Givat Ha’eytam, West Bank — Givat Ha’eytam, a lonely hill in the Israeli occupied West Bank, seems like anything but a natural part of the bustling 8,000-person Jewish settlement of Efrat. Indeed, the stony outcrop, with its view of Efrat’s buildings in the distance, soon will be cut off from that settlement by the separation barrier Israel is building across the length of the West Bank, ostensibly to protect Israelis from Palestinian terrorism.
Nevertheless, the Israeli policy that is being widely described as “natural growth” could permit developing Givat Ha’eytam as an extension of Efrat.
In his June 14 address at Bar-Ilan University, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that while he wants to see some growth in the territories, he has “no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements.”
But that policy is not as clear as it seems. Removed though it is from Efrat, building on Givat Ha’eytam would be regarded by Israel as simply expanding Efrat — a city slated to be on the “Israeli” side of the separation barrier — rather than creating a new settlement. By prior planning, Givat Ha’eytam falls within Efrat’s municipal boundaries.
Last February, Israel declared the expanse of land on which Givat Ha’eytam sits to be “state land” after rejecting Palestinian ownership claims to it as unsubstantiated. Only a small section, whose ownership by Palestinians Israel acknowledged, was exempt. Mayor Oded Revivi told the Forward that applications to develop the area as part of Efrat are currently “waiting on the desks” of Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
This hill epitomizes the ambiguity of Netanyahu’s stance on settlements that has even America’s peace envoy, George Mitchell, confused. When it comes to natural growth “there are almost as many definitions as there are people speaking,” Mitchell said at a press briefing June 16.
Netanyahu’s office refuses to clarify whether natural growth, as Israel understands the term, would involve expanding settlements beyond the perimeters of their already built-up environments — thereby substantially changing the reality on the ground, with Jewish settlements covering a much wider area — or whether natural growth just involves construction within the perimeters of already built-up areas.
His advisers will go no further than saying that the oral agreements Israel claims it reached with President Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush —agreements that were denied in Washington — point to a dual approach. In the large settlement blocs, widely defined as the Gush Etzion bloc including Efrat, Modi’in Illit, Betar Illit, Ma’ale Adumim and sometimes Ariel, expansion could be anywhere within broadly drawn municipal boundaries, including areas far outside already built-up core sectors. But in less central settlements, new housing to accommodate “natural growth” would be restricted to those areas where construction already exists, according to Jerusalem’s understanding of the disputed agreements.
More broadly, Netanyahu’s office is surprised that Mitchell is so interested in working out the meaning of “natural growth” — because, at least publicly, the phrase has not passed Netanyahu’s own lips during his time in office. The Israeli leader has carefully avoided it, choosing instead to promise that he will facilitate “normal life” in the settlements.
Past governments have talked about “natural growth” — an expression that came into use in the 1990s. It became more widely known as a result of the 2001 Mitchell Report, which said that Israel “should freeze all settlement activity, including the ‘natural growth’ of existing settlements.” The Road Map for Peace in the Middle East, a 2002 international agreement, incorporated this demand.
But Netanyahu favors the more vague “normal life” phrasing. “It seems that the more flexible and the less rigid the term used, the better it is for Netanyahu,” said Ben-Gurion University geographer David Newman, who sits on a number of government committees on negotiations about final borders. “Semantics are very important here.”
“The overarching policy goal of today,” a government advisor told the Forward, speaking on condition of anonymity, “is that we are trying to reach common ground with the Americans on settlements. We don’t want an argument; we want to reach understandings.”
Last year, Israel built 2,122 living units for Jewish settlers in the West Bank. If, as the government hopes, it reaches an understanding with Washington that does not require a full settlement freeze, the key questions will be where new construction is to take place and at what rate, whether under the guise of “natural growth” or “normal life.”
Efrat is not alone among the 120 West Bank settlements in having jurisdiction over land well beyond its built-up sector. Among the most generously endowed settlements is Kibbutz Mitzpe Shalem, close to the Dead Sea. The settlement, with a population of just 200, offers housing to nonmembers of the kibbutz and has outlying jurisdiction of some 13.6 square miles — a spread of land equal to that of the central Israeli city of Petah Tikvah which has a population of 189,000.
As for what the rate of “natural growth” building would be and how it would be calculated, Netanyahu’s office is saying nothing. “The most common definition is by the number of births,” Mitchell said at the June 16 press conference.
Population growth from births in the West Bank is high. In 2007, the latest year for which there are official statistics, there were 9,602 babies born to settlers while only 437 settlers died, meaning a net growth of 9,165 in the established settler population. It is unclear, however, how this should translate into construction — or when, since the infants will not need homes of their own for a couple of decades.
Still, one objective of the policy appears to be to allow families, as they grow, to move to larger homes.
But, by admission of Aliza Herbst, spokeswoman for the settler representative body the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria, a large proportion of homes in the settlements are built with room to extend, meaning that many growing settler families simply extend their existing home rather than move to a new one.
The more widely invoked rationale for natural growth is that settler children should be able to grow up and live close to their parents. But establishing a building rate based on this is also difficult. Around 1,400 residents of West Bank settlements register to marry in an average year. Even if it were assumed that all of these people wished to live in the West Bank, it is unclear how many new housing units this would require, given that not all West Bank residents who register to marry wish to live in the territories.
Trying to predict what the pattern will be in the future in order to determine a housing policy creates a chicken-and-egg scenario: The number of West Bank newlyweds who want to set up home in the territories will depend, in part, on how plentiful — and as a result, how cheap — housing there is.
But more plentiful and cheaper housing would likely only intensify another trend: Jews from within the Green Line rushing in to take advantage of the bargain prices.
“It’s a free economy,” Revivi said. “The people who would get them are the people who would be paying the highest price.”
Dror Etkes, fieldworker for the anti-settlement organization Yesh Din, predicted: “In the bigger settlements, we would probably see further migration from Israel.”
This is virtually certain, because migrants to the West Bank from within Israel’s pre-1967 borders are generally older and more affluent than the average newlywed. Often, they already own a home in Israel, but are attracted by lower West Bank settlement housing prices, which the government subsidizes heavily. Selling their homes in Israel gives them additional capital, often enabling them to outbid “native” West Bankers. In 2007, this sector accounted for 36.5% of population growth in the West Bank.
Thus, new homes built on the premise of Netanyahu’s “normal life” — to, in his words, “allow mothers and fathers to raise their children like families elsewhere” — are unlikely to come close to achieving this end.
What they will do, indisputably, is increase the spread of Israeli settlements, whoever inhabits them in the end.
Contact Nathan Jeffay at jeffay@forward.com
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Cleveland Kidnapping, Elizabeth Smart and Us
Tracing the Jewish Origins of the Holy Ghost
Ethical Kosher Seal Stalls Amid Orthodox Opposition
Baby Boomers’ Rocky Road to Jewish Love
'War' With Ultra-Orthodox at Kotel? Bring It On
You've successfully signed up!
All Jews in occuppied Palestine are foreign invaders, from The Polish David Ben Gourion and Russian Ariel Sharon to the American Benjamin Netanyahu. The atrocities, Genocide and ethnic cleansing these invaders have been committing against the indigeneous people of the land has no parallel in the history of mankind. These foreign invaders you call settlers have the same idealogy as Al-Qaeda and should be dealt with accordingly.
Anthony, since you cite historical roots, the historical link of the Jews and the Holy Land is basic, though you obviously do not acknowledge this, or (charitably speaking) maybe are not aware of it. The Jews are an indigenous people of the Holy Land. The Muslim invaders are foreign.
Just because most Jews were driven into exile by the Romans, an action which which was later reinforced by the the Roman Christian Empire and so forth, does not negate the Jews as indigenous people, even those born in Poland, Russia or America. So now we have two peoples who claim the land - and that is what needs to be negotiated for us to have peace. Unfortunately, this is what the Arabs have fought against over and over in recent years and still do. Is there a way to peace? Are you interested in peace?
Put aside the silly remarks from Anthony, who knows little or not history. But Bibi always speaks with forked tongue, and his hedging was the sort of thing that meant little till now. Bibi will now confront Obama and will have to clarify himself instead of using shifty arguments about natural growth.
The Palestinians were the original Jews who converted to Islam. The Jewish identify came with the Babylonian exile - not Rome
Eli- The Palestinians may be Muslims or they may be Christians, or they might even be Jews (check this out-http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-279707), but they are no more invaders than Israel's Jewish population. I even seem to recall another tribe that appears in the Bible, originated elsewhere, that also invaded that land, killing quite a few men, women, and children in the process. How far back do you want to go? It doesn't even matter because it appears you want what you want and the rest are just excuses.
But as an American, I don't consider myself indigenous to that land either, certainly no more than Palestinians who have lived there for generations.
Are you really interested in peace? The live and let live. If people want to live in a land that isn't vacant, then live with the people who live there and stop trying to push them aside to dominate the landscape. That's what causes bloodshed and the lack of peace.
The article talks about "the settler representative body the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria".
There is no such body. This council (Moetzet Yesha) is a self-appointed body with no mandate from the residents of Judea and Samaria. There are a few locally elected officials who are on this council, but Moetzet Yesha has no elections, has no bylaws, and has no mandate to speak for anybody but themselves. Their budget is secret and the council has no transparency.
Given their miserable track record, the council should disband itself and be replaced by a properly elected and truly representative body. As well, it's time for the media to stop being so lazy and start questioning and checking the people they speak to - since that's the basic job of a reporter anyway.
The author ignores a new factor in the settlement population -- more than 100,000 are ultra-Orthodox, many from the cramped Meah Sha'arim or Bnai Braq. Typically they come from families of 10+ children and they themselves have very large families. In places like Beitar Illit and Kiryat Sefer, 70 percent of the population is under 18. Many of the families moving there have siblings in the community. The Peace Now stats don't take that into account.
The issue is not our right to build settlements in the West Bank. The issue is that the Palestinians, after having not only rejected the UN Partition Plan and having tried to beat up on one of the partners to this contract, now come back and demand the original terms to an agreement that they rejected. I would imagine that any reasonable person would say that there is now a new deal on the table if they are serious about peace. Rabin's understanding of Oslo even Olmert's understanding of a two state solution that is negotiated between partners to a diplomatic deal is not what Obama is about. It seems that his "demands" are not only shrill and antagonistic but "imperial" in that he chooses to ignore the facts that two parties must negotiate in civility. And by ignoring these principles, he clearly sides with people who in their education, culture and propoganda prepare their children for continued hate crimes. Until then Netanyahu has every right to expand settlements in order to show the Palestinians the penalty for not engaging in peaceful negotiations.
of a necessary truth [one and the only]there is a win-win result available in excanaan. however, judeo-christian alliance fervently desires a win-lose result in the lands of excanaan.
the win-win result wld amount to one state solution. And if ashk'm wld leave the new state, it wld be better for the intra- or intershemitic relationship. Let the shemites cope together. Mizrahic people are definitely shemitic. Their mother tongue is a shemitic dialect. even shephardim may be largely shemitic since most of them originate from afrikan arabs, moors, berbers, et al.
there is no shred of evidence that ashk'm are not an admixture of voelken from asia and europe with no connection to hebrews except the cult. tnx
The fillistines as the Bible calls them or Palestinians as we call them now a days are the indigineous people of the land. Off course, the Jewish invader are trying to use`evry claim they can to justify the atrocities and ethnic cleansing they've been connitting against the indigeneous people. See , every ancient civilization or culture have left behind evidence of their existence that still stand witness to that. From the Romans, Egyptians, Mayans, Azteks and the list goes on and on. There isn't one shred of evidence in Palesine that prove the Jews ever inhabited the land. The western wall they claim is a remnant of the great temple is actually a retaining wall built by the Muslims to support the Al-Aqsa Mosque. They tried to fabricate evidence in the form of atrifacts and other stuff but thank god for carbon dating, they were caught cheating and lying as usual. Finally, I adivce all of you to read a book called "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", written by a Jew who participated in the genocide and atrocities against the Palestininas and later decided to come clean.
Legally speaking, the Council of League of Nations RULED that Jews from anywhere in the world have the right to return and settle any part of Palestine west of the Jordan river, on "wastelands" and "state lands" and on any territory purchased from local landowners. This is enshrined in Article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate of 1922. The League did NOT recognize any other nation living on the land, but only the presence of "non-Jewish inhabitants" whose civil and religious rights had to be protected. But the League was disbanded in 1946, and the UN came into existence earlier in 1945. When the British finally decided to give up and leave with its 100,000 troops and police, the UN had to decide what to do next. That is, whether to establish a UN administration, or to partition between Jews and Arabs. Bot the Arabs AND the Right Wing under Menachem Begin violently denounced the idea of Partition, but the UN voted on it. Many consider it to have been illegal as it violated the prior League of Nations ruling. Nonetheless, Ben Gurion accepted it, and the Arabs, of course, went to war. As for the two refugee problems, both the Palestinian refugee situation and the Jewish refugees from the Arab countries were both the result of this Arab aggression that violated the UN Charter.
If the elague of nations authorized the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, then they are just as guilty as the Jews who carried it out. Long live Palestine. Zionism is terrorism and Israel shall not exist. For more info on the ethnic cleansing of Palestine visit www.palestineremembered.com
in the bitter end for shephardic and mizrahic peoples, land theft remains for an eternity a land theft. it makes no difference that it was okayed by the christian lands. approbating the land theft by gangsters of the league on nations was very easy since it was largely composed of evil euro empires and lands.
OK the theft, cut the approbation into a marble or any hard rock, pass laws in favor of robbing, but the theft cannot ever be justified. and the thirst for vengeance will never be quenched unless robbery is righted one day. that's why ashk'c peoples, and admixutre of dozens of folks, stay away en masse from israel. it is the 'jews' or shemites with 'tainted' skin that will be sacrificed in order that ashk'm, one of the greatest trouble makers of all time, have their fun and games.tnx
It is documented that the overwhelming majority of Arabs living in what was the pre-1948 British mandate of palestine, (today's Israel and Jordan) emigrated into the region in the 20th century. They came for jobs during World War 1 and the following years as the Jews developed the land. They came from Egypt, Syria, Iraq, from all over the muslim world. The British foreign office records are replete with reports of arabs crossing into the mandate at the rate of thousands every week. The Jewish presence in Israel is an unbroken one. The ignorant fools who persist in the fairy tale that the arabs are the original' inhabitant are ignorant fools to be laughed at.