Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (6799)	4/21/2004 4:21:53 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

No, I don't think they have, beyond settlers trying to stick up caravans to inch outwards, and building some more houses for increases in population. Who do you think you're talking to Nadine? GST or Jacob Snyder? There is CLEAR evidence that Israel has had a policy of expanding settlements, often using DIRECT SUBSIDIES to encourage people to live in the West Bank. Brief yourself on such terms as "Area of National Priority—A and B": 1997.... Incentives for B-status settlements are in parentheses: Housing An $8,600 ($5,700) grant plus a soft loan of equal amount for new apartment purchases. 100 (75) percent state subsidy of development costs associated with the construction of multi-family housing; a 50 (25) percent subsidy for participants in the "build your own house" program. 75 (50) percent state subsidy of development costs for new housing in existing neighborhoods. nimn.org And 2002: In the chapter of the report on incentives to move to the settlements, the report notes that "most of the settlements in the West Bank are defined as National Priority Zones A or B, and, as such, the settlers and other Israeli citizens who work in the settlements or have invested in them are entitled to significant economic benefits." For example, in 2000, Jewish local councils in the West Bank received grants from the government averaging 65 percent more than those received by their counterparts inside Israel. Settlement regional councils received grants averaging 165 percent more than their counterparts in Israel, the report notes. globalexchange.org Why the heck do you think there was a such a fuss over US loan guarantees being used for settlement activities?? I could see Sharon using settlements as a "bargaining chip" aimed at bringing Arafat to the negotiating table. But they were supposed to be chips, not ultimatums. The only land that Israel could reasonably attempt to annex could be land that smoothed their borders and enhanced the security of Jerusalem.. I really fail to see how anyone, let alone you, can reasonably argue that annexing disconnected blocs of land surrounded by hostile Palestinian territory enhanced Israel's security. Even you should be able to see how it's political suicide for Sharon to forget about those regions that might enhance Israeli security and opt for little populated "islands" in the midst of a Palestinian tempest.. You think the Pals should get a better deal now, as a reward for the Terror War? What message would that send? This is what I mean... you're playing "tit for tat" and trying to get "one up" on the Palestinians. That's a sure recipe for continued hatred and war. Pull out, smooth out Israel's borders along the 1967 lines and Jerusalem, and leave the Palestinian government to deal with its own incompetence (while being willing to assist any movement to moderation). Trying to screw them only will continue to fill the ranks of Hamas and guarantee that they eventually dominate and control the own territory. Then Israel will be required to re-invade, potentially face other Arab nations rushing to their support, and be left with an another occupation scenario. Why don't you also admit that much of this settlement activity in the West Bank is about money.. The tons of money people have made doling out land that was disputed in hopes that it would later be annexed and defended as part of Israel proper?? Hawk