New settlement planned for former Gaza settlers

[Violet_Crumble]

The Defense Ministry has approved the building of a new settlement in the northern Jordan Valley, outside of the West Bank separation fence, which will house families evacuated from Gaza settlements.

The site of the planned settlement will be a former installation of the Haredi branch of the Israel Defense Forces Nahal infantry brigade.

The plans, approved Monday, include the construction of 30 houses intended for families who were evacuated from Gush Katif as part of the disengagement from Gaza in August 2005.

The settlement, to be named Maskiot, will include 20 families from the former Gaza settlement of Shirat Hayam and another 10 families from other settlements in Gush Katif.

Jordan Valley Regional Council leader Dubi Tal said Tuesday that construction is expected to begin in two weeks. Nonetheless, it is not certain when families will begin moving to the settlement.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/805829.html

[Tom Joad]

1. The Jordan valley is being emptied of its Palestinian residents.

This is an illegal settlement, prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

This is also typical of what is to be expected of the Israeli regime.

[breakaleg]

2. Let me get this straight. They pulled out of Gaza and now plan to build MORE

settlements inside the West Bank?

If that's correct, then please no one tell me again how those settlements in Israel are temporary or for security. It would be a load of crap.

[Tom Joad]

3. All the while promoting the PR that Israel is pulling out of the West Bank.

Need to get into doublethink to understand Israeli policy, breakaleg, it is much like trying to understand Bush.

[breakaleg]

4. I hear you. Where are all of the defenders of Israel now?

I'd like to see them explain this away.

[oberliner]

8. Gov't source: "the site does not constitute the creation of a new settlement"

From The Jerusalem Post:

A government source told The Jerusalem Post that the plan did not negate international understanding, which prohibits the creation of new settlements over the pre-1967 borders.

The source explained that the settlement, which is called Maskiot, was first used as an IDF Nahal base in 1981. The site received authorization for use as a settlement in 1986, the source said.

But instead of becoming simply an independent community of families, a military college was moved onto the site in the mid-1990s in a project that included homes for families of the teachers and staff. The government source said that all that has happened now is that the military college is moving and the evacuee families will be allowed to move in to replace them.

The source added that according to the government, the approvals given for the evacuee families to move to the site does not constitute the creation of a new settlement but rather an "adjustment" to the conditions for which the site has been used for more than a decade.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881982357&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

From The New York Times:

One Israeli official hinted that the new settlement may be part of a deal with West Bank Jewish settlers to get their tacit acceptance of the removal of illegal settlement outposts there.

Another Israeli official, however, insisted that the settlement was not “new,” exactly, but a revival of a settlement that was approved in 1981 and had become a pre-army school by the mid-1990’s.

The Defense Minister, Amir Peretz, the dovish head of the Labor Party, gave his approval to a promise made by his predecessor — Shaul Mofaz, then of Likud and now of Kadima and the current Transport Minister — that houses would be built on the site of an army base in the northern Jordan Valley to resettle some of the Israelis who were forced to leave settlements in the Gaza Strip in 2005, according to a Defense Ministry official.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/26/world/middleeast/27mideastcnd.html

[breakaleg]

10. Talk about splitting hairs.

One of the arguments against removing the settlements is the upheaval in the lives of the settlers that comes with moving. So, if they are planning to move more families into the West Bank then the obviously have no plans to ever pull out. What else could this be construed as except cementing their claim on this patch of land? Do you think they would ask the same families who moved from one settlement to this one to pull out a second time?

[oberliner]

11. I do think they will and I think it's going to get ugly

I do believe that the Israeli government will ask these families and the other settlers in the West Bank to evacuate at some point in the relatively near future.

I think it's going to create a serious schism between the far right settler elements and the majority of Israelis who do not support their agenda.

I fear that the Israelis may go through a similar internal crisis to the one currently facing the Palestinians.

[Tom Joad]

12. What a brutal regime that resettles people into new homes, only to plan to have

them relocate. Why does Israel hate these settlers? Why are they being taken to the West Bank, instead of being welcomed into Israel? Why are they being moved around like pawns on a chessboard?

[oberliner]

13. It's not the regime that is brutal, it's this group of settlers

They were welcomed into Israel and they refused that welcome.

Israel offered to resettle all of the evacuees in southern Israel, however, this particular group of extremely hard-right settlers refused such an arrangement and demanded to live in the West Bank.

They believe that in being there they are, in their words, turing a question mark into an exclaimation point. That is to say, they don't plan to move again and are hopeful that a less conciliatory government will take hold in Israel in the near future.

That is why I think it's going to get ugly.

It should be noted that the all of the other settlers formerly of Gaza were moved into southern Israel.

[breakaleg]

14. I didn't know that. And in that case, I think Israel should cut them loose.

Israel could always proceed with a settlement with the Palestinians and offer these extreme settlers a choice of moving into Israel proper or take their chances with the new Palestinian govt. It's obscene to think that they could have a strong impact on government policy and be an impediment to peace.

[Tom Joad]

15. The govt is going to provide the "extremists" with services and protection.

I don't think they are all that much more extreme than the govt itself.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. I think the Israeli govt does hold responsibility for this..

Just because a bunch of extremists demands they live in the West Bank doesn't mean the Israeli govt has to or should have pandered to their wishes....

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. unfortunately that was the plan from the beginning -- here is an article from Aug 05

about 13 days before the Gaza pull-out

Israel sets West Bank settlement expansion
04 Aug 2005 08:54:39 GMT link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L04337927.htm

"JERUSALEM, Aug 4 (Reuters) - Israel revealed plans on Thursday to build 72 housing units in a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank, despite a call by a U.S.-backed peace "road map" for a halt to settlement expansion.

A spokesman for Israel's Housing Ministry, which invited bids for the project in a newspaper notice, said construction in the ultra-Orthodox settlement of Betar Ilit, near the Palestinian city of Bethlehem, could start within a year."

snip: Peace Now, the Israeli settler watchdog group, said the new project came in addition to a plan announced last year to build 600 housing units at Betar Ilit."

snip: Israel has invited bids for about 235 housing units in West Bank settlements in the first half of this year compared with some 960 for the same period in 2004, Peace Now said. About 200,000 Jewish settlers live amidst 2.4 million Palestinians in more than 120 settlements in the West Bank, land the Palestinians seek along with the Gaza Strip for a future independent state.

Israel intends to begin evacuating all 21 Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern West Bank on Aug. 17 under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to "disengage" from areas he says have little security value for the Jewish state."

link to full article:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L04337927.htm

[breakaleg]

6. So where are all those who claim Isreal is willing to pull out of the West Bank?

[burythehatchet]

7. I'm waiting for the DU Keyboard Commando Brigade

to help the ignorant among us understand why this is actually a good thing.

[Englander]

19. Because it's only 30 houses?

[Tom Joad]

9. "New Settlement breaks promise to US." NY Times.

Israel's govt. never gave a promise it was not willing to break it seems.
Israel continues its war against the Palestinian people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/26/world/middleeast/27mideastcnd.html?hp&ex=1167195600&en=419a0973dbb51977&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The road map calls for a freeze in settlement building along with a Palestinian push to dismantle terrorist groups. Israel says the dismantling should come first and no such action has taken place. But it has separately promised the Bush administration that it would only build within existing settlement structures to account for natural growth, “thickening” settlements but not expanding them physically.

Israel also promised that it would dismantle more than 20 illegal outposts set up since March 2001, but it has only dismantled one, and that under Israeli court order. Peace Now, a leftwing Israeli lobby that opposes the settlements and follows them closely, says that there have been more than 50 outposts established illegally since March 2001, and that there are more than 100 illegal outposts in the West Bank altogether, many of them, like the semi-settlement of Migron, built on private Palestinian land.

Much of the world considers all Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be illegal under international law; the United States, which used to call them illegal, now calls them “obstacles to peace” that prejudge final status negotiations. The outposts are illegal under Israeli law because the government has not authorized them.

An aide to Mr. Abbas said today’s announcement ran counter to the understandings Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas reached during their meeting on Saturday night.

[barb162]

17. 30 houses, 30 families... about 100-200 people maybe?

That doesn't sound very threatening, does it Violet? Still, the houses shouldn't be built in honor of previous agreements

[Violet_Crumble]

18. It doesn't matter if it's 30 or 30,000...

Even one is too much, barbo...

[Englander]

20. Yeah, what's all the fuss about?

Building illegal settlements for religious fanatics isn't anything to be concerned about, is it?

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Kick...