoples debating styles. . take Byrnzie for example, he is one of the best debators on the board hands down. he sticks to facts and rarely shows emotion.
i think you find it hard to accept that he tears your arguments to pieces and i've a feeling that's what the issue is here. everything you come up with, Byrnzie has an answer for and eventually you have nothing to fight back with other than to try and discredit him in some other way.
that's how it looks to me anyway yosi.
Seeing as you seem to have successfully managed to steer this thread completely off topic, let me ask you a question: What about your prejudice and hatred? You see, I have a strong suspicion that you may feel yourself superior to all Arabs in the world. I also suspect that you feel Jews have a right to ethnically cleanse Palestine, as the founders of Zionism believed. Seeing as you have declared yourself to be a Zionist I have a strong suspicion that you may have been have exposed to some of the vile racial hatred of the Zionist ideology, and may therefore have internalized prejudices without even being aware of it.
Or am I, in my own internalized and subconscious prejudice, making the mistake of holding you to a higher standard than everyone else?
Because the Palestinians having relinquished 80% of their land isn't compromise enough, right?
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/henry-sieg ... ocess-scam
'The problem is not, as Israelis often claim, that Palestinians do not know how to compromise. (Another former prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, famously complained that ‘Palestinians take and take while Israel gives and gives.’) That is an indecent charge, since the Palestinians made much the most far-reaching compromise of all when the PLO formally accepted the legitimacy of Israel within the 1949 armistice border. With that concession, Palestinians ceded their claim to more than half the territory that the UN’s partition resolution had assigned to its Arab inhabitants. They have never received any credit for this wrenching concession, made years before Israel agreed that Palestinians had a right to statehood in any part of Palestine. The notion that further border adjustments should be made at the expense of the 22 per cent of the territory that remains to the Palestinians is deeply offensive to them, and understandably so.
Nonetheless, the Palestinians agreed at the Camp David summit to adjustments to the pre-1967 border that would allow large numbers of West Bank settlers – about 70 per cent – to remain within the Jewish state, provided they received comparable territory on Israel’s side of the border. Barak rejected this...'
Also, I notice that you decline to ask that the Palestinians 'receive some sort of guarantee that violence directed against them will stop afterward'. Why is that?
Ok, I'll answer you seriously. I have a personal stake in this conflict due to my family in Israel, and my own experiences living in Israel, and because of that I try to go out of my way to engage in self examination, recognizing that there is ample opportunity for prejudice to seep into my opinions. There have been moments when I have caught myself hating Arabs. I can remember one time in particular, the night the "Moment" cafe was bombed. I was up all night with my friends watching the news coverage. We could hear sirens from all over the city converging on the bomb site, which was only a few minutes walk away from where we were staying. Most of us were crying. And I was just seething. At that moment I absolutely hated Arabs.
That was an extreme situation, and it doesn't reflect my actual feelings about the conflict. But again, since I recognize that it is all too easy to be swept away by emotion when discussing this topic I try to be careful not to let emotion get the best of me. I certainly do not feel superior to all Arabs. I certainly do not think that I have the right to ethnically cleanse anyone. I have, in fact, been exposed to people on the extreme right of Zionism who can truly be said to be racists, and I have tried to speak out publicly against these people whenever I have come across them. I do not support the occupation, and I think the settlement movement is the worst thing that has ever happened to Israel.
Now, I think it should be clear that the caricature you paint of me is simply that, a caricature. You seem to think that I support everything that I am in fact against. I say over and over again that I am against the settlements and the occupation, but simply because I disagree with you over the best way to end the occupation you accuse me of supporting it. I say over and over again that I do not support killing innocent Palestinians, but because you disagree with me about the context within which violence occurs in this conflict you accuse me of supporting massacres. You seem to see Israel as always being the aggressor, think that every act of Palestinian violence is justified by the occupation and is ever and always a response to Israeli actions, and refuse to acknowledge the practical and moral difficulties facing modern militaries fighting in urban areas against enemies who mingle with the civilian population and do not wear distinguishing uniforms. I do not think this way. That doesn't mean I support murder. It just means that I recognize complexity.
As far as the best way to end the occupation, it's pretty simple. You can simply abide by the will of the whole of the international community - excluding the U.S.
This is Norman Finkelstein on resolution 242. If any of what he says below is not true, then go ahead and point it out to me:
'The broad consensus on the "final status" issues of borders, East Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees forms the bedrock of the two-state settlement to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. As understood by the whole of the International community, apart from Israel and the United States (and this or that Pacific atoll), such a settlement calls for full Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories captured in the June 1967 war, the formation of an independent Palestinian state in these territories in exchange for recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security with it's neighbours, and a resolution of the refugee question that acknowledges the Palestinian right of return. A December 2005 U.N General Assembly resolution listed these principles and components for a "peaceful settlement" of the conflict: "inadmissability of the aquisition of territory by war"; "illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem"; "right of all states in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders"; "two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders"; "withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"; "realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent state"; "resolving the problem of Palestine refugees in conformity with...resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948." The resolution passed 156-6 (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 9 abstentions. According to U.S Ambassador to the U.N John Bolton, the General Assembly's overwhelming approval of this and related resolutions on the Israel-Palestine conflict showed "why many people say the U.N is not really useful in solving actual problems." Truly it is cause for perplexity why the world won't follow the useful lead of the United States and Palau.'
And as for your attempts to excuse Israel's killing of civilians, Israel attacked a defenseless civilian population in Gaza a year ago and massacred approx 1000 civilians. Various human rights organizations carried out independent investigations and along with the U.N's own investigation they all concluded that the Israelis committed war crimes, and deliberately targeted civilians - something verified by IDF soldiers themselves. Also the illegal blockade of Gaza is itself a crime against humanity. You check the definitions of these terms as laid out in international law if you have any confusion about them.
My p.c keeps crashing. The fan's fucked.
About Byrnzie being a good debater. He isn't. He employs slight of hand. A while back I posted a long article that explained in detail the practical difficulties that faced the IDF fighting in Gaza, those being a dense civilian population, and an enemy that did not wear uniforms and fought from behind and amongst civilians. These all contributed to the high death toll during the Gaza fighting. As I recall Byrnzie never actually dealt with any of the substantive issues raised by the article. He simply posted some quotes that talked about Israel massacring people. That isn't debating, and it certainly isn't tearing my argument to pieces.