Despite “Natural Growth” Claims, Migrants Continue to Drive Settlement Growth
Maaleh Adumim, West Bank (Wikimedia)
Amy Teibel has an excellent piece out for the AP exposing the lie behind “natural growth” of settlements:
Israelis moving to the West Bank accounted for more than a third of settler population growth in recent years, undercutting Israel’s argument that it is continuing settlement construction only to accommodate growing families already living there.
The so-called “natural growth” rationale for building on land the Palestinians claim for a future state has vaulted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into an unusually vocal and public clash with the Obama administration, which has come out strong against continued settlement expansion.
On the merits, the case for a “natural growth” exemption is extremely weak anyway, but it does need to be understood that this isn’t a good faith debate about natural growth. The idea is to open up a reasonable-sounding loophole in order to allow for unabated settlement growth. Peace Now has a useful list of the top four loopholes settlers seek to exploit and why none of them should be allowed.
31 Responses to “Despite “Natural Growth” Claims, Migrants Continue to Drive Settlement Growth”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 24th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
The question is how is Israel going to stop the natural growth of the Palestinian population. Killing 1500 here and 4 there isn’t going to cut it.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Obama has openly challenged Israel’s settlements policy.
The last president to openly challenge Israel/AIPAC (GHW Bush) ended up having to kiss their asses in public.
This is a big test of Obama’s manhood.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
On the merits, the case for a “natural growth” exemption is extremely weak anyway…
Anti-semite!
June 24th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
How would the US react if Mexico claimed “natural growth” and annexed California?
June 24th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
I think Mexico already has claimed California. Though if they did it to Texas, I would applaud.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
As long as Israel gets $3 billion in U.S. aid there’s no reason at all for them to do anything different. And Obama hasn’t got the balls to use the aid as a lever.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees!!
This diverting debate about “natural growth” clouds the major issue – ALL THE SETTLEMENTS ARE ILLEGAL. To achieve peace a substantial number of the squatters will have to be evacuated.
If Netanyahu is permitted to focus on this side-issue, he will string it out ad nauseum and the major issue will never be addressed.
June 24th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
The first order of business for Bibi is to declare George Mitchell personna non grata in Israel. The second order of business is to politely inform President Osama that he can take his stop settlement activity order and deposit it where the sun don’t shine.
June 24th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Last evening a speaker from a Free Palestine group spoke at Iowa City. She travels to Gaza frequently and explained what is really going on in Gaza. The unemployment rate is 42%, people have so many road blocks to try to get through to find work many give up because the lines are so long. These IDF soldiers pull people out of lines for no reason and when they ask “why” they’re arrested. There no limit to the amount of time they can be held without charges, children with adults in prisons.
Raw sewage runs through many of the villages that are still occupied by Palestinians. Water is very scarce and if they dig a well without a permit (which is impossible to get) they again are arrested. These conditiions are inhuman and our government should not be supporting these actions. STOP ALL AID TO ISRAEL. NO LONGER VETO ANY UN VOTES FOR ISRAEL TO ADHERE TO THE GENEVA CONVENTION!!!
June 24th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
SLC, I understand that there are legitimate concerns about Israel’s security with that could justify Bibi taking a hard line with President Obama. But you should understand that a lot of Israelis care a great deal about the country’s relations with the US, and it isn’t nearly as easy as you think it is for an Israeli PM to reject the requests of a US President. I suspect that the loser in any such confrontation would be Bibi, and that Bibi is enough of a cynical pragmatist to understand this and fold if the chips are down.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Re Donna
I hate to be the bringer of bad news to Ms. Donna but the speaker from the so-called Free Palestine Group is a fucking liar. There are no Israeli roadblocks within the Gaza Strip. The Israeli army and all Israeli settlers pulled out over 3 years ago.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Zionism is a disgrace.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I second SLC’s motion that Benjamin Netanyahu should pursue his political goals via direct political confrontation with Barack Obama.
All in favor?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Re Dilan Esper
Shorter Mr. Esper: Bibi should squat and ask President Osama what color he wants.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Re abb1
Zionism today, Zionism tomorrow, Zionism forever.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Re Donna
Apparently, Israel is reducing checkpoints in the West Bank. Of course, that will end after the first terrorist attack by the Fakestinians.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1095231.html
June 24th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Why oh Why,
That’s unlikely. Mexico’s total fertility rate is, as of today, pretty similar to that of the United States. There is not going to be any demographic tidal wave coming from south of the border.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Matt is surprised to discover that Zionists are fucking liars by definition?
Just look at SLC – POS hasn’t said anything true on this blog since day one. Born, professional, paid liar and bullshit troll.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Re Richard Steven Hack
Hey, mr. hack, the convicted bank robber and yellowbelly is back. Assassinated any police officers yet today Mr. Hack? Mr. Savage is still on the air Mr. Hack.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
The surest way to prevent settlement growth in the territory that will comprise a Palestinian state is for Israel and the Palestinians to reach a deal as soon as possible.
In any case, while I have no doubt that Israel has gone beyond so-called “natural growth” in settlement, it would be instructive to know more details. For example, the AP article distinguishes between Jerusalem and the West Bank generally, but doesn’t indicate whether the numbers it provides on population growth includes both or only the latter. More generally, where has this growth occurred? Israel has already made it clear that its position at the outset of negotiations is that it expects to hold onto some amount of the West Bank close to the 1949 Armistice line.
June 24th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Shorter Mr. Esper: Bibi should squat and ask President Osama what color he wants.
SLC, that’s not what I said. I said that as a matter of reality, the Israeli public will curtail any serious attempts by Netanyahu to oppose any policy that Obama decides to go to the mat on.
I suspect that in the end, the only value of all of this is as symbolism anyway (showing US and Israeli commitment to a peace agreement), because there isn’t a credible Palestinian negotiating partner. But never underestimate the desire of the Israeli public to have a good relationship with the US. It’s very important over there.
June 24th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
More generally, where has this growth occurred?
Here.
June 24th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
That’s a very detailed and interesting map; but it doesn’t answer my question, viz., the AP article states “Migration from Israel and abroad accounted for 5,300 of the 14,500 new settlers in 2007, the last year for which bureau data are available,” and what I’m curious about is where those 5300 additional people went. The map doesn’t indicate this.
My view on this issue is that if the Palestinians are ready and willing to negotiate a resolution, settlements are one of the things on the table to negotiate. That said, I don’t have any problem with putting their assertion that settlement growth is the key barrier to genuine negotiations to the test. If I were Netanyahu I’d agree to impose temporary restrictions on settlement growth, with some clear milestones set in advance that must be met in order for these to remain in effect.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
SLC,
Could you please stop using the term “Fakestinian”? You can make your points forcefully without using this hurtful term.
I’m asking seriously.
namaste,
newhavendan
June 25th, 2009 at 7:23 am
Re Dilan Esper
Does Mr. Esper think that Uzi Landau or Benny Begin would be as accommodating to President Osama as Bibi has been?
June 25th, 2009 at 7:32 am
If 1/3 comes from imigration, does that mean the other increases ARE from “natural growth”? That still seems like a plausible argument, even if not entirely convincing.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Could you please stop using the term “Fakestinian”? You can make your points forcefully without using this hurtful term.
You’re talking to the guy who refers to the President as Osama and draws inspiration from the rhetoric of George Wallace.
June 25th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
If anything, you should start to see migration drop off in the next 10-20 years barring a catastrophe, due to the stabilization of the Mexican population due to lower fertility rates, and economic growth in Mexico proper.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Does Mr. Esper think that Uzi Landau or Benny Begin would be as accommodating to President Osama as Bibi has been?
Begin was certainly accommodating to Jimmy Carter.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Re Dilan Esper
Begin fis is not as accmodating as Begin pere.
June 25th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
SLC:
You invest too much in the particular Israeli personalities. The issue is the view of the Israeli public. If the Israeli public decides that they want their leaders to stand up to US pressure, those leaders will do it. But there really isn’t a historic incidence of that happening.
It isn’t a matter of whether this is a hawkish or dovish government; it’s a matter of Israeli public opinion being strongly concerned with Israel’s relationship with the US. The Shamir government of the 1980’s eventually fell in part because of a dispute with James Baker and the Bush Administration over settlements and loan guarantees for exactly this reason.
So if Obama decides that he really wants to make settlements a make-or-break issue, I suspect Israeli public opinion will force either Bibi to cooperate or it will force a change in government.