Israel pushing Palestinians out of Jerusalem -UN

UNITED NATIONS, Sept 26 (Reuters) - Israel is striving to reduce the number of Palestinians living in Jerusalem while increasing its Jewish population to undermine claims on East Jerusalem as the capital of an eventual Palestinian state, a U.N. human rights investigator said on Monday.

Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem are being expanded and Palestinian communities segmented by the demolition of Palestinian houses and the creation of parks, South African law professor John Dugard said.

"Even in the Old City, Jewish settlements are expanding," he said in his annual report to the U.N. General Assembly.

Israel's West Bank barrier, which the Jewish state says it is building to keep out Palestinian suicide bombers, will alone result in the transfer of some 55,000 Palestinians out of Jerusalem when it is built through East Jerusalem, as currently planned, said Dugard.

The barrier will also cut off another 50,000 Palestinians who have Jerusalem identity documents but are now living in satellite communities outside city boundaries because they could not find housing inside the city "owing to the expropriation of land and building restrictions," he said.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26125089.htm

chirp chirp

shhh, don't talk about the Palestinians being abused.

You can combine this with the Gaza pullout and get an
idea of where things are going and why. I have pointed
out a number of times that Jabba's policies have made "the
demographic problem" worse, to the extent they were not
direct causes of it, and thus have been a horrible disaster
for Israel. But nobody wants to talk about that, it's too
depressing, and too many voted for that moron. At least
it doesn't look like the Israelis are dumb enough to
replace him with Bibi.

# Report submitted by John Dugard, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, in accordance with Commission resolutions 1993/2 A and 2005/7 (PDF)

Summary -

During the past year, Israel’s decision to withdraw Jewish settlers and troops
from Gaza has attracted the attention of the international community. This focus of
attention on Gaza has allowed Israel to continue with the construction of the wall in
Palestinian territory, the expansion of settlements and the de-Palestinization of
Jerusalem with virtually no criticism. This report focuses principally on these
matters.

Although uncertainty surrounds the full extent and consequences of Israel’s
withdrawal from Gaza, it seems clear that Gaza will remain occupied territory
subject to the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of
Civilians in Time of War, of 12 August 1949 (Fourth Geneva Convention) as a result
of Israel’s continued control of the borders of Gaza. The withdrawal of Jewish
settlers from Gaza will result in the decolonization of Palestinian territory but not
result in the end of occupation.

Contd. (pdf document);

http://electronicintifada.net/artman/uploads/reportn0.pdf

I am assuming that "end of the occupation" referes to the occupation of Gaza.

Please translate the passage "The withdrawal of Jewish settlers from Gaza will result in the decolonization of Palestinian territory but not result in the end of occupation." - with reference to the Fourth Geneva Convention and recognized international law treatises (not Wikipedia or partisan blogs or web sites).

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

read these paragraphs;

8. The future status of Gaza is unclear. It seems unlikely that the United Nations
will be in a position to issue a statement proclaiming the end of Israeli occupation of
Gaza after the withdrawal as a result of the continued control to be exercised by
Israel over Gaza. Furthermore, the West Bank and Gaza constitute a “single
territorial unit” in terms of the Oslo Agreements and it would be incomprehensible
if a statement proclaiming the end of occupation for Gaza were made without
addressing the continued occupation of the West Bank. There is no clarity in respect
of Israel’s plans or intentions for the future of Gaza. At the time of writing, the
Palestinian Authority remains in doubt over the precise forms of control to be
exercised by Israel and how much freedom will be allowed to Gaza in its relations
with the outside world and the West Bank. Israel has stated that it will relinquish
control of the Philadelphi route between Gaza and Egypt if Egypt is prepared to
patrol its side of the border. Israel has announced that Gaza Airport may not be
reopened. While it is prepared to contemplate the construction of a harbour in Gaza,
it seems that Israel will claim the right to police the territorial sea of Gaza. There is
also a suggestion that Israel will build a concrete barrier in the sea along the border
between Gaza and Israel. The future of the movement of persons and goods between
Gaza and the West Bank and between Gaza and Egypt is still unknown. Israel has to
date refused proposals that persons be allowed to travel freely between Gaza and the
West Bank. Indeed, family reunification of the people of Gaza and the West Bank
remains unacceptable to Israel. Goods will not be allowed to move freely from Gaza
to the West Bank and vice versa. A proposal that a sunken highway in a
5-metre-deep trench surrounded by fences be constructed between Gaza and the
West Bank to allow the passage of Palestinian persons and goods is still subject to
discussion. It is highly possible that as far as goods are concerned, the cumbersome
and strictly controlled back-to-back system of transport of goods at present practised
at the Karni crossing will remain in force. Israel is reluctant to allow free passage of
persons and goods between Gaza and Egypt. It has suggested that the present Rafah
terminal between Gaza and Egypt be moved to a crossing point at Kerem Shalom
where the boundaries of Israel, Egypt and Gaza meet as this would allow Israel to
retain control over access to Gaza. Customs arrangements are still the subject of
negotiation. In all these circumstances, the inevitable conclusion to be drawn is that
Israel is not prepared to relinquish control over the borders of Gaza. Moreover, the
IDF has announced that it will not hesitate to intervene militarily in Gaza after the
withdrawal of settlers if Israel’s security so requires.

9. It seems clear therefore that Gaza will remain occupied territory subject to the
appropriate provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of
Civilians in Time of War, of 12 August 1949 (Fourth Geneva Convention). The
jurisprudence of post-war Germany shows that the test for occupation is that of
continued control. In the Hostages Trial (United States of America v. Wilhelm List et
al., 1949) a military tribunal stated that it was not necessary for the occupying
Power to occupy the whole territory so long as it “could at any time (it) desired
assume physical control of any part of the country”.1

10. The withdrawal of Jewish settlers from Gaza should be seen as the
decolonization of Palestinian territory. This does not affect Israeli control of the
territory, which will remain. Consequently, Israel will remain an occupying Power
in respect of Gaza, subject to the rules of international humanitarian law applicable
to occupied territory. The humanitarian crisis which Gaza has suffered since 2000
will not disappear after Israel withdraws. Continued control will prevent economic
recovery and Gaza will remain an imprisoned territory in which economic and social
rights suffer seriously.

1} 1 United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol. III, 1949,
p.56.

I had the privilege of reading the report in its entirety, and was somewhat troubled by the passage at Section VI, Paragraph 36, page 13, reproduced below,



I also note the Section VIII concerning the Death Penalty.


I note that the link was in "Electronic Intifada" - so I researched the document in the Jerusalem Post. The Jerusalem Post reports



I do understand the normal role of "Special Rapporteur", having been a flunkie, "gofer" and low level engineer on the Staff of the Special Rapporteur to the UN International Maritime Consultative Organization 1969 Special Conference on the Bulk Carriage of Petroleum and Petroleum Products by Sea. That was one of the many "dual hull super tanker" and "bulk liquid natural gas" conferences.

anyone who thinks this repot is one sided needs to personally travel into the west bank and take a look around. they need to visit bethlehem and qalquilia which is surrounded completely by israels barrier... with only one way in/out and the IDF holds the key.

this report has nothing to do with discrimination against israel. please tell me how dismantling settlements in gaza changes anything when youre expanding in the west bank???

Until the majority of the world can put themselves in harms way to follow the lead of - be it with respect to Jews, or Bosnians, or Cambodians, or African-Americans from New Orleans, I will feel my family's safety is stake without both of (1) An independent, safe, secure Israel, and (2) a law of Return.

Let me be totally obnoxious and paranoid - in a world without Israel and without a law of return - where the Holocaust happened in my lifetime, and with some of the appends I have seen on Progressive Web sites,

http://www.cleysmokehouse.com/red_herring.asp

The paragraph you're concerned about, the views expressed about
the 'binational Palestinian State' are *not* the views of the
UN diplomat, they are the views of the 'Interlocutors within both
Israel and the West Bank' - Dugard is conveying what others have
told him. The 'interlocutors' said consideration should be given
to the binational Palestinian State, Dugard did not.

--"I also note the Section VIII concerning the Death Penalty."

And your point is..?

--" I note that the link was in "Electronic Intifada" - so I researched the document in the Jerusalem Post."

The link is to the complete UN report, in pdf format - ei was
the only site I could find, that actually had the complete report,
so that one could actually *read* the complete report, & comment
on what the report actually says, not the propaganda that the rw
JPost claims that it says. The link does not go to ei; it goes
to the complete UN report, in pdf format.

Notes:

1. As noted before, I do understand the role of a "Special Rapporteur", having been a flunkie, "gofer" and low level engineer on the Staff of the Special Rapporteur to the UN International Maritime Consultative Organization 1969 Special Conference on the Bulk Carriage of Petroleum and Petroleum Products by Sea. That was one of the many "dual hull super tanker" and "bulk liquid natural gas" conferences.

2. I know that David Horwitz's Frontpagemag.com is a right wing, racist rag. I have an equal amount of respect for electronicintifada.

ADL to U.N.: Dismiss Official with Overt Bias Against Israel


New York, NY, October 15, 2004 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today called on United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour to immediately dismiss John Dugard, the U.N. Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, for his "clearly demonstrated bias against the State of Israel." Dugard is the author of the report, "Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine," a copy of which was obtained by ADL, and is to be presented to the U.N. General Assembly in late October.

In the report, Dugard presents personal convictions as fact, and goes well beyond reporting to an incendiary call for action by the international community against Israel, writing "Israel's defiance of international law poses a threat not only to the international legal order but to the international order itself. This is no time for appeasement on the part of the international community."
snip

Dugard comprehensively presents as fact alleged Israeli human rights abuses against the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. There is little to no mention of Palestinian involvement in terrorism against Israel, of Palestinian arms smuggling tunnels, or rocket attacks against Israeli towns. In stark contrast, Israel's security considerations are ignored, or dismissed. Dugard further presents as fact his own views as to the underlying motivations for Israeli policy.



snip
This report is not the first time that Dugard has revealed his blatant bias against Israel. In May 2004, ADL wrote then-Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights Bertrand Ramcharan, expressing "strong concern" about Mr. Dugard's statements about Israel.



The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/UnitedNations_94/4575_94.htm

question is: why is this individual still doing reports with this level of bias

As far as the fence is concerned, it has obviously reduced terror attacks. I don't see how that can be ignored. I also think the imposition on ordinary people must be drastic in certain areas, as pointed out in posts above.

These are complicated issues. The Gaza withdrawal was a major step for the Israelis and it should be a time of renewal and opportunity for the people of Gaza as well. This event should not be belittled.

The need for security is no joke, but somehow the rights of the Arabian people must also be respected. These wouldn't be problems if the violence were to come to an end. I don't see why that simple fact can't be recognized.

No violence, no security fence, no checkpoints, and probably a shared capital with access between West Bank and Gaza - these are all probable outcomes IF the violence can stop. All this was on the table several years ago, but we are now in Year Five of the 2nd Intifada. What next? More rockets, more bombs?

And, I think the outlying settlement building must stop, the abuses of innocent Arabian people MUST be stopped - but it must also be realized that Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel, Israel exists, Israel has a right to continue existing - how long do we have to keep defending this essential right? And, why is the idea of Jewish people living among Arabs so upsetting? Can't an Arabian state with Jewish citizens exist alongside a Jewish state with Arabian citizens?

The bias is so obvious I can smell it and it is utterly depressing. The fact that these questions are still coming up over and over and over again is enough to make a person despair.

Why is there no mention of 'Palestine' or 'Palestinians'
in your post?

Arabians as Arabians from my Arabian friends. This is how they refer to themselves primarily, although they will ALSO refer to themselves as Jordanian, Egyptian, Palestinian, Lebanese, etc.

Nation-states are a pretty recent addition to most of the world, and are primarily a Western/European conceit - and indeed, many of the newly created states in the world were drawn up without regard to tribal affinities, religious stress, ethnic differences, etc, and this has lead in some cases to disaster, for example in Rwanda, in Lebanon, in Iraq, in the Sudan. In other cases nation-states, such as Yugoslavia, have fallen apart because of internal ethnic and/or religious stress. In still other cases, huge empires like the Turkish empire, were carved up - leaving huge numbers of Turkmen living outside of Turkey. The identity as "Arab" or "Arabian" supercedes national boundaries.

You should of course be aware of this? In the case of the Palestinians, 78% of the Palestine Mandate is referred to as "Jordan". For that reason, when I referred in my post to an eventual "Arabian" state I was thinking that it may in fact include parts of Jordan, or be somehow linked as a federation with Jordan and possibly even Egypt and hopefully even Israel - as one economic unit and perhaps even defense unit - as I, for the life of me, considering all the salient facts including projected demographics and economic considerations, can't see how a state can survive with just the West Bank and Gaza for a territory, unless it has very close economic, social and defensive relationships with its neighbors.

Obviously, this means NO MORE WAR. It means time and resources should be spent building, instead of destroying, and people must start seeing each other as human instead of as emblems on a flag.

So sue me - I'm just trying to think creatively.

And secondly, I wasn't speaking just of Palestinian Arabs who must be respected, but also of Israelis, who are complaining that the police sometimes don't respect them:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/631383.html

I read another article on BBC recently, an Israeli Arab was saying that in recent years he hasn't felt as comfortable as he had in the past. The article implied this was due to Israel trying to become more "Jewish" but I think both of these issues have more to do with the intifada than anything else. Again, the violence of recent years has affected relationships inside Israel as well as between Israel and other Arab states and/or peoples. And, Israel is just like every other democracy on this planet: with all the best intentions there is still discrimination. I think that is wrong, it needs to be worked on, and that's why I used the term "Arabian" when referring to civil rights.

Now, if you have anything you'd like to add concerning my initial post, I'd be glad to hear from you.

Do they have a fondness for oats & sugarcubes, have long shiny
hair, & like to say 'neigh'?

An Arabian,yesterday

____________________________

Here's an inteview with John Dugard, from September last year,enjoy!

"A State Cannot Indefinitely Stand Against the World:An interview with UN Special Rapporteur John Dugard

Victor Kattan, The Electronic Intifada, 23 September 2004

Victor Kattan: Twenty years ago you published an article entitled, "Israel and the International Community: The Legal Debate" in the South African Yearbook of International Law after you had visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Has the legal landscape changed since you published this paper in 1984 and since you became Special Rapporteur in 2001? If so, how has it changed?

John Dugard: Strangely the legal issues have not changed much over the last twenty years. Oslo has been and gone. And the same type of human rights violations still occur, albeit with a new severity. The two major changes are, first, that the need for Palestinian statehood has been recognized. Second, the wall. The significance of the wall cannot be overrated. It shows convincingly that the issue is land and expansion. Of course, it must be seen in the context of settler expansion

Victor Kattan: Many commentators and political activists compare the situation in Apartheid South Africa to the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. How are these two unjust systems, apartheid in South Africa and prolonged military occupation in Palestine, comparable, and how are they different?

John Dugard: Apartheid was a form of colonialism, but at the same time it had some of the characteristics of occupation. Nevertheless the similarities between the two systems should not be exaggerated. Palestine is subject to military occupation. The IDF is an occupying army. Israel is determined to assert control while at the same time taking land. In South Africa the issue was political control and how to achieve this while at the same time pretending to comply with international standards of self determination. Of course, many of the human rights violations were similar. Suppression, torture, restrictions on freedom of movement, denial of social and economic rights, population relocations etc. So although different in character, many of the consequences were similar.

More at;
The Electronic Intifada

a pejorative and they are not referring to horses. If you prefer "Arab" please feel free to use the term, it is also proper and it does ALSO refer to horses.

As I said - do you have anything to add to my posts? Anything to discuss? I'd be glad to discuss issues. With respect, this other stuff is just silly.

As for the piece from "Electronic Intifada" - well the title of the source speaks for itself. Nevertheless I will read it and respond when I have time to do so THOUGHTFULLY, which I don't right now.

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

If you know that "David Horwitz's Frontpagemag.com is a right wing,
racist rag", then why use it as a source?

can get things wrong. Sometimes a polar or near polar opposite can get it right on certain issues.

This is not a question of getting it right, or wrong. Perhaps
you could explain why I, or anyone else should consider that
the hateful, racist rw rag, FrontPageMag is a credible source.
Why would anyone use a source that they admit is "rw & racist"?

for many publications.

Second, I am reminded of the Clinton blue dress episode and for the longest time I refused to believe the right wingers on the issue and the fooling around charges that were floating around for years. Mine was an absolute refusal that they could be right about anything on Clinton and that they were lying any way they could to nail Clinton. Yeah, well, I was really right on that one. Yep.

Third, you may be framing issues one way and I in another way. I could probably listen to any TV preacher of any religion for an hour and hear something I finally agree with such as "Do unto others...."

Biased source.

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

has good information about natural disaster survival - and I don't mean shoot your neighbor -- talking about hygiene, food, medications, clothing -- as in living in the earthquake zone or tornado alley or the hurricane zone, or evacuation.

Not exactly New Yorker's or NY Reviews of Books' or Sunday NYTimes magazine's forte.

and tell me if you disagree with it.


"snip
Though most Americans have lost confidence in Bush as a war president, and believe the war was a mistake and we should start bringing our troops home, no elected leader of national stature is demanding an end to U.S. involvement or a new policy for victory.

Our political elite is in paralysis. Sen. McCain talks of more troops, but has not broken with Bush on his refusal to send them. Sen. Feingold calls for a timetable for withdrawal, but took a pass on the big anti-war demonstration in Washington over the weekend.



Reason for the reticence? Critics fear this war could end badly, if not disastrously, for the United States. No one wants to say anything that can be used to substantiate a future charge of having given aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war and helping to ensure an American defeat.

Both parties bear moral responsibility for the mess we are in. The Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld Republicans for beating the drums for war on a country that did not threaten us. The Clinton-Kerry-Biden-Edwards Democrats for giving Bush a blank check to take us to war to remove the issue from the 2002 election.
snip

(this is from Pat Buchanan "American Cause" in an article entitled "Our Paralyzed Elite" 9/28/05)

http://www.theamericancause.org/

FrontPageMag, the NRA, & Pat Buchanan, all make an appearance,
and, appartently, they all qualify as credible witnesses..
Satire=dead.

Maybe more than a few grains of salt are needed when Electronic Intifida is seen as credible and when the use of the word "Arabian" somehow gets nitpicked on connotation. Dictionaries I have checked show the first definition of "Arabian" as "Arab" and if individuals who describe themselves as "Arabian" prefer "Arabian" then what in the world is the problem.

Have you actually had a look at, & read ei? I don't agree with
everything they publish, but I've started I don't know-how-many
threads using ei as the source, & none of the threads have been
locked, so I guess ei must qualify as a 'credible source'.
I think I know what would happen if any of the 3 sources I
mentioned were used to start a thread ;)

Sometimes in this forum, there're (inappropriate) attempts at
humour, & one of them appears in post #30.