Approved: 119 New Homes for Shilo

[vminfla]

Israel has approved construction of over 100 homes in the Samaria community of Shilo.

The radical left Peace Now organization - which receives 34% of its funds from foreign sources - decried the move saying it would bring "fresh international condemnation."

Hagit Ofran of the radical leftist Peace Now organization said the group only learned the new units were officially approved after it petitioned Israel's Supreme Court in March, asking construction of an initial 50 housing units be stopped.

Instead of succeeding in halting construction, however, Peace Now received a formal government response saying the building was approved.


http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150190

---

Well, not quite the result Peace Now was going for, was it?

[dtexdem]

1. "Radical left" and "funds from foreign sources" --

so glad the Israeli media is so balanced in its treatment of issues and those involved.

Of course the headline, "119 new homes for Shilo," is the most-balanced part of the article -- nothing so unbalanced like the truth: "new land theft from Palestine."

[vminfla]

3. Peace Now is a Radical Left group

And, the arabas, through the Oslo accords, clearly allow for this construction. Because a group thinks that Israelis should be ethnically cleansed from the area is a different matter altogether.

[LeftishBrit]

5. If 'Peace Now' is 'radical left'...

what organizations or parties do you think of as centre-left?

[vminfla]

6. The ADL comes to mind

In general, if a group is so self-righteous to include the words "peace" or "justice" in the name, it is a clue that they are radical left and only have a one-sided view of peace and justice.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Don't forget those upstanding centre-leftists of StandWithUs!

I really have to wonder about anyone who has an issue with the words 'peace' and 'justice' being used by anyone they disagree with. Just out of curiousity, what's yr idea of what peace and justice means when applied to the Israel/Palestine conflict? Do you want it for both Israelis and Palestinians, or just peace for Israelis to continue building settlements in the West Bank?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

19. Calling Peace Now a hate group???

I could understand disagreeing with it, or considering its views naive or even dangerous - but a *hate group*??

Either you are well to the right of Netanyahu, or you are an anti-Zionist trying to make Zionists and Israelis look bad!

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Not just any old hate group. They're a bunch of ethnic cleansing radical lefties!!

Really. The centre-left government of the very honest Netanyahu needs to eradicate this danger or else more groups with the word 'peace' in their names will emerge and try to ethnically cleanse those innocent and misunderstood Israeli settlers from their natural habitat of places like Hebron. Israel needs to show its progressive stripes and enact a few more laws banning radical nonsense such as that. The sooner people get with the program and understand that the settlements are an undivisible and eternal part of Israel, the better for all! ;)

When it comes to yr last sentence, I think it's the former, though sometimes when extreme views emerge it does come across as some kind of parody piss-take. Unfortunately in this case I think what's posted is their genuine views...

[LeftishBrit]

4. This isn't 'the Israeli media'. It's a particular right-wing source: basically the voice of the

settlers.

[King_David]

8. So maybe The Jewish State should be destroyed then?

Doncha think?

[oberliner]

13. This source is not a fair representation of the Israeli media

It is an extreme far RW settler website.

It is about as representative as World Net Daily.

It astonishes me that such a site is allowed as a source in this forum.

[vminfla]

14. Progressive Purity Tests are not mandatory but, I like the false analogy

Maybe some people will equate this site to WND. Then again, would it be right if I compared the source of Reply #2 in this thread to Al Qaeda al Jihad would that be right?

[oberliner]

16. You must confess that it is on the RW of the Israeli media spectrum

I'm not sure why you think it's a false analogy. What would be a more apt equivalent in the US media to Arutz Sheva?

I agree with you that there shouldn't be "purity tests" but I do think that people on this site are (rightfully) put off by the language used on sources such as the one in the OP (such as calling Peace Now a "radical" organization and calling the West Bank, Samaria).

[vminfla]

17. Peace Now is a Radical Organization

and, the West Bank is a recent linguistic contrivance. The West Bank of what? At nearly every point in Israel, Samaria is on the east. Using the West Bank is an attempt to delegitamize Samaria's identity and replace it with an arab identity.

[Crunchy Frog]

20. So you are a fellow one stater!

I agree with you that Judea and Samaria should be considered part of Israel proper, and that all inhabitants should have equal rights and equal citizenship.

[azurnoir]

2. well I guess that showed them huh?

a bit self satisfied for some I would say

[Crunchy Frog]

7. I'm glad to see that your single state solution for Israel/Palestine

is coming along so nicely.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. Great news for the Greater Israel folk!

Shiloh's right smack bang in the middle of the West Bank. It's not part of Israel....

[vminfla]

12. Shiloh was the Capitol of Israel for 300 years before Jerusalem

Despite attempts to ethnically cleanse jews from the area, they are still there.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. No, that's not true.

Shiloh may well have been the capital of a state called Israel 300 years before Jerusalem, and have been inhabited by some Jews then.

But those Jews died and that state ceased to exist millenia ago. Giving your state the same name as a historical one and sharing the same predominant ethnicity does not give you the right to reclaim its territory.

There is no "still" about it, and using that word is a vile attempt at obfuscating the fact that modern Shilo is an illegal piece of colonization that will probably need to be destroyed - not as ethnic cleansing, but as part of *undoing* some of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians perpetrated by the Isaelis.

If, in the future, Jews come to Palestine to live as equal citizens, they will have a right to live there. But those who came as colonial conquerors have no right to live there.

[vminfla]

18. Like I said, rewriting history and white washing the past

Pretending that Shiloh was not the capitol of Israel for 300 years is the same as Osama Bin Ladens attempt to erase the rich Greco-Buddhist heritage of Afghanistan by destroying the Buddhas of Bamiyan.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. Did you even bother reading the post you replied to?

You appear to be replying to a completely different post, saying completely different things to the ones I did.

[vminfla]

22. Yes, what you said was untrue

Shiloh was the capitol of Israel for 300 years. Jews have always lived in the area.

[azurnoir]

23. so are you proclaiming that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel? it would seem so

or is it that Israel has 2 capitals?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. I didn't say it wasn't, which you appear to have overlooked.

I *did* point out that the modern settlement of Shilo dates to 1978, not to antiquity, and is in no way, shape or form - except aspiration - a successor of biblical Shilo.

[vminfla]

27. No Jews in Shiloh before 1978 is a disingenuous claim to make

Are you saying that Israelis were successfully ethnically cleansed out of Shiloh between 1948 and 1967? Because, prior to that, Jews have lived in the area for centuries.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. The state of Israel only came into being in 1948...

The West Bank has never been part of that state, and currently Israel is occupying it and has built illegal Israeli settlements there. Those who have an allergy to living in Israel should be strongly encouraged by Israel to return to Israel and reside there, though for some of them life without being able to terrorise and abuse innocent Palestinians would lose much of its joy. They're in the West Bank in violation of international law, and sending them back from where they came isn't ethnic cleansing at all...

Correct me if I've read yr posts wrong, but you appear to be a supporter of Greater Israel. You also announce on a regular basis that Israel is a progressive country. If the West Bank is considered to be part of Israel, how can Israel be progressive, let alone a democracy? See, the millions of Palestinians who live what would be considered by those folk to be part of Israel aren't given the same basic human or civil rights that those residing in Israel itself (that'd be the territory to the west of the Green Line) enjoy.

[vminfla]

28. Jews have always lived in the area

Despite the best efforts, especially those between 1948 and 1967, arabs were unable to ethnically cleanse Jews out of this regoin of the world.


That the PLO has failed to develop a state for the arab population is another matter altogher. The PLO has repeatedly demonstrated, in Jordan, then in Lebanon, and once more in Israel that their goal is not peaceful democracy, but one of totalitarian control and domination. Again, this is not anything disparaging on the progressive Israeli nation, this is acknowledging that the PLO has repeatedly and willfully snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory when it comes to creating an arab state for their charges.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. So what? Palestinians have always lived in parts of what's now Israel...

What's yr point? That because Jews lived somewhere in the past, that gives Israel sovereignty over that place? But the same doesn't apply to any other people? That's really ridiculous and shows a marked ignorance of state sovereignty. Shiloh is not, and has never been part of the state of Israel. Israeli settlers are there in violation of international law...

'Arab population'? Why is it that you can't bring yrself to call the Palestinians what they are, Palestinians? There's lots of countries that have Arab populations, so if you want to be clearly understood maybe you should start referring to them by what nationality they are instead of pretending Arabs are all one homogenous group...

[vminfla]

30. One accepted statehood, the other tried to drive the Jews into the sea to get it all

The Oslo Accords allow for said construction, check with the PLO.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Having a state doesn't mean Israel can take what other territory it wants...

It doesn't work like that in the real world. As for the claim that Palestinians wanted to 'drive the Jews into the sea to get it all', that's just one of those mindless talking points that's been thrown around without any thought or understanding of what happened and the circumstances leading up to it. It actually relies on a bigoted and hateful view that believes Palestinians are evil anti-semites who only opposed partition of their land because they hated Jews and would have been totally fine if it had been for example the British who'd come along and created a quasi-state where their participation wasn't allowed (eg the Histradut refused to allow Arabs as members) and where there was open talk of ethnically cleansing them from their land...

Really? The Oslo Accords said that settlement construction was acceptable? You may have to point me to the particular agreement that stated that. See, settlement construction is illegal under international law, and I'd be shocked to see any of the agreements stating that they were acceptable and therefore legal...