Palestinians, left-wing activists rebuild 'outpost' in village of Bil'in

Why did the IDF demolish the earlier Palestinian outpost, which the Bil'in villagers built on their own land, while allowing the illegal settlement activity to go on? (These were peaceful villagers; the IDF cannot use the excuse of any danger being posed by them.)




http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/662203.html

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

posters from the Israeli peace movement or some Palestinian posters here, to present their view on what's going on. Or even one of the non-violent American witnesses of the occupation...

Of course, I'm relatively new to this forum, having only posted here a few months. Maybe there is someone posting here who fits in those categories and I'm just not yet aware of them as such.

I think idontwantaname was a member, or involved with ISM, & had visited the
area, & had been to the WB.
With regards to any Israeli posters who oppose the Occupation, or any Palestinian
posters, I can't remember seeing any.

Oh wait, I'm the only one on this thread.:wtf:

Edited to add bigger, better, clearer map.

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

your talking to one..surprise!

that's so funny, pelsar. Right there in front of their busy little noses, it is!

Is that the same way that Jabba's a peacenik? Please define your meaning of the
phrase "Israeli peace movement". It probably differs from the definition that
Wordie was using.

doesn't preclude us being Zionists, i.e., we believe in the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in Israel; and most of us are Americans and we come from different faiths, different economic levels - some are rich are some are poor, but we wouldn't be participating on the Democratic Underground if we weren't liberals.

There are differences of opinion as to how to proceed concerning the I/P situation, but I promise you, we all want peace and we all respect the Palestinians and want to see them enjoy freedom and security just as we want the Israelis to enjoy freedom and security.

What isn't acceptable is the on-going violence and the endless threats of extermination and the destruction of Israel. And nor is it acceptable, from my point of view, to try and make excuses for terrorism.

So I too would like to hear from some peace-oriented Middle Easterners because we sure are getting an earful from the folks who'd like to see us wiped off the map and I'm getting tired of being called a racist because I respect the right of Israel to exist and of her people to live in peace.

hear on DU from any Israelis who are not Zionists, and that he/she would like to hear from them. You seem to be arguing with things that have not in any way been said in this thread.

What do you think of the topic of the thread? Do you think that the IDF has been reasonable in ejecting peaceful Palestinians from their own land?

Is it a religious thing? Or is it a cover for an extreme RW political movement? Or somewthing else. I am not goading you or riding you. But I would like some specificity.

in the world, Wordie. Look up the definition in Wikipedia or on the Haddasah website.

You use the word "Zionist" as though it were something evil. It isn't. That's a dreadful misuse of the term, straight of the forgery "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

Please, use the term properly and you'll see what I mean.

And what exactly are you talking about with regard to the IDF? The War of 1948, when extermination of the Jews had been promised by Arab leaders and Holocaust survivors with virtually no training were thrown into the front lines? When Jerusalem was beseiged and people were starving to death? Or later when terrorism dictated the building of a wall? Do you think the eviction of peaceful Jews from Hebron and East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank by the Arabs was REASONABLE?

Do you think the IDF was reasonable in ejecting peaceful Israelis from their homes in the Sinai and in Gaza in search of peace? Do you think that ethnically cleansing almost all the Jews from Europe (by the Nazis) and the Middle East (by the Arabs after 1948), except Israel, was reasonable?

Step one in understanding the Middle East: NOTHING ABOUT THIS SITUATION IS REASONABLE.

Now, please check out the true definition of "Zionist" and get back to me.

(I reworded it from "reasonable" just in the hopes of getting an answer.) That's what this thread is about, and I'd really like to know what people think about that, before we get into any other side issue.

Here's what I think: No, the IDF should not eject peaceful Palestinians from their own lands, particularly when the IDF is doing nothing to stop the illegal settlements (for which the land is being stolen). And, I agree wholeheartedly that it is also "not reasonable" for them to do so.

under international law, to do exactly that. There is ample precedence, in the case of necessity to protect a citizenry from attack, to confiscate property. However, people should absolutely be compensated for any losses thus incurred, and this includes inconvenience, lack of revenues, damages, etc.

People who are attempting to obstruct such construction, i.e. the fence, are not necessarily peaceful. Think of it this way: the fence has quite obviously saved lives. People who are trying to prevent construction of the fence may well be contributing to future death. There IS no formal border, 20 of the 22 Arab League states don't even recognize Israel, therefore whose land is whose is under dispute.

So sorry, I'm not biting on this. It is something REASONABLE people should discuss without the hostile atmosphere that exists in this forum.

The settlements are another issue altogether. Under certain interpretations they are NOT illegal. I happen to disagree with the policy of building them but this is not a black/white issue. Jewish people lived continuously on the West Bank for thousands of years, until they were ethnically cleansed by Jordan after 1948. This should be taken into consideration when discussing settlements. Indeed, you have not answered ME as to whether IDF was reasonable when destroying the homes of Jews in the Sinai and in Gaza. Many believe they were not, and indeed a REASONABLE argument can be made for this point of view, and indeed I would like to know why Palestinian territory should REASONABLY need to be rendered judenrein in order to be acceptable to the Arabs.

Meanwhile, you've accused me of not understanding what the poster to whom I responded was talking about. I do understand. And it is hardly a side issue.

Now, please look up the definition of Zionist and then you will maybe understand why I am upset.

--In the case of the security fence, it may well be reasonable under international law, to do exactly that.--

Link, please? Which "international law" allows an Occupying Power to evict villagers from
said occupied territory, & build permanent structures on that occupied land?

--People who are trying to prevent construction of the fence may well be contributing to future death.--

So, you're psychic, as well? You know this, how?

--The settlements are another issue altogether. Under certain interpretations they are NOT illegal.--

Says who?

--Indeed, you have not answered ME as to whether IDF was reasonable when destroying the homes of Jews in the Sinai and in Gaza.--

Question - do you think that the Sinai & Gaza should be part of Israel, or that Jewish
settlers should be allowed to build homes there?

try Article 53 of GC4 (note the part after "except")

The "permanent structure" is your assumption - the barrier has already been moved in places.

And AFAIR, while lands were confiscated*, I don't remember anyone evicted to build it.

*Not actually the exactly correct word, since ownership wasn't transfered to the state

Article 53 of CG4 says:

"Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations."

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

For that to work, one has to start with the assumption that there is an absolute necessity for military operations to destroy property. And once someone assumes that, then it'd be hard to find any circumstances where Palestinian property has been destroyed that couldn't be excused by military necessity...

Violet...

you can't charge someone of violating internaitonal law by throwing out part of what it says.

Both of which can quite accurately be called permanent. I'm defing permanent
as something intended to last for a relatively long time, say a couple of
decades.

plausibly make that claim about the settlements, but not about the barrier - as I said, sections have laready been moved (following some of the High Court decisions)

sure you're aware, there are many definitions of Zionism, and what I would hope in any of the inevitable circumstances in which I use the word in the future, that people will read with an eye toward context (actual context, that is). As I also believe you are aware, there are some Israeli posters here (I can think of two off the top of my head who say they are from Israel - there may be a few more as well), both of whom seem to be quite intensely supportive of the approach of the current Israeli government to the conflict. yet there are no Israeli pro-peace, pro-Pal posters in evidence here at DU I/P, nor Palestinians at all. There was a comment that some pro-Pal non-violent peace advocates, both Israeli and Palestinian, might be interesting to talk to in this forum, yet somehow that was interpreted as a horrible and unjustified attack on those whose views are different than the views such people would undoubtedly espouse.

There's just nothing in there that was meant in a hostile manner at all, CB. And I really can't see how you reached the conclusion you did. Someone disagreeing with you politically, even vehemently, is not the equivalent of malice.

--You seem to be arguing with things that have not in any way been said in this thread.--

"Creative reading" is what the i/p forum is all about.

So, you're Israeli, now? Try *actually*reading* julianers comments, there
was no mention of US, or other nationalities, only *Israeli*. Though the reaction
to his comments, the need to come over all self-defensive, speaks volumes!

When has this happened?

--'....I'm getting tired of being called a racist because I respect the right of Israel to exist and of her people to live in peace.'--

Please provide egs.

I've been in this forum a long time holding those exact views, and not once have I ever been called racist for it, nor have I seen anyone else called a racist for it. I have seen people called racist, but for other reasons where the term racist fits well...

Violet...

If anyone's been called a racist, it's not because they hold those views that CB
mentioned, it would be because the views expressed were prejudiced, or repugnant.

did not actually happen.

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

"Why did the IDF demolish the earlier Palestinian outpost, which the Bil'in villagers built on their own land, while allowing the illegal settlement activity to go on? (These were peaceful villagers; the IDF cannot use the excuse of any danger being posed by them.)"

And I'd love to see an answer to that question. The protest organisers are well and truly on the right track with action like this. It displays the sheer hypocrisy of the Israeli govt, and there is no way to justify it happening. Anyone who believes in peaceful, non-violent resistance should be 110% behind this sort of action by the Palestinians, though I expect it will be ignored and drowned out by lots of shrieking about suicide-bombings in an attempt to help people not notice. That way the same old 'why don't the Palestinians ever do the non-violent resistance thing???' can be trotted out again like it's something fresh and new...

Violet...

Attorney Talia Sasson, who wrote scathing report on illegal outposts, slams Civil Administration in West Bank, says it was meant to take care of Palestinians, yet is used to facilitate settlement activity

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3190569,00.html

<snip>

"IDF involvement in the West Bank settlement enterprise is a "very bad and damaging mix," Attorney Talia Sasson of the State Prosecutor's Office charged Monday evening during a conference at Haifa University."

<snip>

"During Monday's conference, Sasson said Israel's Civil Administration in the West Bank, which was meant to take care of Palestinians and was established in accordance with international law, has in fact turned into the main body that handles all matters related to Israeli settlement activity.

"The Administration designates land, declares it State property, and approves water and electricity connection," she said. "The Administration is the body that allows, in practice, settlement activity in the territories."

Sasson added the Administration was particularly problematic because it comes under the army's jurisdiction."

<snip>

"Sasson has not minced words in her condemnation of Israeli activity in Judea and Samaria.
"The undermining of the rule of law through blatant violations as is happening today is unparalleled. The responsibility for fixing the situation rests first and foremost with the Israeli government and its authorities – and the government can't escape from its responsibilities. As long as steps are not taken against what is happening today in the territories, a moral stain will blemish our entire society, and the government must therefore again be asked to ameliorate the situation," she said."