|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Lets talk about Israel
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Lets talk about Israel
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Abba |
Some people think that Israel is a victim, and has been since it was created.
I aim to dispell that myth.
I will only use Israeli sources to show how pretty much 90% of Israel is ILLEGAL and IMMORAL.
Please argue only with facts, not rhetoric. Thanks.
First Up, Benny Morris. |
|
|
| Abba |
Survival of the Fittest?
An Interview with Benny Morris
By ARI SHAVIT
Note: Benny Morris is the dean of Israeli 'new historians', who have done so much to create a critical vision of Zionism--its expulsion and continuing oppression of the Palestinians, its pressing need for moral and political atonement. His 1987 book, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, chronicled the Zionist murders, terrorism, and ethnic cleansing that drove 600,000-750,000 Palestinians from their homes in 1948, thus refuting the myth that they fled under the orders of Arab leaders. A second edition of this book is due out this month, chronicling even more massacres, and a previously unsuspected number of rapes and murders of Palestinian women. Thus Morris continues to provide crucial documentation for Palestinians fighting the heritage of Al-Nakba, "The Catastrophe."
But in an astonishing recent Ha'aretz interview, after summarizing his new research, Morris proceeds to argue for the necessity of ethnic cleansing in 1948. He faults David Ben-Gurion for failing to expel all Arab Israelis, and hints that it may be necessary to finish the job in the future. Though he calls himself a left-wing Zionist, he invokes and praises the fascist Vladimir Jabotinsky in calling for an "iron wall" solution to the current crisis. Referring to Sharon's Security Wall, he says, "Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another." He calls the conflict between Israelis and Arabs a struggle between civilization and barbarism, and suggests an analogy frequently drawn by Palestinians, though from the other side of the Winchester: "Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians."
That's nice and clear. Now one can find fault with the analogy, as did one outraged reader of Ha'aretz, who suggested that the annihilation of the Indians was the prototype for American imperialism, not the precondition for American democracy. But such arguments are almost beside the point. Morris's chilling candor effectively removes him from the realm of rational argument, and hauls Sharon's fascist vision of a Greater Israel out into the light of day. There's no point in saying, "You're talking about ethnic cleansing!" for Morris says bluntly, "There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing." There's no point in saying, "You're denying Palestinian suffering!" for after chronicling that suffering in scrupulous detail, he observes brightly, "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands." There's no point in saying, "This is racist!" for Morris has abandoned humanist ethical universalism, invoking the pied-noir Camus to do so: "He was considered a left-winger and a person of high morals, but when he referred to the Algerian problem he placed his mother ahead of morality. Preserving my people is more important than universal moral concepts."
When momma makes it into a political analogy, somebody's about to bleed: never get between a colon and his motherland, particularly if his motherland used to be your motherland. Here, Morris leaves Enlightenment universalism for a volkische ethics of blood and bone that has haunted world history from Herder to Milosevic. But another French-Algerian, Jules Roy, answered Camus (and Benny Morris): "It is not a matter of choosing one's mother over justice. It is a matter of loving justice as much as one's mother."
Jim Holstun
Jim Holstun is professor of English at University at Buffalo. His most recent book, Ehud's Dagger: Class Struggle in the English Revolution (Verso,
2000) won the prestigious Tamara Deutscher Memorial Prize in 2001.
*****************
(This interview originally in Ha'aretz)
Benny Morris says he was always a Zionist. People were mistaken when they labeled him a post-Zionist, when they thought that his historical study on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem was intended to undercut the Zionist enterprise. Nonsense, Morris says, that's completely unfounded. Some readers simply misread the book. They didn't read it with the same detachment, the same moral neutrality, with which it was written. So they came to the mistaken conclusion that when Morris describes the cruelest deeds that the Zionist movement perpetrated in 1948 he is actually being condemnatory, that when he describes the large-scale expulsion operations he is being denunciatory. They did not conceive that the great documenter of the sins of Zionism in fact identifies with those sins. That he thinks some of them, at least, were unavoidable.
Two years ago, different voices began to be heard. The historian who was considered a radical leftist suddenly maintained that Israel had no one to talk to. The researcher who was accused of being an Israel hater (and was boycotted by the Israeli academic establishment) began to publish articles in favor of Israel in the British paper The Guardian.
Whereas citizen Morris turned out to be a not completely snow-white dove, historian Morris continued to work on the Hebrew translation of his massive work "Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001," which was written in the old, peace-pursuing style. And at the same time historian Morris completed the new version of his book on the refugee problem, which is going to strengthen the hands of those who abominate Israel. So that in the past two years citizen Morris and historian Morris worked as though there is no connection between them, as though one was trying to save what the other insists on eradicating.
Both books will appear in the coming month. The book on the history of the Zionist-Arab conflict will be published in Hebrew by Am Oved in Tel Aviv, while the Cambridge University Press will publish "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited" (it originally appeared, under the CUP imprint, in 1987). That book describes in chilling detail the atrocities of the Nakba. Isn't Morris ever frightened at the present-day political implications of his historical study? Isn't he fearful that he has contributed to Israel becoming almost a pariah state? After a few moments of evasion, Morris admits that he is. Sometimes he really is frightened. Sometimes he asks himself what he has wrought.
He is short, plump, and very intense. The son of immigrants from England, he was born in Kibbutz Ein Hahoresh and was a member of the left-wing Hashomer Hatza'ir youth movement. In the past, he was a reporter for the Jerusalem Post and refused to do military service in the territories. He is now a professor of history at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Be'er Sheva. But sitting in his armchair in his Jerusalem apartment, he does not don the mantle of the cautious academic. Far from it: Morris spews out his words, rapidly and energetically, sometimes spilling over into English. He doesn't think twice before firing off the sharpest, most shocking statements, which are anything but politically correct. He describes horrific war crimes offhandedly, paints apocalyptic visions with a smile on his lips. He gives the observer the feeling that this agitated individual, who with his own hands opened the Zionist Pandora's box, is still having difficulty coping with what he found in it, still finding it hard to deal with the internal contradictions that are his lot and the lot of us all.
Rape, massacre, transfer
Benny Morris, in the month ahead the new version of your book on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem is due to be published. Who will be less pleased with the book - the Israelis or the Palestinians?
"The revised book is a double-edged sword. It is based on many documents that were not available to me when I wrote the original book, most of them from the Israel Defense Forces Archives. What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves.
"At the same time, it turns out that there was a series of orders issued by the Arab Higher Committee and by the Palestinian intermediate levels to remove children, women and the elderly from the villages. So that on the one hand, the book reinforces the accusation against the Zionist side, but on the other hand it also proves that many of those who left the villages did so with the encouragement of the Palestinian leadership itself."
According to your new findings, how many cases of Israeli rape were there in 1948?
"About a dozen. In Acre four soldiers raped a girl and murdered her and her father. In Jaffa, soldiers of the Kiryati Brigade raped one girl and tried to rape several more. At Hunin, which is in the Galilee, two girls were raped and then murdered. There were one or two cases of rape at Tantura, south of Haifa. There was one case of rape at Qula, in the center of the country. At the village of Abu Shusha, near Kibbutz Gezer [in the Ramle area] there were four female prisoners, one of whom was raped a number of times. And there were other cases. Usually more than one soldier was involved. Usually there were one or two Palestinian girls. In a large proportion of the cases the event ended with murder. Because neither the victims nor the rapists liked to report these events, we have to assume that the dozen cases of rape that were reported, which I found, are not the whole story. They are just the tip of the iceberg."
According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948?
"Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved.
"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.
"That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres."
What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order. Is that right?
"Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July 1948]."
Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?
"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created."
Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?
"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."
I don't hear you condemning him.
"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."
When ethnic cleansing is justified
Benny Morris, for decades you have been researching the dark side of Zionism. You are an expert on the atrocities of 1948. In the end, do you in effect justify all this? Are you an advocate of the transfer of 1948?
"There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands."
We are talking about the killing of thousands of people, the destruction of an entire society.
"A society that aims to kill you forces you to destroy it. When the choice is between destroying or being destroyed, it's better to destroy."
There is something chilling about the quiet way in which you say that.
"If you expected me to burst into tears, I'm sorry to disappoint you. I will not do that."
So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?
"I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don't think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn't have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being."
You do not condemn them morally?
"No."
They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.
"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic cleansing."
And that was the situation in 1948?
"That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on."
The term `to cleanse' is terrible.
"I know it doesn't sound nice but that's the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed."
What you are saying is hard to listen to and hard to digest. You sound hard-hearted.
"I feel sympathy for the Palestinian people, which truly underwent a hard tragedy. I feel sympathy for the refugees themselves. But if the desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate, there was no other choice. It was impossible to leave a large fifth column in the country. From the moment the Yishuv [pre-1948 Jewish community in Palestine] was attacked by the Palestinians and afterward by the Arab states, there was no choice but to expel the Palestinian population. To uproot it in the course of war.
"Remember another thing: the Arab people gained a large slice of the planet. Not thanks to its skills or its great virtues, but because it conquered and murdered and forced those it conquered to convert during many generations. But in the end the Arabs have 22 states. The Jewish people did not have even one state. There was no reason in the world why it should not have one state. Therefore, from my point of view, the need to establish this state in this place overcame the injustice that was done to the Palestinians by uprooting them."
And morally speaking, you have no problem with that deed?
"That is correct. Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history."
And in our case it effectively justifies a population transfer.
"That's what emerges."
And you take that in stride? War crimes? Massacres? The burning fields and the devastated villages of the Nakba?
"You have to put things in proportion. These are small war crimes. All told, if we take all the massacres and all the executions of 1948, we come to about 800 who were killed. In comparison to the massacres that were perpetrated in Bosnia, that's peanuts. In comparison to the massacres the Russians perpetrated against the Germans at Stalingrad, that's chicken feed. When you take into account that there was a bloody civil war here and that we lost an entire 1 percent of the population, you find that we behaved very well."
The next transfer
You went through an interesting process. You went to research Ben-Gurion and the Zionist establishment critically, but in the end you actually identify with them. You are as tough in your words as they were in their deeds.
"You may be right. Because I investigated the conflict in depth, I was forced to cope with the in-depth questions that those people coped with. I understood the problematic character of the situation they faced and maybe I adopted part of their universe of concepts. But I do not identify with Ben-Gurion. I think he made a serious historical mistake in 1948. Even though he understood the demographic issue and the need to establish a Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he got cold feet during the war. In the end, he faltered."
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that Ben-Gurion erred in expelling too few Arabs?
"If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations."
I find it hard to believe what I am hearing.
"If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948. Because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself."
In his place, would you have expelled them all? All the Arabs in the country?
"But I am not a statesman. I do not put myself in his place. But as an historian, I assert that a mistake was made here. Yes. The non-completion of the transfer was a mistake."
And today? Do you advocate a transfer today?
"If you are asking me whether I support the transfer and expulsion of the Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and perhaps even from Galilee and the Triangle, I say not at this moment. I am not willing to be a partner to that act. In the present circumstances it is neither moral nor realistic. The world would not allow it, the Arab world would not allow it, it would destroy the Jewish society from within. But I am ready to tell you that in other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions. If we find ourselves with atomic weapons around us, or if there is a general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the front with Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front, acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential."
Including the expulsion of Israeli Arabs?
"The Israeli Arabs are a time bomb. Their slide into complete Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and security terms they are liable to undermine the state. So that if Israel again finds itself in a situation of existential threat, as in 1948, it may be forced to act as it did then. If we are attacked by Egypt (after an Islamist revolution in Cairo) and by Syria, and chemical and biological missiles slam into our cities, and at the same time Israeli Palestinians attack us from behind, I can see an expulsion situation. It could happen. If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified."
Cultural dementia
Besides being tough, you are also very gloomy. You weren't always like that, were you?
"My turning point began after 2000. I wasn't a great optimist even before that. True, I always voted Labor or Meretz or Sheli [a dovish party of the late 1970s], and in 1988 I refused to serve in the territories and was jailed for it, but I always doubted the intentions of the Palestinians. The events of Camp David and what followed in their wake turned the doubt into certainty. When the Palestinians rejected the proposal of [prime minister Ehud] Barak in July 2000 and the Clinton proposal in December 2000, I understood that they are unwilling to accept the two-state solution. They want it all. Lod and Acre and Jaffa."
If that's so, then the whole Oslo process was mistaken and there is a basic flaw in the entire worldview of the Israeli peace movement.
"Oslo had to be tried. But today it has to be clear that from the Palestinian point of view, Oslo was a deception. [Palestinian leader Yasser] Arafat did not change for the worse, Arafat simply defrauded us. He was never sincere in his readiness for compromise and conciliation."
Do you really believe Arafat wants to throw us into the sea?
"He wants to send us back to Europe, to the sea we came from. He truly sees us as a Crusader state and he thinks about the Crusader precedent and wishes us a Crusader end. I'm certain that Israeli intelligence has unequivocal information proving that in internal conversations Arafat talks seriously about the phased plan [which would eliminate Israel in stages]. But the problem is not just Arafat. The entire Palestinian national elite is prone to see us as Crusaders and is driven by the phased plan. That's why the Palestinians are not honestly ready to forgo the right of return. They are preserving it as an instrument with which they will destroy the Jewish state when the time comes. They can't tolerate the existence of a Jewish state - not in 80 percent of the country and not in 30 percent. From their point of view, the Palestinian state must cover the whole Land of Israel."
If so, the two-state solution is not viable; even if a peace treaty is signed, it will soon collapse.
"Ideologically, I support the two-state solution. It's the only alternative to the expulsion of the Jews or the expulsion of the Palestinians or total destruction. But in practice, in this generation, a settlement of that kind will not hold water. At least 30 to 40 percent of the Palestinian public and at least 30 to 40 percent of the heart of every Palestinian will not accept it. After a short break, terrorism will erupt again and the war will resume."
Your prognosis doesn't leave much room for hope, does it?
"It's hard for me, too. There is not going to be peace in the present generation. There will not be a solution. We are doomed to live by the sword. I'm already fairly old, but for my children that is especially bleak. I don't know if they will want to go on living in a place where there is no hope. Even if Israel is not destroyed, we won't see a good, normal life here in the decades ahead."
Aren't your harsh words an over-reaction to three hard years of terrorism?
"The bombing of the buses and restaurants really shook me. They made me understand the depth of the hatred for us. They made me understand that the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim hostility toward Jewish existence here is taking us to the brink of destruction. I don't see the suicide bombings as isolated acts. They express the deep will of the Palestinian people. That is what the majority of the Palestinians want. They want what happened to the bus to happen to all of us."
Yet we, too, bear responsibility for the violence and the hatred: the occupation, the roadblocks, the closures, maybe even the Nakba itself.
"You don't have to tell me that. I have researched Palestinian history. I understand the reasons for the hatred very well. The Palestinians are retaliating now not only for yesterday's closure but for the Nakba as well. But that is not a sufficient explanation. The peoples of Africa were oppressed by the European powers no less than the Palestinians were oppressed by us, but nevertheless I don't see African terrorism in London, Paris or Brussels. The Germans killed far more of us than we killed the Palestinians, but we aren't blowing up buses in Munich and Nuremberg. So there is something else here, something deeper, that has to do with Islam and Arab culture."
Are you trying to argue that Palestinian terrorism derives from some sort of deep cultural problem?
"There is a deep problem in Islam. It's a world whose values are different. A world in which human life doesn't have the same value as it does in the West, in which freedom, democracy, openness and creativity are alien. A world that makes those who are not part of the camp of Islam fair game. Revenge is also important here. Revenge plays a central part in the Arab tribal culture. Therefore, the people we are fighting and the society that sends them have no moral inhibitions. If it obtains chemical or biological or atomic weapons, it will use them. If it is able, it will also commit genocide."
I want to insist on my point: A large part of the responsibility for the hatred of the Palestinians rests with us. After all, you yourself showed us that the Palestinians experienced a historical catastrophe.
"True. But when one has to deal with a serial killer, it's not so important to discover why he became a serial killer. What's important is to imprison the murderer or to execute him."
Explain the image: Who is the serial killer in the analogy?
"The barbarians who want to take our lives. The people the Palestinian society sends to carry out the terrorist attacks, and in some way the Palestinian society itself as well. At the moment, that society is in the state of being a serial killer. It is a very sick society. It should be treated the way we treat individuals who are serial killers."
What does that mean? What should we do tomorrow morning?
"We have to try to heal the Palestinians. Maybe over the years the establishment of a Palestinian state will help in the healing process. But in the meantime, until the medicine is found, they have to be contained so that they will not succeed in murdering us."
To fence them in? To place them under closure?
"Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another."
War of barbarians
Benny Morris, have you joined the right wing?
"No, no. I still think of myself as left-wing. I still support in principle two states for two peoples."
But you don't believe that this solution will last. You don't believe in peace.
"In my opinion, we will not have peace, no."
Then what is your solution?
"In this generation there is apparently no solution. To be vigilant, to defend the country as far as is possible."
The iron wall approach?
"Yes. An iron wall is a good image. An iron wall is the most reasonable policy for the coming generation. My colleague Avi Shlein described this well: What Jabotinsky proposed is what Ben-Gurion adopted. In the 1950s, there was a dispute between Ben-Gurion and Moshe Sharett. Ben-Gurion argued that the Arabs understand only force and that ultimate force is the one thing that will persuade them to accept our presence here. He was right. That's not to say that we don't need diplomacy. Both toward the West and for our own conscience, it's important that we strive for a political solution. But in the end, what will decide their readiness to accept us will be force alone. Only the recognition that they are not capable of defeating us."
For a left-winger, you sound very much like a right-winger, wouldn't you say?
"I'm trying to be realistic. I know it doesn't always sound politically correct, but I think that political correctness poisons history in any case. It impedes our ability to see the truth. And I also identify with Albert Camus. He was considered a left-winger and a person of high morals, but when he referred to the Algerian problem he placed his mother ahead of morality. Preserving my people is more important than universal moral concepts."
Are you a neo-conservative? Do you read the current historical reality in the terms of Samuel Huntington?
"I think there is a clash between civilizations here [as Huntington argues]. I think the West today resembles the Roman Empire of the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries: The barbarians are attacking it and they may also destroy it."
The Muslims are barbarians, then?
"I think the values I mentioned earlier are values of barbarians - the attitude toward democracy, freedom, openness; the attitude toward human life. In that sense they are barbarians. The Arab world as it is today is barbarian."
And in your view these new barbarians are truly threatening the Rome of our time?
"Yes. The West is stronger but it's not clear whether it knows how to repulse this wave of hatred. The phenomenon of the mass Muslim penetration into the West and their settlement there is creating a dangerous internal threat. A similar process took place in Rome. They let the barbarians in and they toppled the empire from within."
Is it really all that dramatic? Is the West truly in danger?
"Yes. I think that the war between the civilizations is the main characteristic of the 21st century. I think President Bush is wrong when he denies the very existence of that war. It's not only a matter of bin Laden. This is a struggle against a whole world that espouses different values. And we are on the front line. Exactly like the Crusaders, we are the vulnerable branch of Europe in this place."
The situation as you describe it is extremely harsh. You are not entirely convinced that we can survive here, are you?
"The possibility of annihilation exists."
Would you describe yourself as an apocalyptic person?
"The whole Zionist project is apocalyptic. It exists within hostile surroundings and in a certain sense its existence is unreasonable. It wasn't reasonable for it to succeed in 1881 and it wasn't reasonable for it to succeed in 1948 and it's not reasonable that it will succeed now. Nevertheless, it has come this far. In a certain way it is miraculous. I live the events of 1948, and 1948 projects itself on what could happen here. Yes, I think of Armageddon. It's possible. Within the next 20 years there could be an atomic war here."
If Zionism is so dangerous for the Jews and if Zionism makes the Arabs so wretched, maybe it's a mistake?
"No, Zionism was not a mistake. The desire to establish a Jewish state here was a legitimate one, a positive one. But given the character of Islam and given the character of the Arab nation, it was a mistake to think that it would be possible to establish a tranquil state here that lives in harmony with its surroundings."
Which leaves us, nevertheless, with two possibilities: either a cruel, tragic Zionism, or the forgoing of Zionism.
"Yes. That's so. You have pared it down, but that's correct."
Would you agree that this historical reality is intolerable, that there is something inhuman about it?
"Yes. But that's so for the Jewish people, not the Palestinians. A people that suffered for 2,000 years, that went through the Holocaust, arrives at its patrimony but is thrust into a renewed round of bloodshed, that is perhaps the road to annihilation. In terms of cosmic justice, that's terrible. It's far more shocking than what happened in 1948 to a small part of the Arab nation that was then in Palestine."
So what you are telling me is that you live the Palestinian Nakba of the past less than you live the possible Jewish Nakba of the future?
"Yes. Destruction could be the end of this process. It could be the end of the Zionist experiment. And that's what really depresses and scares me."
The title of the book you are now publishing in Hebrew is "Victims." In the end, then, your argument is that of the two victims of this conflict, we are the bigger one.
"Yes. Exactly. We are the greater victims in the course of history and we are also the greater potential victim. Even though we are oppressing the Palestinians, we are the weaker side here. We are a small minority in a large sea of hostile Arabs who want to eliminate us. So it's possible than when their desire is realized, everyone will understand what I am saying to you now. Everyone will understand we are the true victims. But by then it will be too late." |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
| NO thanks ! Lets talk about Anna Nicole Smith instead ! |
|
|
| Abba |
UN report details Israel’s Human Rights abuses in Occupied Territories
By Brian Smith
17 October 2003
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
John Dugard of the United Nations Commission of Human Rights has published a report entitled “Question of the violation of human rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, including Palestine.” It reveals that Israeli provocations and oppression have intensified since Ariel Sharon’s visit to the al-Aqsa mosque.
Released in September, the report follows Special Rapporteur Dugard’s visits to Gaza and the West Bank in June and July, during which he met with various Palestinian officials and Palestinian and Israeli interlocutors and NGOs, and attended the presentation of Israel’s report to the Human Rights Committee. The Israeli government continued to withhold its cooperation from Dugard.
The report looks at: human rights and terrorism; annexation and Israel’s so-called security wall; restrictions on freedom of movement and the humanitarian crisis; loss of life and the killing of civilians; prisoners; destruction of property; and settlements.
In keeping with the UN’s general outlook, Dugard attempts a “balanced” assessment of the conflict. For example, he allows that Israel has “legitimate security concerns”, but insists that “there must be some limit to the extent to which human rights may be violated in the name of counter-terrorism.” But the facts of the situation are clearly so unbalanced that he is obliged to conclude that “Israel’s response to terror is disproportionate” and on occasion “so remote from the interests of security that it assumes the character of punishment, humiliation and conquest.”
“The Wall” being constructed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s Likud-led coalition government—ostensibly to keep terrorists out—is euphemistically referred to as a “security fence” or “Seam Zone”. The word “annexation” is avoided because it too accurately describes what is happening via the wall’s construction. The final route of the wall is as yet undetermined but on completion it will be between 450 and 650 kilometres long.
In parts the wall is an eight-metre high concrete barrier, but mostly it forms a no-man’s-land 60-100 metres wide with buffer zones, trenches, barbed wire, electric fences with sensors, a two-lane patrol road and fortified guard towers. There are also 100-metre wide “no-go” areas on either side patrolled by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF).
There is widespread scepticism regarding the wall’s ability to keep out determined terrorists. Even the Israeli State Comptroller noted in July 2002, “IDF documents indicate that most of the suicide terrorists and car bombs crossed the seam area into Israel through the checkpoints.”
The wall is built on Palestinian land. It does not follow the so called Green Line, which marks the unofficial boundary between Israel and the proposed Palestinian state, but regularly intrudes six or seven kilometres into Palestinian territory so as to incorporate illegal Jewish settlements into the Israeli zone. A decision taken last week has gone further still and proposes a 20-kilometre loop into Palestinian territory to include the settlements of Ariel, Immanuel and Kedumim.
Israeli daily Ha’aretz reports that the blocs incorporated in this sweep contain around 80 percent of the settlers in the West Bank. In all, it is thought that as much as half of the 400,000-settler population will be incorporated into Israel. Ha’aretz reports also that approximately 60,000 Palestinians will end up inside this planned loop, on top of the 80,000 that human rights group B’Tselem estimates will be caught behind the main wall.
The Bush administration in the United States has issued only muted criticism referring to the wall as a “problem”. It is in essential agreement with Israel’s war of provocation, as its wholehearted support for the recent attack on Syria demonstrates. Bush drew a parallel between this and the US “war on terror” stating, “We would be doing the same thing.” This led Sharon to threaten, “Israel will not be deterred from protecting its citizens and will strike its enemies in every place and in every way.”
Israel has undertaken not to connect the controversial sections to the main wall just yet, but to build separate fences around them. Within the Israeli Cabinet the opposition to Sharon’s proposal was from those such as Housing Minister Effi Etaim of the far-right National Religious Party, who insisted that Israel should not bow to US pressure but join the Ariel and Kedumim fences to the main barrier right now.
The winding route of the wall at times completely encircles Palestinian villages or separates them from the rest of the West Bank, thereby cutting people off from their land, workplaces, schools and hospitals. The wall will thus “create a new generation of refugees or internally displaced persons.” Meanwhile, the report notes, most Israelis are shielded from the truth by laws that restrict them from seeing what is happening to their neighbour.
Much of the Palestinian land incorporated into Israel “consists of fertile agricultural land and some of the most important water wells in the region.” In addition, it is widely expected that following the construction of the wall separating Israel from the West Bank on the western side, a further wall will be built to separate the West Bank from the Jordan Valley on the eastern side, thereby severely restricting Palestinian access to water.
Violation of international law
Israel claims that the wall can still be removed as part of a peace agreement, though the projected cost of $1.4 billion indicates its permanent character. The report notes that the wall violates two of the most fundamental principles of contemporary international law: the prohibition of the forcible acquisition of territory, and the right to self-determination. Annexation by force is defined in international law as “conquest”, which is prohibited by both the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 and Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter. Prohibition of conquest applies “irrespective of whether the territory is acquired as a result of an act of aggression or in self defence.”
The building of illegal settlements in the West Bank has continued since 1967 with a rapid increase in the late 1970s when Ariel Sharon was Housing Minister. It was Sharon who called on settlers to “grab the hilltops of the West Bank” before any final decision was made under the Oslo Peace Accords. The original intention of the settlements was to stake a claim to the West Bank as Israeli land. The report notes that like “the settlements it seeks to protect, the Wall is manifestly intended to create facts on the ground.”
Regarding restrictions on freedom of movement, the report observes that “checkpoints, closures and curfews are words that fail to capture the full enormity of what is happening today in the West Bank and Gaza.”
Thousands of Palestinians must waste hours each day passing through checkpoints to get to work or school or hospital. Hundreds of women have been forced to give birth in ambulances delayed at checkpoints, and the report notes that “accounts of rudeness, humiliation and brutality at the checkpoints are legion.”
Similarly, curfews are not just restrictions on movement, but amount to imprisonment in one’s own home whilst the IDF patrols the streets. People are unable to leave to go to work, to shop for food, to go to school or hospital, or even to bury their dead. The aftermath of the Haifa bombing saw such a curfew imposed, as Israeli tanks moved into Jenin and demolished the family home of the young suicide bomber, Hanadi Jaradat.
The checkpoints divide the West Bank into a patchwork of cantons, such as Hebron, Bethlehem, Jericho, Ramallah and Nablus. Gaza is also divided into three separate cantons. Ha’aretz has observed that these are designed “to make the lives of the local residents as miserable as possible.” Commercial goods must be unloaded and transferred to another vehicle on the other side of the checkpoint, known as “back-to-back transport.”
The World Bank reported in May 2003 that the Palestinian economy has suffered as a direct consequence of curfew and closure. An estimated two million Palestinians live in poverty, dependent on aid agencies, with 60 percent living on less than $2 per day and 22 percent of children under five suffering acute or chronic malnutrition. Unemployment stands at 40 percent, but is as high as 60 percent in some areas. The Special Rapporteur believes that there is “a humanitarian crisis in the West Bank and Gaza. It is not the result of a natural disaster. Instead, it is a crisis imposed by a powerful state on its neighbour.”
Regarding loss of life, and in particular loss of civilian life, the report points out that “international humanitarian law seeks to limit harm to civilians by requiring that all parties to a conflict respect the principles of distinction and proportionality.” It is therefore necessary to distinguish between civilians and combatants during conflict, and to avoid attacking a military target “which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects... which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”
In "assassination actions" between October 2000 and April 2003, the IDF has killed 230 Palestinians and injured a further 300. Israel justifies this as self-defence and points to the inability to arrest the suspects. The report notes that the “failure to attempt such arrests inevitably gives rise to suspicions that Israel lacks evidence to place such persons on trial and therefore prefers to dispose of them arbitrarily.”
Regarding prisoners, the Israeli High Court of Justice ruled in 1999 that various methods employed by the General Security Services against detainees were illegal when applied cumulatively. These include “violent shaking, covering the head with a sack, tying to a small tilted chair or position abuse (shabeh), sleep deprivation and painful shackling.” Considerable evidence exists that these methods are still employed, though the Special Rapporteur is denied access to Israeli prisons.
House demolitions
The UN estimates that by May 2003 Israel had demolished 1,134 Palestinian homes in the Gaza strip alone—making around 10,000 people homeless. The rate of demolition has increased from around 32 per month between 2000 and 2002, to 75 per month in 2003. Jeff Halper of the Committee Against House Demolitions believes, “The bulldozer has become as much of a symbol of Israeli occupation as the rifle and the tank.”
Israel justifies demolitions for three reasons: homes allegedly used as cover by militants to fire on settlers are flattened to create wide buffer zones; homes of those who have committed crimes against Israel are destroyed as punishment (or “deterrence”); homes without administrative permission are razed to assert respect for Israel’s administrative regime, despite the fact that permits are seldom granted anyway.
The last section of the report looks at Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories. It notes that they are a violation of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits the Occupying Power from transferring parts of its own civilian population into territory it occupies. There are currently around 200 settlements with a population of around 417,000 settlers. Some of these are full blown towns and villages, and roads constructed to link them together have also resulted in the taking of Palestinian land.
A recent study by B’Tselem estimates that as much as 41.9 percent of the total land area of the West Bank is effectively under settler control. Population growth in the settlements is three times that of Israel itself.
Israel has undertaken to restrict expansion in the settlements to “natural growth” and to dismantle “unauthorised settlements”. Yet new settlements continue to appear and the government continues to offer financial inducement to Israelis to settle in the West Bank. Last week the government authorised a further 604 new homes to be built in existing settlements in the West Bank. Of these 530 will be built in Beitar Illit and 50 in Ma’ale Adumim, both of which are near Jerusalem, and a further 24 in Ariel. Israeli Army Radio has reported that the plan also calls for an additional 100 units in Efrat near Jerusalem.
The Housing Ministry statement announcing the new settlements claimed that the new tenders were part of “a government policy by which we are to advance and develop communities in Judea and Samaria in accordance with needs and natural growth.” The use of biblical names in this context is clearly intended as an ancient claim on the land in question.
The report concludes that “evidence strongly suggests that Israel is determined to create facts on the ground amounting to de facto annexation,” and that “the time has come to condemn the Wall as an unlawful act of annexation in the same way that Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights has been condemned as unlawful.”
Israel’s erection of the wall and expansion of the settlements, and its attack on Syria, are clearly provocations. The Israeli cabinet is encouraged in its actions by the behaviour of the gangsters in the White House who have given them a permanent green light. A “Greater Israel” incorporating all of the West Bank and Gaza, from which the Palestinians are expelled, remains the goal of Sharon and his co-thinkers. |
|
|
| Abba |
Study: 40 percent of settlements were built on Palestinian land
By Yair Sheleg, Haaretz Correspondent, Haaretz Service and Agencies
A new study conducted by left-wing group Peace Now has found that approximately 40 percent of settlements, including long-standing communities, are built on private Palestinian land and not on state-owned land.
In a press conference held in Jerusalem on Tuesday, the group presented a report asserting that out of a total area of 157,000 dunams used by West Bank settlements and industrial zones, 61,000 dunams (approximately 38 percent) are privately owned by Palestinians.
The report singles out the two largest settlements, both of which have city status. It says that 86.4 percent of Ma'ale Adumim is built on Palestinian land, and 35.1 percent of Ariel.
The group says that the data presented in the report "demonstrates that the property rights of many Palestinians have been systematically violated in the course of settlement building."
State-owned lands amount to 87,000 dunams (including 2,000 dunams soon to be declared as owned by the state) and just 2,000 dunams are Jewish-owned.
The leaders of Peace Now said at the press conference that the report is a serious indictment of the entire settlement movement.
"Israel has violated even its own norms and laws in the West Bank, through the confiscation of private Palestinian property and the building of settlements upon them," the report says.
According to the group, the data shows that settlers are guilty not only of larceny, by stealing collective assets of the Palestinian people, but also disinherit Palestinian residents from their privately owned property.
Peace Now said it based its findings on the database of the Israel Defense Forces-run Civil Administration in the West Bank. The Civil Administration declined comment on the apparent leak, pending its examination of the report.
The report cites the case of the settlement of Elon Moreh, which was established in 1979 on 700 dunams of land belonging to a village near Nablus, which had been seized by Israel for military purposes.
The order to seize the land was, according to the report, issued by the then-commander of the Israel Defense Forces
in the West Bank, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, who is now minister for infrastructure.
The Yesha Council of Settlements said in response to the Peace Now report that Israel had halted authorization for
construction on privately owned land in the West Bank after the 1979 court ruling. |
|
|
| Abba |
Legitimization of land theft
By Haaretz Editorial
The theft of private land and lawless construction, with the authorities' collaboration, have long been routine in the land of the settlers. The scope of these deeds and their seriousness are described extensively in the report on illegal outposts compiled by Talia Sasson, formerly a senior state prosecution attorney. The report was buried almost two years ago.
However, the decision of the Supreme Planning Council (SPC) for Judea and Samaria, which was revealed in Haaretz on Sunday, to legitimize the plan to build the Matityahu East neighborhood in Modi'in Ilit, beyond the Green Line, marks a nadir.
The plan is to legitimize 42 high-rises, which are in various stages of construction, some of them on land allegedly stolen from the villagers of Bil'in. All of the high-rises being built contravene the planning and construction laws. Peace Now and Bil'in's residents petitioned the High Court of Justice two years ago to have construction stopped. The legal counsel of Modi'in Ilit warned in writing of "construction offenses of such colossal proportions, ignoring the law and planning regulations, that words cannot describe [them]."
Following the petition, with the support of the State Prosecution, the High Court ordered a halt to construction and to the neighborhood's occupancy more than a year ago. At that time the prosecution instructed the police to open an investigation into those involved in the affair.
The authorities responsible for enforcing the region's planning and building laws knew what was going on and turned a blind eye. Instead, they recently decided to legitimize it retroactively.
Matityahu East is the latest in a series of such affairs in which the separation barrier, supposedly serving Israel's security needs, is used to annex West Bank territory to expand the settlements. The defense minister is dragging his feet on everything concerning the evacuation of illegal outposts. At the same time, bodies he is responsible for - led by the civil administration - are colluding in land grabbing and legitimizing illegal construction throughout the West Bank.
Attorney General Menachem Mazuz is not fulfilling his duty by publicly denouncing the anarchy in the territories in everything concerning law enforcement. He must demand that the defense minister halt the implementation of the SPC's plan until the inquiry into suspicions of land theft is completed.
The scope of the offenses and the advanced stages of building and selling of apartments most not provide shelter for scofflaws. Peace Now is to be commended for its legal aid to Bil'in residents - as are the Israeli and international peace activists who come every week to demonstrate against the fence being built there.
The High Court did not hesitate to halt the construction in Matityahu East until the planning procedures and inquiry into the ownership issue could be completed. If the government does not quash the planning council's decision to allow construction to continue, the High Court will have no choice but to respond to the recent petition. It will have to abrogate that decision, to protect both the rule of law and the rights of those victimized by its breach. |
|
|
| Abba |
Israel/Occupied Territories: Israeli settlers wage campaign of intimidation on Palestinians and internationals alike
press release, 10/25/2004
Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories have stepped up attacks against Palestinians and are waging a campaign of intimidation against international and Israeli human rights activists. Their aim is to eliminate the presence of witnesses to their attacks, thereby depriving the local Palestinian population of this only form of limited protection.
Two US citizens, members of the Christian Peacemaker Team (CPT), were assaulted on 29 September by masked Israeli settlers who beat them with clubs and chains as they accompanied Palestinian children to school near the Tuwani village, South of Hebron. Kim Lamberty sustained a broken arm and knee and bruising to her face, while Chris Brown was left with a punctured lung and multiple bruises. Members of the CPT and other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have been escorting Palestinian children to school to protect them from attacks by Israeli settlers.
A group of hooded Israeli settlers attacked Amnesty International delegates and members of the CPT and the Operation Dove NGO on 9 October as they returned from accompanying Palestinian primary schoolchildren back to their home. The attackers first threw stones at the five internationals and then attacked three of them with wooden clubs. An Amnesty International delegate sustained multiple bruises on her back, arm and leg and the Operation Dove member collapsed and had to be taken to hospital by ambulance. On both occasions, the attackers came from the nearby Israeli settlement of Havat Ma’on and returned there after the attacks.
Rather than taking steps to stop and prevent such attacks and hold Israeli settlers accountable, the Israeli army and security forces have responded by imposing further restrictions on the local Palestinian population.
After the attack, the Israeli army informed the Palestinian villagers that, if the children are accompanied by internationals on their way to and from school, no army patrol will be on site to protect them from Israeli settlers. The Palestinian villagers reluctantly accepted that the schoolchildren have make to the journey without their international escort, but, two days later, on 12 October, the children were again chased by Israeli settlers from the Havat Ma’on settlement while on their way to school. The Israeli army patrol, which was present, did not intervene. Israeli settlers again threw stones as the children passed near the settlement on their way to school on 17 October.
The only alternative is for the schoolchildren to avoid passing near the Israeli settlements by making a long detour that lengthens their walk from 20 minutes to more than two hours each way.
As in previous years around the time of the olive harvest, Israeli settlers have also stepped up attacks on the local Palestinian inhabitants and farmers throughout the West Bank, preventing them from harvesting their crops and destroying or damaging their trees. The Israeli army has done little or nothing to stop the settlers' attack and has, instead, banned the Palestinian farmers from going to their fields, ultimately helping the settlers to force the Palestinians off their land.
Throughout the West Bank, Palestinian farmers are increasingly worried that their olives, one of their few remaining sources of livelihood, are being stolen, destroyed or wasted as they are prevented from working in their fields.
In the northern West Bank region of Nablus, where Palestinian villages are surrounded by Israeli settlements and settlers’ roads, the Israeli army is only allowing Palestinian farmers between two and six days -- on set dates -- to go to their fields to harvest their olives. Palestinian farmers who have tried to go to pick their olives on days other than the set dates have been attacked by settlers and turned away by Israeli army patrols. In the meantime, Israeli settlers have been picking olives in Palestinian groves and have destroyed and burned olive trees in various areas.
Palestinian farmers, accompanied by internationals from the Ecumenical Accompaniment Program, were harvesting their olives in Yanun, near Nablus, on 7 October when two settlers and eight soldiers came and told them to leave. The soldiers did not intervene when armed settlers assaulted a Palestinian farmer, fired shots on the ground near him and tied his hands. The farmer was left handcuffed until a member of the Israeli peace group Taayush (Co-existence) arrived at the scene and intervened with the soldiers.
Palestinian villagers in Yanun have been subjected to attacks by Israeli settlers for years and several families have been driven from the village by repeated attacks against them and their property. All remaining inhabitants were forced to flee the village by Israeli settlers in October 2002. They were later able to return with the help of Israeli and international peace activists. Promises by the Israeli army to keep the Israeli settlers in check have produced no results and settlers have continued to attack and intimidate the villagers with impunity.
In the southern Hebron region, on 15 October, after Israeli peace activists from Rabbis for Human Rights had coordinated with the Israeli army that the Palestinian farmers harvest their olives on that day, the farmers were attacked by armed settlers. The Israeli army patrol responded by telling the Palestinian farmers to leave, claiming that they did not have sufficient forces to protect them from the settlers.
Two days later in Yassuf, near Nablus, Palestinian farmers, accompanied by Israeli and international peace activists, were once again evicted from their olive grove when Israeli settlers turned up. The soldiers, whose presence was supposed to ensure that the Palestinians could harvest their olives, told the farmers and their Israeli and International helpers to leave.
On 11 October, a 26-year-old Palestinian farmer, Hani Shadeh, was shot and seriously wounded in the neck by an Israeli settler as he was picking olives with other farmers in Asira al-Qibliya, a village near Nablus and near the Israeli settlement of Yitzhar. The day before, Israeli settlers had set fire to an olive grove near the Israeli settlement of Tapuach.
Israeli settlers responsible for attacks on Palestinians and their properties have not been brought to justice in the vast majority of cases. Such impunity encourages settlers to commit further attacks and abuses. In the rare cases when Israeli settlers have been brought to justice, they have been treated with a degree of leniency uncommon in other cases.
On 27 September, an Israeli settler from the Elon Moreh Settlement near Nablus shot a Palestinian taxi driver dead. Sayyed Jabara, father of eight, was driving his passengers between Nablus and Salem. The settler claimed that he shot Sayyed Jabara because he thought that he intended to attack him, even though Jabara was not armed. He was released on bail less than 24 hours after the murder.
Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories, established by Israel in violation of international law, are the main reason for the stringent restrictions imposed on the Palestinian population. Some three-and-a-half million Palestinians are prevented from moving between towns and villages; confined to isolated enclaves and cut off from their workplace, their land, health and education facilities and other crucial services.
This is done to keep Palestinians away from Israeli settlements and from the network of roads built for the exclusive use of some 380,000 Israeli settlers. Settlements also continue to be expanded and new ones to be set up on expropriated Palestinian land.
Israeli settlers who attack and harass Palestinian villagers frequently come from settlements established without formal government authorization and which the Israeli authorities have publicly pledged to dismantle. However, settlers are increasingly influential in the army, in government and in parliament. The rare attempts by the Israeli army and security forces to dismantle unauthorized settlements have been mostly half-hearted, with settlers simply refusing to leave or allowed to return to the site shortly after having being evacuated.
In recent months, the Israeli government has announced its intention to dismantle all Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated places in the world where the presence of some 6,000 Israeli settlers has resulted in one-and-a-half million Palestinians being confined to less than 60% percent of the land. However, the Israeli government has no intention to evacuate more than 100 settlements in the West Bank, which take up some of the most fertile Palestinian land and best water resources. On the contrary, Prime Minister Sharon’s bureau chief recently confirmed that the planned pullout from the Gaza Strip is intended to strengthen Israel’s hold of large parts of the West Bank.
Amnesty International has repeatedly called on the Israeli authorities to take measures to evacuate Israeli settlers from the Occupied Territories and, in the meantime, to prevent attacks by Israeli settlers, to investigate the numerous attacks committed by settlers and to bring those responsible to justice. Amnesty International has also repeatedly called on Palestinian armed groups to stop targeting Israeli civilians both inside Israel and in the Occupied Territories. |
|
|
| Abba |
Israeli Settlers occupy a Palestinian house in Hebron
Friday February 16, 2007 04:29
author Saed Bannoura
Palestinian sources in Hebron city, in the southern part of the West Bank, reported on Thursday at night that a group of Israeli settlers occupied an old Palestinian house close to the Abraham Abino illegal settlement outpost in the center of the Old City.
The sources stated that a group of twenty armed settlers occupied the house and remained there while the army provided them with protection instead of evacuating them.
The settlers also demanded that the Civil Administration Office that belongs to the Israeli Army issue a license for them to remain in the occupied house.
Palestinian residents of Hebron reported that settlers have recently increased their attacks against them, their children and their property
The settlers are also apparently campaigning to occupy empty Palestinian homes close to illegal settlement outposts. The houses are empty because the Palestinian residents have been forced to flee due to repeated attacks against them.
Moreover, the settlers are also barring local Palestinian residents from using Al Sahla Road leading to the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron. They also attacked several Palestinian stores in the area, local sources reported.
The city of Hebron is populated by around 10,000 Palestinians and around 400 Israeli settlers. Around 2000 armed Israeli soldiers are deployed in the city, supposedly to protect the settlers, many of whom are also armed. |
|
|
| Abba |
The Israeli Settlers wreaking havoc with the Palestinian Lands and Properties in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
26,December,2006
Introduction
With the coercive launch of the Israeli settlements program in the occupied Palestinian territory, the Israeli settlers� constitute an immanent and constant threat to the original Palestinian inhabitants of the lands, which exceeded life threat to include their livelihood. The Israeli settlers have always induced violent acts against Palestinians by attacking their properties, burning their fields, razing and destroying their agriculture lands, uprooting their trees, occupying their lands and properties and preventing the Palestinian landowners from reaching to their lands to cultivate it.
Over the years, the constant attacks and violence committed by the Israeli settlers� have cost many Palestinian their lives as well as economic losses much of which on the agricultural level, which is perceived by the consecutive Israeli governments and settlers as a prime target next to the Palestinians themselves as it represent a tie between the people and the land that they are desperately trying to break.
Absence of deterrent
Palestinian civil society organizations as well as human rights organizations (including Israelis) have noted, corroborated and recorded over the years that the Israeli settlers� violations against the Palestinians and their properties have always been ultimately supported and often covered and protected by the Israeli Army, and legal proceedings are rarely brought against them.
In light of absence of the accountability and/ or deterrent factor, and with the clear collusion of the Israeli Army in the interest of the settlers, the latter were encouraged without hesitant to escalate their violations and attacks against the Palestinians on their lands, which became a daily practice throughout the occupied territory, which ended at many time with the arrest of the Palestinian farmers defending their lands or worse than that with the death of one of them
Terrorize to Seize
Next to Al-Khader village southwest of Bethlehem district three Israeli settlements were established on agricultural lands confiscated from Palestinian residents from Al-Khader and nearby villages back in the 1970�s and 80�s and today the attacks of these the Israeli settlers continue to grab more lands by any means necessary. Over the years, the Israeli settlers organized systematic attacks against Palestinians� agricultural lands; to destroy and seize, terrorize the owners to abandon their lands after they threaten their lives and all of which being carried out under the supervision and the cover of the Israeli Army. �Miriam Ismaeel� a resident from Al Khader village northwest of Bethlehem and the owner of a piece of land that lays between three Israeli settlements Neve Daniel, Efrat, Elazar and three outposts set as bases for three new settlements in the area. Miriam�s land was attacked by the Israeli settlers who uprooted more than 100 olive trees from the land. This time the attackers came from the Israeli settlement Neve Daniel settlement northwest of Bethlehem Governorate.
The fact of the matter goes beyond this incident, as the Israeli settlers� real target rest in the 2000 Dunums, (of which Miriam�s land is a part of) located in-between the Israeli settlements and the outpost. The targeted land which is part of the Israeli Gush Etzion settlements bloc is the object of future expansion plans for the Israeli settlements and the outposts. Moreover, this is not the first time the Palestinian lands at that area had been attacked by the Israeli settlers. In the last year, the Israeli settlers attacked the same land area (2000 Dunums) and uprooted hundreds of Olive trees.
To Conclude
Even after decades of Israeli harassments and illegal seizure of Palestinians� lands, still the Israeli settlers are improvising new methods and ways to squeeze and push the Palestinians� out of their lands; uprooting trees, destroy and burning the field crops, pumping wastewater onto the agricultural lands; causing numerous and enormous economic losses and hazardous health problems to the Palestinian residents. In fact, the Israeli bullying methods exceeded harassing Palestinian on their lands to include their residential houses as many houses were destroyed as a way to push the people to abandon their lands; even though such procedure comes in violation of The Fourth Geneva Convention, and is a war crime under the convention and the protocols additional to the convention.
Article 33 prohibits all forms of collective punishment, and land leveling and property destruction carried out by Israeli forces are collective punishments. The article states: �No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.�
�Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.�
Article 147 of the convention considers �extensive destruction and appropriate of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly� as a grave breach of the Convention and thus constitute a war crime.
Article 55 of the Hague Convention stipulates that 'the occupying state shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country.
Uprooting and Land leveling also contradict the International covenant on Economics, Social or Cultural Rights. Article 1 of the Covenant states that �in no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.�
Article 5 does not give any state, group or person any right to �engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights or freedoms recognized herein...� |
|
|
| Abba |
Since the beginning of this century, the Palestinians have been fighting for their land, independence, and liberty. In 1917, Palestine was governed by the British. It was in that year that the "Balfour Declaration" was drafted as a result of continuing Zionist pressure supporting a Jewish state in the area. Over thirty years later, in 1948, Israel was finally declared a state. The State of Israel was founded on approximately four-fifths of Palestine, taking more land than the United Nations' 1947 Partition Plan had proposed.
During and after the 1948 War, a transfer policy was carried out and four out of every five Palestinians in the area inside Israel became refugees. Approximately 714,000 of the 800,000 Palestinians in this area lost their land, homes, and property. At least 418 villages were depopulated and demolished (PASSIA, 1997).
One major consequence of the 1948 War was that a whole segment of the rural highland of central Palestine (which became known as the West Bank) became isolated from its cultivable land, coastal markets, and metropolitan centers as the State of Israel was founded on the fertile coastal plains. The population became landlocked. Those areas of Palestine that were not incorporated into the State of Israel were incorporated into the neighboring countries. Jordan took over control of the West Bank and Egypt administered the Gaza Strip.
Beginning on June 5, 1967, the Six Days War allowed the Israeli army to occupy the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), the Gaza Strip, the Sinai, and the Golan Heights. A new wave of more than 350,000 Palestinian refugees were forced to leave the area, and many of the Palestinian villages close to Jerusalem were destroyed.
In 1967, Israel expanded the borders of East Jerusalem from 6.5 to over 70 km² to include vacant lands from many West Bank villages, while excluding populated areas. Later, in 1980, Israel formally annexed the extended East Jerusalem as part of Israel, and placed the Palestinian part of the city, including the Old City, under the legal jurisdiction of Israel and the Israeli Municipality of Jerusalem.
There are now more than 250 Israeli colonies and sites built in the West Bank, including Palestinian East Jerusalem. Despite international pressure against the Israeli colonizing campaigns, which are in direct violation of international laws, Israel is continuing with its colony expansion policy.
Tension between the Israeli occupation army and the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip grew and finally erupted in December of 1987. The "Intifada" was an unplanned popular uprising, which came from inside Palestinian society, and acted to change the political situation. In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) declared the establishment of a Palestinian State in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip. At the same time, the PLO officially accepted the concept of a two-state solution to the Palestinian problem and the right of Israel to exist.
The major turning point in the Arab/Israeli conflict occurred on 29 October 1991 with the start of the Madrid Peace Conference. For the first time, the Palestinian Territories were invited to a meeting addressing the Middle East conflict. Although it was not on an equal basis, it was a start. This conference provided the legitimacy and the framework for future rounds of peace negotiations and agreements. The direct outcome of the Madrid Conference was the birth of two separate negotiating tracks: the bilateral and multilateral talks. Soon after, separate bilateral negotiations were initiated between Israel from one side and the Palestinians, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria on the other. Multilateral talks on key regional issues have been frequently held as well. Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on the interim period started in Washington, D.C. The composition of the Palestinian negotiating team was restricted at this time to members who were residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. |
|
|
| booybob |
| where is COLIN POWELL when you need him? |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by booybob
where is COLIN POWELL when you need him? |
Don't worry! I think this thread MIGHT survive without your predictably inane comments.....
I'm sure you can find some shiny or spinning objects around your house to hold your attention...... |
|
|
| zimmie |
| Thats what Benny Morris thinks.......I'd rather hear what Benny Hill thinks.... |
|
|
| curleydan |
| i guess its ok to hate people on this board, as long as the people you hate are jewish. |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by Abba
Some people think that Israel is a victim, and has been since it was created.
I aim to dispell that myth.
I will only use Israeli sources to show how pretty much 90% of Israel is ILLEGAL and IMMORAL.
Please argue only with facts, not rhetoric. Thanks.
First Up, Benny Morris. |
fuck off you muslim piece of dog shit
don't you have some suicide bombing to do ?
look just admit it you hate jews , you hate israel and you wish hitler finished the job but as a reminder even if israel ceases to exsist..muslims will still be killing each other like they do now and have for centuries and will continue to do so. people like you can justify it all you want. |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by curleydan
i guess its ok to hate people on this board, as long as the people you hate are jewish. |
what does race have to do with it? |
|
|
| curleydan |
| well if you point out all the bad things muslims do, you are labeled a racist. but if you point out the bad things israel does, you are a very tolerant person. |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
well I can see your point, however the atrocities of israel are state sponsored, and are paid for by our tax dollars, so there is something that we can do about them. So I dont really agree. Do we not have a right to complain about how our money is used?
FW |
|
|
| therocker69 |
| I love when some Muslims talk only about Israel instead of being concerned with the wrongdoings that some of their Muslim brethren commit. |
|
|
| Abba |
Quote: Originally posted by therocker69
I love when some Muslims talk only about Israel instead of being concerned with the wrongdoings that some of their Muslim brethren commit. |
I think we can all agree that there are a GREAT MANY FUCKED UP "Muslims" out there. No one is going to argue that with you.
HOWEVER, the fact does remain that Israel is free from the same crticism we head upon Muslims and their Nations.
We can condemn Saddam, hell, we even went to war over him, but when Israel partakes in the same kind fo behavior, it's labeled a democratic country under seige.
Furthermore, in the same way iran is criticized for it's inherent racism, so to should Israel be scrutinized. I am NOT, I repeat, NOT bashing Jews, unlike the attacks on Islam that this board is permeated with. If Duke-here is a representative of Judiasm, then his words reflect the overall idea of Israel.
Unlike simpletons like him, though, I won't and will never resort to ad hominem attacks on someone's faith. I only strive to point out the TRUTH, and that truth is that WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA actively support inherently racist and supremacist policies. Yes FW, you're right. They're our dollars, and we deserve to know where they're going. If US funds weren't propping up the aparthied policies of Israel, it wouldn't be as big a deal. The fact remains, however, that we do, and our aversion to any kind of justice for the opressed masses of Palestine serves only to damage our standing in this world.
Finally, Dude-Here... What can I say? You do nothing but disgrace yourself. I suppose you care little what drivel you put out there for all to see. Shame isn't a factor for you, is it???
It's ok, every time you lay your hands on a keyboard you only SUPPORT MY conclusions about these issues we discuss. Keep it up, and thanks. :D |
|
|
| curleydan |
Quote: Originally posted by Abba
I think we can all agree that there are a GREAT MANY FUCKED UP "Muslims" out there. No one is going to argue that with you.
HOWEVER, the fact does remain that Israel is free from the same crticism we head upon Muslims and their Nations.
We can condemn Saddam, hell, we even went to war over him, but when Israel partakes in the same kind fo behavior, it's labeled a democratic country under seige.
Furthermore, in the same way iran is criticized for it's inherent racism, so to should Israel be scrutinized. I am NOT, I repeat, NOT bashing Jews, unlike the attacks on Islam that this board is permeated with. If Duke-here is a representative of Judiasm, then his words reflect the overall idea of Israel.
Unlike simpletons like him, though, I won't and will never resort to ad hominem attacks on someone's faith. I only strive to point out the TRUTH, and that truth is that WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA actively support inherently racist and supremacist policies. Yes FW, you're right. They're our dollars, and we deserve to know where they're going. If US funds weren't propping up the aparthied policies of Israel, it wouldn't be as big a deal. The fact remains, however, that we do, and our aversion to any kind of justice for the opressed masses of Palestine serves only to damage our standing in this world.
Finally, Dude-Here... What can I say? You do nothing but disgrace yourself. I suppose you care little what drivel you put out there for all to see. Shame isn't a factor for you, is it???
It's ok, every time you lay your hands on a keyboard you only SUPPORT MY conclusions about these issues we discuss. Keep it up, and thanks. :D |
my nomination for biggest bullshit post of the day. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Hater |
I don't understand the hatred in America of Palestine..
in my mind it's simple to comprehend...if somebody came into your country, told you had to leave b/c somebody else was moving in, and forcibly moved you to some shitty corner of your old country what would you do?
I don't know about you all but if I suddenly got moved to some camp in Washington I'd be fighting...bombing....etc...call me crazy, I find it completely rational to find for your land...
I'm not anti-israel but I'm also not anti-palestine b/c I can see why they might be pissed... |
|
|
| curleydan |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
well I can see your point, however the atrocities of israel are state sponsored, and are paid for by our tax dollars, so there is something that we can do about them. So I dont really agree. Do we not have a right to complain about how our money is used?
FW |
well i would argue that when a group of people resort to using terrorism to try to achieve victory over a country, the way the country responds might not always be pretty. i firmly believe that if the muslims would quit blowing themselves up in their markets and doing everything possible to harm israel, israel wouldnt bother them. but when you are dealing with muslims who would rather die than let a jew live its a bit of a no win situation. until the muslims are able to live in peace with a jewish neighbor, israel will continue to fight, and i will support that fight. |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
what does race have to do with it? |
ISRAEL is a jewish state ! |
|
|
| Hater |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
ISRAEL is a jewish state ! |
thread assassin in the house...holla! |
|
|
| tom sizemore |
Quote: Originally posted by Hater
I don't understand the hatred in America of Palestine..
in my mind it's simple to comprehend...if somebody came into your country, told you had to leave b/c somebody else was moving in, and forcibly moved you to some shitty corner of your old country what would you do?
I don't know about you all but if I suddenly got moved to some camp in Washington I'd be fighting...bombing....etc...call me crazy, I find it completely rational to find for your land...
I'm not anti-israel but I'm also not anti-palestine b/c I can see why they might be pissed... |
It's quite easy to understand, veiled racism is what it comes down to. 99.9% of the hatred is from these inbred hillbilly redneck motherfuckers. |
|
|
| curleydan |
Quote: Originally posted by tom sizemore
It's quite easy to understand, veiled racism is what it comes down to. 99.9% of the hatred is from these inbred hillbilly redneck motherfuckers. |
aint nothing veiled about it. until muslims can learn to live on this planet with people that dont worship the same way they do, i have have as much use for them as they do me. zero. |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by Abba
I think we can all agree that there are a GREAT MANY FUCKED UP "Muslims" out there. No one is going to argue that with you.
HOWEVER, the fact does remain that Israel is free from the same crticism we head upon Muslims and their Nations.
We can condemn Saddam, hell, we even went to war over him, but when Israel partakes in the same kind fo behavior, it's labeled a democratic country under seige.
Furthermore, in the same way iran is criticized for it's inherent racism, so to should Israel be scrutinized. I am NOT, I repeat, NOT bashing Jews, unlike the attacks on Islam that this board is permeated with. If Duke-here is a representative of Judiasm, then his words reflect the overall idea of Israel.
Unlike simpletons like him, though, I won't and will never resort to ad hominem attacks on someone's faith. I only strive to point out the TRUTH, and that truth is that WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA actively support inherently racist and supremacist policies. Yes FW, you're right. They're our dollars, and we deserve to know where they're going. If US funds weren't propping up the aparthied policies of Israel, it wouldn't be as big a deal. The fact remains, however, that we do, and our aversion to any kind of justice for the opressed masses of Palestine serves only to damage our standing in this world.
Finally, Dude-Here... What can I say? You do nothing but disgrace yourself. I suppose you care little what drivel you put out there for all to see. Shame isn't a factor for you, is it???
It's ok, every time you lay your hands on a keyboard you only SUPPORT MY conclusions about these issues we discuss. Keep it up, and thanks. :D |
so your solution is to tell everyone in israel to leave and give back right of return and uproot the only functioning Democracy in the middle east.
fuck off
and if pals didn't blow themselves up...they would not be having all these problems
what do you think would happen in tghis country if suicide bombings started occuring at the same rate ..what do you think we would do to muslims here ? i love when they call israel racist..thats funny..there are jews from all over the world who live there including ethiopia but muslims are not racist. muslims are wolves in peace clothing. they are the most vile people right now in the world. anywhere you have a muslims counbtry youhave problems. look at france, they took in all these skum bags and now they have turned on them. muslims are back stabbers ..always have been and always will be . |
|
|
| Hater |
Quote: Originally posted by tom sizemore
It's quite easy to understand, veiled racism is what it comes down to. 99.9% of the hatred is from these inbred hillbilly redneck motherfuckers. |
True true...thank god for Meth...it's our only hope to thin the redneck population...
Meth is the only way for non-kid having liberals to compete with rednecks... |
|
|
| Hater |
Quote: Originally posted by curleydan
aint nothing veiled about it. until muslims can learn to live on this planet with people that dont worship the same way they do, i have have as much use for them as they do me. zero. |
The same could be said for Christians...dick... |
|
|
| curleydan |
| yeah, because christians spend countless hours each day plotting the murder of innocent jews. |
|
|
| tom sizemore |
God bless the south. Christ do I get sick to my stomach any time I have to go south. Its like you are on another planet.
inbred fuckheads |
|
|
| Hater |
Quote: Originally posted by curleydan
yeah, because christians spend countless hours each day plotting the murder of innocent jews. |
no, they spend countless hours each day plotting the murder of innocent muslims...
your blanket statement about muslims shows your blatant ignorance of the world...you're a fucking moron...
the percentage of muslims that hate Americans, Israelis is minute compared to the overall number of muslims...
how would you like it if we group all christians with the fanatics that attack people of other religions? that vandalize mosques and jewish temples? why don't we associate all Christians with these deviants the same way you associate all Muslims with a tiny number of Islamist Extremists? |
|
|
| Hater |
Quote: Originally posted by tom sizemore
God bless the south. Christ do I get sick to my stomach any time I have to go south. Its like you are on another planet.
inbred fuckheads |
SAVE AMERICA, BECOME A METH DEALER. |
|
|
| curleydan |
| dont worry, we dont get real excited when you cocksucking yankees come down here. |
|
|
| tom sizemore |
Quote: Originally posted by curleydan
yeah, because christians spend countless hours each day plotting the murder of innocent jews. |
yeah and the entire muslim population does this. FUCK ARE YOU DUMB.
How many muslims do you know personally cocksucker?
Funny I know quite a few and they are some of the most tolerant people on the planet.
No wait I get it, its a facade, the doc down the street him and his family are secretly in their basements every night plotting the take down of western civilization. His wife is getting his new born baby's stroller fitted for explosives.
LOL.....keep it up you look stupid. |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by Hater
The same could be said for Christians...dick... |
yea hundreds of years ago...
where do you see christians rioting because people are renovating a church
last week muslims in jeruselum rioted because people were renovating a mosque. so if people did nothing and let it fall on their heads then they would riot because no one renovated this mosque..
you can't win with these people...damed if you do , dambed if you don't |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by tom sizemore
yeah and the entire muslim population does this. FUCK ARE YOU DUMB.
How many muslims do you know personally cocksucker?
Funny I know quite a few and they are some of the most tolerant people on the planet.
No wait I get it, its a facade, the doc down the street him and his family are secretly in their basements every night plotting the take down of western civilization. His wife is getting his new born baby's stroller fitted for explosives.
LOL.....keep it up you look stupid. |
YEA HERE IN AMERICA THEY ARE TOLERANT...BUT OVER THERE IN BUTT FUCK MIDDLE EAST
NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| Abba |
Quote: Originally posted by curleydan
well i would argue that when a group of people resort to using terrorism to try to achieve victory over a country, the way the country responds might not always be pretty. i firmly believe that if the muslims would quit blowing themselves up in their markets and doing everything possible to harm israel, israel wouldnt bother them. but when you are dealing with muslims who would rather die than let a jew live its a bit of a no win situation. until the muslims are able to live in peace with a jewish neighbor, israel will continue to fight, and i will support that fight. |
Israel resorted to STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM to CREATE Itself. Holy Shit, what the fuck's the matter with you? Do you boither to read anything, or do you see "Israel" and automatically take a verbal shit?
read the Benny Morris Interview.
The justification of Israel's creation is like saying "the US has 50 States, it can afford to lose one to Jewdistan". Are you fuckin kidding me?
If Some foreigners came into your state and FORCED you out of YOUR HOUSE with only what you could carry on your back, and then claimed your state as their new country, you would just tuck in those little balls of yours and leave peacefully right? You wouldn't fight back, right? You would condemn your neighbors who took up arms against the theiving scum, right?
Grow up, child. Your logic is deeply flawed, so much so that I truly hesistate to call it "logic". |
|
|
| curleydan |
Quote: Originally posted by tom sizemore
yeah and the entire muslim population does this. FUCK ARE YOU DUMB.
How many muslims do you know personally cocksucker?
Funny I know quite a few and they are some of the most tolerant people on the planet.
No wait I get it, its a facade, the doc down the street him and his family are secretly in their basements every night plotting the take down of western civilization. His wife is getting his new born baby's stroller fitted for explosives.
LOL.....keep it up you look stupid. |
i look stupid? you pretend that christians are just as bad, if not worse than muslims. thats using all your brain there chief. just another muslim apologist. i know one muslim personally and he is the most self absorbed backstabbing mother fucker i have ever met. but hey, at least he hasnt come to work with a bomb strapped to his body yet....yet. |
|
|
| | |
