• Published 02:17 02.02.10
  • Latest update 10:44 02.02.10

West Bank settlement growth slows as freeze starts to bite

Figures obtained by Haaretz reveal 38 of 120 settlements grew by less than 1.7% in second half of 2009.

By Chaim Levinson Tags: Israel settlements Israel news

The settlement freeze is having an impact, figures obtained by Haaretz reveal: In the second half of 2009, one third of all West Bank settlements experienced slower population growth than the average inside Israel - a larger proportion than during the first half.

The data, from an internal Civil Administration report, list 312,940 settlers in the second half of 2009, an increase of 2.75 percent over the first half and of 5.1 percent over 2008. Even excluding the huge growth rates of the ultra-Orthodox settlements of Betar Ilit and Modi'in Ilit (6.3 and 9.8 percent, respectively), the settlements grew 3.8 percent last year, while the Jewish population inside Israel grew only 1.7 percent.

However, 38 out of 120 settlements grew by less than 1.7 percent in the second half, as opposed to 30 in the first half and 26 for the year as a whole. Several key settlements fell into this low-growth category, including Shavei Shomron, Ma'aleh Efraim, Psagot, Beit El, Karnei Shomron and Ofra.

The figures show that the settlement freeze, which officially took effect in November, has been underway de facto for over a year, and has curtailed the number of new settlers, especially in areas farther from the Green Line.

A breakdown by region shows that in the second half of 2009, the Mount Hebron Regional Council grew by 3.81 percent compared to the first half, to 5,909 people. Mateh Binyamin grew 2.51 percent, to 47,636 people, and the Megilot Regional Council shrank 2 percent, to 1,032 residents.

  • Print Page
  • Send to a friend
  • Share
  • Text Size +|-
 
 
    This story is by: Chaim Levinson
TalkBacks

Why Facebook Connect?

Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.

Add a comment

Add your reply

  • 19. 0 0
    #18 Josiah J. Ben David
    • Ron
    • 05.02.10
    • 17:00

    There is not, and never has been, any concept by the Palestinians, the US, the UN, the Arab League nor anybody else for Palestinians to have any form of sovereignty over any Israeli territory. But when an independent Palestinian state is established, that Palestinian state will have sovereignty over all the Palestinian territory Israel now illegally occupies. Regarding E. Jerusalem, Israel is a state lacking any legal basis for sovereignty in Jerusalem. UNSC resolution 181, under which Israel declared statehood, declared Jerusalem to be an international city, "corpus separatum," managed under UN auspices. In 1980 the Knesset passed the "Basic Law" which declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel. The "Basic Law" is a violation of UN Security Council resolutions 476 & 478 and thus a violation of Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention, and therefore a war crime. UNSC resolution 478 declared the Knesset "Basic Law" null and void.

  • 18. 0 0
    Pelestinians will NEVER control E. Jerusalem
    • Josiah J. Ben David
    • 04.02.10
    • 08:53

    Their idea that a freeze will facilitate this hope is total fantasy. Palestinians will never have self rule in Israel as long as there is an Israel and as long as there are dedicated Jews to stop it. If there is any peace in this then there is no Israel and no Creator.

  • 17. 0 0
    Absolutely disgusting
    • Walter
    • 04.02.10
    • 06:05

  • 16. 0 0
    #9 vhardman. Man with retention problem
    • Ron
    • 04.02.10
    • 03:06

    Mr Hardman, enough already! You inundate us with claims of expired treaties. Expired means they are no valid. It doesnt seem to register when that is pointed out to you. You advise others to read history, but your repetition of such history is almost always irrelevant, or faulty or, in this case factually wrong. The San Remo conference simply assigned the Mandate for Palestine to Britain. It defined no borders. It said: "The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust ...the administration of Palestine within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers to a Mandatory." UN resolution 181, Part II, determined the borders of Israel. With the Israeli declaration of statehood, the Mandate expired, and with it San Remo. A court is not required for any changes, once an international convention expires. Neither San Remo nor the Mandate were any longer instruments of international law upon their expiration.

  • 15. 0 0
    Natural growth for illegal settlements is a negative one
    • John
    • 03.02.10
    • 21:27

    The illegal Israeli settlements will become part of Palestine, with Jewish Palestinians living in them, or be gone.

  • 14. 0 0
    #11 wwhy not reverse it kryssie and move the arabs
    • vhardman
    • 02.02.10
    • 15:48

    SURELY 99% OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE ARABS ????

  • 13. 0 0
    #12 labarse of arabia and total ignorance posted
    • vhardman
    • 02.02.10
    • 15:43

    when international agreeemnts are binding treaties they are never superceded! they might be altered by the originating bodies? in the case of san remo and the 1922 mandate they remain extant in respect of de jure israel ! see un vienna convention on treaties

  • 12. 0 0
    #9 V Hardhead aka paul harris---I can answer that
    • Labhras
    • 02.02.10
    • 13:23

    "which code of law are you quoting? to which court can you apply ?and in which language? which code of law can legally change the san remo convention 1920? the terms of the 1922 mandate ?" VH/PH Easy one victoria/pauline 1920 San Remo conference/1922mandate are superceded by the Israeli 1948 declaration of independence. Very simple really ---if one is awake and living on this planet.

  • 11. 0 0
    too little too late...
    • Krzysztof
    • 02.02.10
    • 12:44

    this settlement project is bringing Israel to the cul-de-sac. You should stop this conflict once and for all. Bring Jews from territories to the Israel proper to consolidate the Jewish majority. Give away most of East Jerusalem, to minimize the Arab contribution to demography. Define your borders. Then threaten that any potential escalation from the Palestinian side will have consequences. End with this occupation for the health of your own society...

  • 10. 0 0
    San Remo 1920 agreements awards ALL Israel to Jews
    • Trumpeldor
    • 02.02.10
    • 12:23

    And these past agreements are still valid and binding wheres arabs crossed the Jordan river after 1917 to work in newly rehabilitated soil by zionists Unfortunately, various Israeli governments are unwilling to recognize these historical facts.

  • 9. 0 0
    #8 the complete jerk and the misuse of legal terms
    • vhardman
    • 02.02.10
    • 12:07

    which code of law are you quoting? to which court can you apply ?and in which language? which code of law can legally change the san remo convention 1920? the terms of the 1922 mandate ?

  • 8. 0 0
    If it ain't within Israeli Sovereign territory, it's an ILLEGAL
    • CJ
    • 02.02.10
    • 09:26

    settlement. Israel has NEVER legally annexed ANY territory. It's actual Sovereign boundaries are the same as they were 14th May 1948. Time to wake up, the rest of the world is (finally) http://tinyurl.com/y8ewves/sovereignty-state-non-state-entity/#IsraeliDeclaration

  • 7. 0 0
    #5 Indeed true, that is the wrong terminology
    • Johnboy
    • 02.02.10
    • 09:23

    BJM: "Stop calling them settlements...They are COMMUNITIES" COLONIES, actually. BJM: "& the people that live threrein are not settlers..... They are RESIDENTS" COLONISTS, actually. BJM: "... PERIOD." Well, we'll certainly see about that.

  • 6. 0 0
    Three months to bite?
    • sh
    • 02.02.10
    • 08:53

    I wonder how long it will take for the rotten teeth of the partial, selective, soggy "freeze" to loosen their "grip" when it comes to an end this summer. What's the betting it'll be something like the wink of an eye?

  • 5. 0 0
    Wrong terminology
    • BJM
    • 02.02.10
    • 08:33

    Stop calling them settlements...They are COMMUNITIES & the people that live threrein are not settlers..... They are RESIDENTS... PERIOD.

  • 4. 0 0
    Settlement housing
    • Settler
    • 02.02.10
    • 07:53

    I live on a settlement and all the housing is taken. If one apartment is vacated there is a long list of families wanting to move into it. We have no housing available for young couples getting married. The situation is very very difficult. It is the same in all the other settlements in our area. If new apartments and houses would be built, they would be filled immediately, and we would still need more. Bibi says that the freeze is only for ten months. Also, we are not the only ones suffering from the freeze: I read that 35,000 Arabs are out of work because of it. So, really, who is it helping?

  • 3. 0 0
    Just wait until the 10 month freeze ends...
    • Yesha Jew
    • 02.02.10
    • 07:44

    We will make up for this in spades; growing 10% in the next year. Demand exists and pressure will be on the government to allow it after Bibi's pointless, damaging "gesture to our enemies.

  • 2. 0 0
    settlement freeze?
    • shelly
    • 02.02.10
    • 06:32

    So with a partial slow down in building we only have 9,000 more new settlers to evacuate by force. What progress in the last 6 months...... Gush Katif was only 10,000 and look at those insufferable whiners.

  • 1. 0 0
    Yeah, that's what we want
    • Mandy
    • 02.02.10
    • 05:55

    You leftist idiots just don't see the big picture. 1st it's the settlers,then its YOU! Settlement growth is the thing that is saving Israel, you will only recognize that once its too late.... for you!!