Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumIsrael is pulling the West Bank out from under Palestinian feet
Israel has issued over 14,000 demolition orders against Palestinian structures in the West Banks Area C since 1988, according to a new report released by OCHA-oPt. Nearly 3,000 demolitions have been carried out in that time, leaving more than 11,000 orders outstanding that affect over 17,000 structures. OCHA-oPt derived its report from figures released earlier this year by the Civil Administration, Israels governing body in the West Bank.
Demolitions in the West Bank have been under scrutiny recently, following a period of intensive activity in which Israel demolished 143 Palestinian structures in the space of a month. Israel justifies demolitions by arguing that the structures in question have been built without a permit. However, it is almost impossible for Palestinians in Area C to obtain building permits: between 2010 and 2014 only 1.5 percent of permit requests were granted to Palestinians, the report states.
In addition, 77 percent of the demolition orders have been issued against structures located on private Palestinian land; permits for building in these areas were likely refused because of the lack of a planning scheme or outline plan. Currently, only one percent of land in Area C has been designated for Palestinian development.
---
The figures presented in OCHA-oPts report indicate the scale of the threat of demolitions for Area Cs Palestinian residents. Although only a minority of demolition orders have been executed, they do not expire, leav[ing] affected households in a state of chronic uncertainty and threat. This exerts tremendous psychological pressure on affected individuals, who are forced to live with the sword of Damocles dangling over their necks. When orders are carried out they result in homelessness, loss of livelihood and deepening poverty. Moreover, the Israeli army has at times used demolitions either as bargaining chips to pressure Palestinians into stopping anti-occupation demonstrations, or as a means of collective punishment.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And at DU, as in the world, many supporters of Israel continue to deny that Israel has any intentions of eliminating Palestine as a viable state.
They are pushing the Palestinian people into smaller and smaller spaces, even as they encourage Jews from every country in the world to immigrate to Israel. Where will they put all these immigrants? In Palestine, of course.
I had a recent discussion with a supporter of Israel who denied that Israel is taking land. I provided a link that shows (on a map) how the settlements have been physically growing.
I am still waiting for a response to that link/map.
Israeli
(4,151 posts)With a naive tone, jovial denial of the existence of Palestinians and winsome depiction of settlers and life in the West Bank, Israels settlement lobby creates an illustrated guide to hasbaraland.
Source: http://972mag.com/the-idiots-guide-to-whitewashing-the-occupation/111533/
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The "comic book" approach to revisionist history is much in evidence here.
Hated to see the maple leaf in the picture.
shira
(30,109 posts)...which the Palestinians, the UN, EU, UK, and US agreed to.
The rest of your post is nonsense too.
How many times do the Palestinians (their leaders) need to reject having their own state alongside Israel before you realize they don't want their own state as much as they want all the land (and Israel gone)?
Your position is highly hypocritical too.
1. What do u care about settlements when you advocate 1-state after full RoR? Those settlements would just be incorporated into your 1-state. I see why 2-state advocates would care about settlements. That's a legitimate concern, but 1-state advocates? Sheer hypocrisy.
2. This 1-state advocacy after full RoR also denies Jews their own state & sovereignty. So you're advocating the rights of one people at the expense of the other. You want to give Palestinians their rights by taking away the rights of Jews. And somehow this is Just and Moral? Seriously?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)not really reality-based.
Israel is pretty much the de-facto owner of the West Bank right now, and their illegal colonization of the West Bank proves this.
Their destruction of Palestinian properties proves this.
Their destruction of the Palestinian people proves this: shootings, bombings and the murder of children.
But there will always be a cadre of misguided individuals, who will jump through flaming hoops, in order to direct attention away from the human rights disaster that is the modern Israeli apartheid state.
So please keep up with your "Israel doesn't really..." nonsense, but the only ones who believe that are the ones who don't want to give back to the Palestinians what Israel has stolen from them.
shira
(30,109 posts)....of the W.Bank. There are no settlers and no Jews in Gaza, nor in areas A or B either.
The rest of your post is sheer nonsense.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Because if it were, then any incursions by the US, UK, or NATO into any foreign country would be effective control (occupation).
What a nonsense accusation.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I delivered, and you choked by demanding more: changing the goal posts yet again.
Your failure is complete as usual.
As I noted earlier...
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I wonder why that is.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Fortunately, Israel is hesitant to start another intifada by demolishing too many Palestinian homes, and the world is beginning to take notice of Israel's mismanagement of the West Bank.
Apartheid is unpopular everywhere but in Israel.
shira
(30,109 posts)Here, try this...
Name 1 or 2 credible organizations that are in no way sympathetic to or supportive of Jew hating fascists (like Hamas) that claim Israel is Apartheid.
Is that asking too much? Can you do it?
Israeli
(4,151 posts)but I can shira .....
Meretz ............which I once again remind you that you stated you would vote for if you could ..........
JANUARY 8, 2007
Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel
by SHULAMIT ALONI
Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see whats right in front of our eyes. Its simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.
The US Jewish Establishments onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the populations movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades.
If that were not enough, the generals commanding the region frequently issue further orders, regulations, instructions and rules (let us not forget: they are the lords of the land). By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing "Jewish only" roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at nightall that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way.
On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. "Why?" I asked the soldier. "Its an orderthis is a Jews-only road", he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. "It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?"
Indeed Apartheid does exist here. And our army is not "the most moral army in the world" as we are told by its commanders. Sufficient to mention that every town and every village has turned into a detention centre and that every entry and every exit has been closed, cutting it off from arterial traffic. If it were not enough that Palestinians are not allowed to travel on the roads paved for Jews only, on their land, the current GOC found it necessary to land an additional blow on the natives in their own land with an "ingenious proposal".
Humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either.
Major-General Naveh, renowned for his superior patriotism, has issued a new order. Coming into affect on 19 January, it prohibits the conveyance of Palestinians without a permit. The order determines that Israelis are not allowed to transport Palestinians in an Israeli vehicle (one registered in Israel regardless of what kind of numberplate it carries) unless they have received explicit permission to do so. The permit relates to both the driver and the Palestinian passenger. Of course none of this applies to those whose labour serves the settlers. They and their employers will naturally receive the required permits so they can continue to serve the lords of the land, the settlers.
Did man of peace President Carter truly err in concluding that Israel is creating Apartheid? Did he exaggerate? Dont the US Jewish community leaders recognise the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination of 7 March 1966, to which Israel is a signatory? Are the US Jews who launched the loud and abusive campaign against Carter for supposedly maligning Israels character and its democratic and humanist nature unfamiliar with the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 30 November 1973? Apartheid is defined therein as an international crime that among other things includes using different legal instruments to rule over different racial groups, thus depriving people of their human rights. Isnt freedom of travel one of these rights?
In the past, the US Jewish community leaders were quite familiar with the meaning of those conventions. For some reason, however, they are convinced that Israel is allowed to contravene them. Its OK to kill civilians, women and children, old people and parents with their children, deliberately or otherwise without accepting any responsibility. Its permissible to rob people of their lands, destroy their crops, and cage them up like animals in the zoo. From now on, Israelis and International humanitarian organisations volunteers are prohibited from assisting a woman in labour by taking her to the hospital. [Israeli human rights group] Yesh Din volunteers cannot take a robbed and beaten-up Palestinian to the police station to lodge a complaint. (Police stations are located at the heart of the settlements.) Is there anyone who believes that this is not Apartheid?
Jimmy Carter does not need me to defend his reputation that has been sullied by Israelophile community officials. The trouble is that their love of Israel distorts their judgment and blinds them from seeing whats in front of them. Israel is an occupying power that for 40 years has been oppressing an indigenous people, which is entitled to a sovereign and independent existence while living in peace with us. We should remember that we too used very violent terror against foreign rule because we wanted our own state. And the list of victims of terror is quite long and extensive.
We do limit ourselves to denying the [Palestinian] people human rights. We not only rob of them of their freedom, land and water. We apply collective punishment to millions of people and even, in revenge-driven frenzy, destroy the electricity supply for one and half million civilians. Let them "sit in the darkness" and "starve".
Employees cannot be paid their wages because Israel is holding 500 million shekels that belong to the Palestinians. And after all that we remain "pure as the driven snow". There are no moral blemishes on our actions. There is no racial separation. There is no Apartheid. Its an invention of the enemies of Israel. Hooray for our brothers and sisters in the US! Your devotion is very much appreciated. You have truly removed a nasty stain from us. Now there can be an extra spring in our step as we confidently abuse the Palestinian population, using the "most moral army in the world".
[Translated by Sol Salbe]
SHULAMIT ALONI is the former Education Minister of Israel. She has been awarded both the Israel Prize and the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.
Source : http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/01/08/yes-there-is-apartheid-in-israel/
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The article is almost ten years old.
This is not the current position of Meretz.
Israeli
(4,151 posts)At best you are a Centralist .....at worst you are a supporter of Kach ..
ref : http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134112536
By all means back up shira ....she is still proven wrong ...ref :
oberliner
(58,724 posts)A supporter of Kach?
What a loathsome post.
you seem to ...to me ....
ref : http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134112536
King_David
(14,851 posts)That comment sounds like it comes from a 3rd rate blog that smears every Jewish Zionist poster with an accusation of being a "Kahanist "
Disgusting!
Israeli
(4,151 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)He's constantly in court suing everybody.
Israeli
(4,151 posts)I would not waste my time or effort or money on you or oberliner.
Your posts speak for themselves .....no court is needed .
King_David
(14,851 posts)Umetuka
שנה טובה
(I still like and respect you no matter how you feel about me)
Israeli
(4,151 posts)Sorry to burst your bubble .
" (I still like and respect you no matter how you feel about me) "
Try me again at Yom Kippur when you and oberliner are ready to atone for insinuating that I am not Israeli .
I might be more receptive then ....there again I probably wont .
Sugar, Honey, Honey.........
King_David
(14,851 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Amos Oz, AB Yehoshua, and David Grossman are also Meretz.
They are not post-Zionists who cavort with neo-fascists. They're ZIONISTS with a capital 'Z'.
Israeli
(4,151 posts)...........she was everything you are not .
shira
(30,109 posts)Israeli
(4,151 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Israel = Apartheid is no more the Meretz position than it is the Democratic Party's position here in America.
Israeli
(4,151 posts)Everything you stand for we stand against .
shira
(30,109 posts)Right, they're everything Post- and Anti- Zionists stand for.
And you still haven't shown that the Meretz position is that Israel = Apartheid.
Israeli
(4,151 posts).....most of us that vote Meretz are .....the rest of us vote Hadash .
What are you so worried about ???
The majority think as you do ......why do you need to pretend ?
shira
(30,109 posts)Really?
Why Meretz and not Hadash for the post-Zionists?
Israeli
(4,151 posts)I will let Avraham Burg answer for me .......
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4615046,00.html
The more you push us shira ...the more Left we will go.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Fascinating that you consider that going further Left.
Israeli
(4,151 posts)I voted Meretz last elections ....and yes ...going Hadash is going further Left .
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Source: Haaretz, Dec 11, 2006
Former president stands by new book despite criticism, says it is meant to stimulate debate in U.S.
Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter said in remarks broadcast Monday that Israeli policy in the West Bank represented instances of apartheid worse even that those that once held sway in South Africa.
Carter's comments were broadcast on Israel Radio, which played a tape of an interview with the ex-president, but did not specify to whom Carter was speaking. But has made similar remarks in recent interviews, such as one to CBC television.
"When Israel does occupy this territory deep within the West Bank, and connects the 200-or-so settlements with each other, with a road, and then prohibits the Palestinians from using that road, or in many cases even crossing the road, this perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa."
Carter said his new book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" was meant to spark U.S. discussion of Israeli policies. "The hope is that my book will at least stimulate a debate, which has not existed in this country. There's never been any debate on this issue, of any significance."
Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/news/jimmy-carter-israel-s-apartheid-policies-worse-than-south-africa-s-1.206865
shira
(30,109 posts)Come on.
I asked for a credible organization, not individuals who believe Israel = Apartheid. Besides, here's what Carter said about Apartheid...
So if he didnt mean "apartheid", why did he use that emotive, damaging word? It was certainly a huckstering advertising winner and, together with the power of his presidential name, drove the book into the bestseller lists. Carter explained that he chose the title to be "provocative" because he wanted to publicize the "horrible treatment" of Palestinians, which he said was not known in the United States.
He insisted that using the word "apartheid" to describe Israels West Bank policies[font color = "red"] "should give no aid or comfort to any of those who have attempted to equate racism with Zionism."[/font] That drew a derisive comment from New York Times writer Roger Cohen: "Nice try, Jimmy. Trying to take race out of the word 'apartheid' is as far-fetched as trying to take Jew out of the word 'Zionism'. It doesnt work."
http://www.i24news.tv/en/opinion/69175-150427-carter-the-apartheid-issue-and-israel
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)In 2009, a comprehensive 18-month independent academic study was completed for the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa for the South African Department of Foreign Affairs on the legal status of Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[62] The specific questions examined in the study were whether Israeli policies are consistent with colonialism and apartheid, as these practices and regimes are spelled out in relevant international legal instruments. The second question, regarding apartheid, was the major focus of the study. Authors and analysts contributing to the study included jurists, academics and international lawyers from Israel, the occupied Palestinian territories, South Africa, England, Ireland and the United States. The team considered whether human rights law can be applied to cases of belligerent occupation, the legal context in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories and related international law and comparative practices. The question of apartheid was examined through a dual approach: reference to international law and comparison to policies and practices by the apartheid regime in South Africa. Initially released as a report, the report was later edited and published in 2012 (by Pluto Press) as Beyond Occupation: Apartheid, Colonialism and International Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Regarding international law, the team reported that Israel's practices in the OPT correlate almost entirely with the definition of apartheid as established in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. (The exception was the Convention's reference to genocidal policies, which were not found to be part of Israeli practices, although the team noted that genocide was not the policy in apartheid South Africa either.) Comparison to South African laws and practices by the apartheid regime also found strong correlations with Israeli practices, including violations of international standards for due process (such as illegal detention); discriminatory privileges based on ascribed ethnicity (legally, as Jewish or non-Jewish); draconian enforced ethnic segregation in all parts of life, including by confining groups to ethnic "reserves and ghettoes"; comprehensive restrictions on individual freedoms, such as movement and expression; a dual legal system based on ethno-national identity (Jewish or Palestinian); denationalization (denial of citizenship); and a special system of laws designed selectively to punish any Palestinian resistance to the system.
Thematically, the team concluded that Israel's practices could be grouped into three "pillars" of apartheid comparable to practices in South Africa:
The first pillar "derives from Israeli laws and policies that establish Jewish identity for purposes of law and afford a preferential legal status and material benefits to Jews over non-Jews".
The second pillar is reflected in "Israel's 'grand' policy to fragment the OPT [and] ensure that Palestinians remain confined to the reserves designated for them while Israeli Jews are prohibited from entering those reserves but enjoy freedom of movement throughout the rest of the Palestinian territory. This policy is evidenced by Israel's extensive appropriation of Palestinian land, which continues to shrink the territorial space available to Palestinians; the hermetic closure and isolation of the Gaza Strip from the rest of the OPT; the deliberate severing of East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank; and the appropriation and construction policies serving to carve up the West Bank into an intricate and well-serviced network of connected settlements for Jewish-Israelis and an archipelago of besieged and non-contiguous enclaves for Palestinians".
The third pillar is "Israel's invocation of 'security' to validate sweeping restrictions on Palestinian freedom of opinion, expression, assembly, association and movement [to] mask a true underlying intent to suppress dissent to its system of domination and thereby maintain control over Palestinians as a group."
Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy
The reason I'm posting this is because I've never heard of this study before, and it seems to be in line what I already know about the situation in the occupied territories, but I wonder what your opinion is about how serious this study is. After all, you do have a knack for being well-informed...
shira
(30,109 posts)Same John Dugard who not only believes Hamas rockets into Israel are a form of legit resistance, but that Israel doesn't have a right to self-defense against them either.
So given the fact that Gaza is an occupied territory, it means that Israels present assault on Gaza is simply a way of enforcing the continuation of the occupation, and the response of the Palestinian militants should be seen as the response of an occupied people that wishes to resist the occupation. It has taken this resistance into Israel itself, but it still remains resistance. And I think it would be very helpful to see the occupation of Gaza in the same context as one might see, for instance, the occupation of, shall we say, Netherlands during the Second World War by Germany. Its an occupied territory, and if Israel uses force against the occupied territory, its not acting in self-defense. Its acting as an occupying power.
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/6/can_israel_claim_self_defense_against
This guy was special UN Rappertoir for the Palestinian Territories, for years. Hamas rockets are war crimes, but legitimate to Dugard.
Sense a pattern yet?
There are no credible organizations calling Israel Apartheid (Colonial, Genocidal, Ethnic Cleanser, etc..) that aren't supportive of the fascist Jew haters of Hamas. They just repeat the same incitement & insanity that Hamas, Iran, & Qatar spew on a daily basis.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)caused.
Dugard seems to be saying that what Israel did in Gaza is worse than what Hamas did in Israel, and that Israel didn't do it self-defense. Whether the rockets actually constitute a war crime is up to debate, as they don't kill that many people.
Fortunately, the Gaza war will be investigated by the ICC, and one day we will know whether war crimes were committed.
But do you have any objections to the findings of the study at all? If it's flawed, it's because it's flawed, not because who wrote it...
shira
(30,109 posts)Do you at least see a problem with people who support rockets launched indiscriminately from Jew hating fascists like Hamas & Islamic Jihad into populated areas?
Try to understand that for the vast majority of Jews, it's hard to take people seriously who support, defend, or justify Hamas attacks on innocents. That's why this report you cited is crap.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Most of the people that seem to be critical have not read the book, or they havent referred to anything inside Palestine, and the book is not written about Israel at all. I know that Israel is a wonderful democracy with equal treatment of all citizens whether Arab or Jew. And so I very carefully avoided talking about anything inside Israel.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/carters-rhetoric-of-apartheid/
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)I also agree with Jimmy Carter's assessment that the term is applicable to the occupied territories. Do you agree or disagree with his assessment?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I can see why Carter would use that term with respect to the occupied territories, though I think it is inapt because it implies a racial component that does not exist (as Carter himself has pointed out). I am less concerned with the nomenclature and more concerned with figuring out a way to get both sides together to support an argument along the lines of the Geneva Initiative (of which Carter was an early proponent and supporter).
msongs
(67,413 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Interesting.