Over 1000 Israeli troops raid Jerusalem refugee camp to demolish home

[Jefferson23]

Israeli security forces stand guard in the east Jerusalem Shuafat refugee camp ahead of a planned demolition of a home of a Palestinian who carried out car-ramming attack last year, on 2 December 2015 (AFP)

Linah Alsaafin

Last update:
Wednesday 2 December 2015

Over 1,200 Israeli troops stormed the Shuafat refugee camp in Jerusalem on Wednesday morning and blew up the house of a Palestinian man who rammed his car at a light rail stop last year.

Ibrahim al-Akkari, 47, was shot dead by Israeli forces after running over and killing one Israeli soldier on 5 November 2014 in Jerusalem. Thirteen other Israelis were injured. A 60-year-old Palestinian man caught in the attack later died of his wounds.

Israeli judges had issued a demolition order for Akkari’s house a week after the attack, but the order was postponed due to complications with security measures, said the government.

The Israeli Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Akkari’s family to halt the demolition in December 2014.

- See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/over-1000-israeli-troops-raid-jerusalem-refugee-camp-demolish-home-1748845659#sthash.6yDSO7su.dpuf

[oberliner]

1. This policy is insane

They really need to reconsider its application in the future.

[Jefferson23]

2. I wish it would stop..just think of the visual it gives the community, so frightening.

These exercises are suppose to act as a deterrent yet I see them
as fuel for fires they should not want to ignite.

[FBaggins]

3. Of course that raised the obvious question

Do you not see stabbing civilians on the street or driving cars into people as "fuel for fires they should not want to ignite"?

[Jefferson23]

4. The obvious is hard for some to see. I see a continuous circle jerk.

We have people who do violence against innocents everyday here in the US, we don't
go in and demolish their neighborhoods like this in response. Although a percentage
of Americans might support that policy depending on the people who live in said
neighborhood.

I stand against that mindset.

[FBaggins]

6. I think "cycle of violence" is the preferred term. :)

But there is a clear difference to note:

One gets the clear impression that if the Palestinians ceased terror attacks, the Israelis would fairly quickly cease retaliations. If the Israelis decided to cease their retaliations (which, yes, anywhere else in the world would seem excessive), the Palestinians would consider it a victory and validation of their strategy - then would press on to the next wave of attacks.

Remember the "two state solution" that BDS advocates dishonestly blame Israel for killing? For Hamas... all it ever meant was that they get a state... and then they move on to the next set of attacks (perhaps a few years later)... because they would never agree that Israel had a right to exist. The occupation that they're fighting is not the one that most western countries are trying to solve (Gaza and the West Bank)... it's that there's a Jewish state anywhere "between the river and the sea".

[Jefferson23]

7. Israeli propaganda. If you believe Israeli policy has ever been primarily about their security,

you'd be wrong.

Topics

Accountability
Area C
Planning and building
Settlements
The Gaza Strip
Use of fire arms
Beating & abuse
Attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinians
Violence by settlers


Separation Barrier
East Jerusalem
Demonstrations
More topics
http://www.btselem.org/

The resolve has been available for a very long time, and the idea that Israel gets to decide
is purely political. The US sees Israel as proxy state for strategic interests in the ME and
there is the influence from AIPAC. A toxic formula for all who live in the ME.

Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine

(The Two State Solution of Israel and Palestine)

WHEREAS, the United Nations General Assembly resolution, Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine, has continually addressed the 4 final status issues, including borders, East Jerusalem, settlements and the question of the Palestinian refugees for 20 years now. The resolution is adopted every year by the UN General Assembly and receives confirmatory votes by the overwhelming majority of the international community. The number of negative votes is only between 2 to 7 depending on the year.[ii] In 2012 the resolution was passed for the 20th time with 163 nations voting in its favor and only 6 nations (Canada, Israel, Marshal Islands, Micronesia, Palau and United States) voting against the resolution.[iii]

Borders, East Jerusalem and the Wall

WHEREAS, the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine resolution addresses the question of borders, East Jerusalem and the wall in the following manner:

Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.

Stresses the need for:

(a) The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory (West Bank and Gaza) occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem.

(b) The realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent State.

Affirming once again the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders.

Reaffirms its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders.

Reaffirming also that the construction by Israel, the occupying power, of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime are contrary to international law.[iv]

Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

WHEREAS, the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine resolution addresses the question of the Israeli settlements built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in the following manner:

Reaffirming the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem.

Reiterates its demand for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, and calls for the full implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions.[v]

WHEREAS, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest judicial body in the world holding the widest legal jurisdiction, in its July 2004 ruling stated the following with regard to the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory:

The information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention which provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”[vi] The Security Council has thus taken the view that such policy and practices “have no legal validity” and constitute a “flagrant violation” of the Convention. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.[vii]

Palestinian Refugees

WHEREAS, the United Nations General Assembly in its annual resolution, Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine, stresses the need for a just resolution of the problem of Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III)[viii] of 11 December 1948.[ix]

WHEREAS, Amnesty International states the following in 3 of its documented reports with regard to the Palestinian refugees and their rights under international law:

The right of return is enshrined in international law and the organisation believes that Palestinian refugees should be able to exercise their right of return to their homes and lands.[x]
Amnesty International calls for Palestinians who fled or were expelled from Israel, the West Bank or Gaza Strip, along with those of their descendants who have maintained genuine links with the area, to be able to exercise their right to return. Palestinians who were expelled from what is now Israel, and then from the West Bank or Gaza Strip, may be able to show that they have genuine links to both places. If so, they should be free to choose between returning to Israel, the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, not all Palestinian exiles will want to return to their ”own country”, and those who wish to remain in their host countries — or in the West Bank or Gaza Strip — should be offered the option of full local integration. The international community should also make available to Palestinian exiles the option of third-country resettlement. Whatever solution the individuals choose should be entirely voluntary, and under no circumstances should they be coerced into making a particular choice.[xi]
The international community must also attempt to find a durable solution for refugees that fully respects and protects their human rights, including their right of return.[xii]

WHEREAS, Human Rights Watch states the following in 2 of its documented reports and a statement by its executive director, Ken Roth with regard to the Palestinian refugees and their rights under international law:

Human Rights Watch called on Israeli and Palestinian leaders engaged in final-status negotiations to uphold the right of return for Palestinian refugees as part of a comprehensive solution to the Palestinian refugee problem. In letters to Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat, the organization said that a peace agreement between the two sides should allow Palestinians in exile to choose freely among three options: returning to their country of origin, integrating into the country of asylum, or resettling in a third country.[xiii]
In the case of the Middle East peace agreement currently being negotiated, the agreement should recognize this right for Palestinian refugees and exiles from territory located in what is now Israel or in what is likely to be a future state of Palestine. Recognition should accord with the following principles: The right is held not only by those who fled a territory initially but also by their descendants, so long as they have maintained appropriate links with the relevant territory. The right persists even when sovereignty over the territory is contested or has changed hands. If a former home no longer exists or is occupied by an innocent third party, return should be permitted to the vicinity of the former home.[xiv]
Ken Roth, HRW’s executive director, would send letters to Clinton, Arafat, and Barak urging them to accept the organization’s position. The right of return, he wrote, “is a right that persists even when sovereignty over the territory is contested or has changed hands.”[xv]
Question of Palestine resolution

[x] Amnesty International report — Amnesty International’s concerns at the 56th session of the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

On edit: I don't know what you're referring to regarding BDS, what is that about?

[COLGATE4]

5. Nope. It's always the sneaky Israelis who thrust themselves

on the knives of innocent Palestinian onlookers or throw themselves pell mell in the way of peace-loving Palestinian motorists. This, leaving aside the fact that many (if not all) of the attackers are resigned to dying in their attempt to inflict mayhem on innocent Israeli citizens. (The reason why the 'demolish the house' strategy came about in the first place, in the belief that the thought of relatives losing the house might serve to deter the potential attacker).

[azurnoir]

8. So you support punishing the families of criminals well as long as they;re Palestinian right?

[COLGATE4]

9. I understand why the Israelis believe it's necessary.

[azurnoir]

10. I understand why Israel does it and no it is neither necessary nor does it work

[FBaggins]

11. Terrorists aren't criminals

It makes a difference.

And no, I'm not in favor of destroying the homes of either category (unless they become a valid military target)... but I do understand that it's par for the course in the middle east for centuries now.

Do you support incenting suicide bombers by paying their families after they kill?