I cannot possibly claim that the settlement expansion is limited to natural growth, since the two terms are rejecting each other, one is the expansion of settlements' land and the other is the internal growth of existing settlements.
What I did do is to refer to the Israeli government settlements policy as its called, which is the allowing of natural growth.
Your entire basis for the claim that the term is misleading is an opinion piece and not a factual one, thus I'm afraid that you have highlighted nothing.
1)and as the article you refuse to address clearly states, "natural growth" is a problematic and misleading term
2) irrelevant dismissals don't amount to much
3) if you have any issues with the article you will need to actually address it. Simple hand waving doesn't accomplish that
It's bull, if Givat Ha'eytam is in Efrat's municipality region then building there is indeed natural growth and not expansion, thus the term is indeed correct.
again, from the article: <<<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.>>>
<<<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.>>>
Active control, sure, but it didn't "seize control of extensive stretches of West Bank land in favor of the settlements" as you have claimed.
You were talking about property control here, not active control.
again, I'm not following: <<<Using a complex legal-bureaucratic mechanism, Israel took control of some 50 percent of the land of the West Bank, primarily for establishment of the settlements and preparation of land reserves for their expansion. The main means used for this purpose is declaring and recording the land as “state land.” This procedure, which began in 1979, is based on the manipulative application of the Ottoman Land Law of 1858, which was in force on the eve of the occupation. The mechanism resulted in the declaration, mostly between 1979-1992, of 913,000 dunams as state land, which comprise 16 percent of the West Bank. The other methods used, each based on a different legal basis, were requisition for “military needs,” declaration of land as “abandoned property,” and expropriation of land for “public needs.” In addition, Israel has aided citizens in purchasing land on the “open market.” Simultaneously, in many cases, settlers independently seized control of private Palestinian land, while Israeli officials failed in almost all cases to enforce the law and return the land to its lawful owners. >>>
B'Tselem - Land Expropriation and Settlements - Taking Control of the Land
The natural growth policy does not "promote the settlements", it maintains the status quo until negotiations are bearing fruit.
What are you talking about? The actions taken to promote the settlements are more commonly financial incentives: <<<The Israeli governments have implemented a consistent and systematic policy intended to encourage Jewish citizens to migrate to the West Bank. One of the tools used to this end is to grant financial benefits and incentives to citizens - both directly and through the Jewish local authorities. The purpose of this support is to raise the standard of living of these citizens and to encourage migration to the West Bank.
Most of the settlements in the West Bank are defined as national priority areas (A class or B class). Accordingly, the settlers and other Israeli citizens working or investing in the settlements are entitled to significant financial benefits. These benefits are provided by eight government ministries: the Ministry of Construction and Housing (reduction of price of the land and generous loans for the purchase of apartments, part of which is converted to a grant); the Israel Lands Administration (significant price reductions in leasing land); the Ministry of Education (Compulsory Education Law from Age Three, the long school day, extension of the school year, incentives for teachers, and subsidized transportation to school); the ministries of industry and trade, tourism, and agriculture (grants for investors, development of infrastructure for industrial zones, indemnification for loss of income resulting from custom duties imposed by countries of the European Union); the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (incentives for social workers); and the Ministry of Finance (reductions in income tax for individuals and companies). In 2003, the Ministry of Finance cancelled the income tax reduction that residents of settlements previously received. >>>
B'Tselem - Encouragement of migration to the settlements
Another opinion piece, how about you'd start referring to actual articles of facts and not to what some person decides to write in his opinion piece.
again, more irrelevant dismissals. if you are saying that financial incentives were not increased to the settlements, or that they don't receive finacical incentives from the government, you will need to show that. Otherwise you have some pointless hand waiving
[/QUOTE]Well I don't see the problem here. If the settler carries an Israeli citizenship he is an Israeli citizen, so he would be judged by Israeli law. Not Israel's fault that the Palestinians are living under an autocracy.[/QUOTE]
1) extending administrative law to foreign territories is seen as effectively annexing such territory. This is why the security council ruled against both the "Jerusalem law" and the "Golan heights law"
ODS HOME PAGE
The Avalon Project : United Nations Security Council Resolution 497
2) the Palestinians are under the military administration of the IDF. The settlers do not live under the same system: <<<The Emergency Regulations (Offenses in the Occupied Territories - Jurisdiction and Legal Assistance), 5727-1967, enacted by the Minister of Defense in July 1967, provided that Israeli civilians who committed offenses in the Occupied Territories were to be tried in Israeli civil courts>>>
B'Tselem - Settler Violence
I'll address the rest in a separate post
Knock off the personal attacks or you get booted from the thread.