IDF redefines Palestinians west of the fence(as "long-term resident")

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=349526&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

IDF redefines Palestinians west of the fence

By Amira Hass

One of the questions raised immediately after it became clear that for the most part, the separation fence would not be built along the
length of the Green Line, but in fact somewhere to the east of it, was the fate of the Palestinians living to the west of the fence. As of now, this fate is shared by approximately 12,000 persons living in 15 Palestinian villages and towns, from Salim in the northern West Bank to Mas'ha, to the south of Qalqilyah (near the settlement of Elkana). They are shut in between the separation fence to the east, and the Green Line to the west. As construction of the fence continues, deep into the territory of the West Bank, morePalestinians
will find themselves in this situation. <snip>

A bureaucratic, official answer to the question was given last week. The regular disruption of ordinary life will henceforth be defined and delineated in a series of new army orders. They will gradually apply to tens of thousands of additional Palestinians that will soon find themselves living or working between the fence and the State of Israel. The latest army orders create a new category of Palestinian resident - "long-term resident" - a category that distinguishes between Palestinians living west of the fence and those living to its east, a new classification that will command the attentions of the swelling Israeli military bureaucracy. <snip>

...defined as "long-term residents." The order clarifies: "A. An individual who is 16 years of age or more, whose long-term place of residence ... is in the seam zone, will be permitted to enter the seam zone and stay there, so long as he bears a permit in writing issued by myself or by someone acting for me, which states that his
long-term place of residence is in the seam zone; B/1. An individual below 16 years of age, whose place of residence is in the seam zone,
will be permitted to stay in the seam zone without a written permit ... B/2. An individual below 16 years of age, whose long-term place of residence is in the seam zone, will be permitted to enter the seam zone in one of the following ways: if he has in his possession a written permit, only in the event that he is 12 years old or more; if he is accompanied by an individual whose entry is permitted; or in any other way determined by myself or someone
acting on my behalf." <snip>

could create mind-numbingly boring, bureaucratic, ethnic cleansing. No will read this, much less understand exactly what this "re-classification" means and when Israel starts expelling these people to who knows where and demolishing their villages it will all be done under a cloud of legalese just like this.

explained to us here as "self-defense", no doubt.

Israel is starting to remind me of what the US was like during and after slavery. During slavery, free blacks had to have proof of their freedom with them at all times or else they could be sold into slavery. This permit idea reminds me of that. Of course, if the Palestinians don't comply, then we might be looking at some serious killings done by the IDF (not unlike the lynchings done to blacks after the civil war).

It is, in practical fact, an annexation by force of land, and an utter disenfranchisement of the persons dwelling or working upon that land. These regulations differ little from the old military authority visited on the Arab population after the '48 war, and after several years of enforcement, may be relied on to have a similar, even a worse effect. Not only will there be confiscations of "absentee" property, where this absentee-ism is the result of these very regulations, and the fire-sale liquidation of crippled enterprises, and confiscations for purposes of "security", but the persons affected by this reincarnation of the earlier practice will not even be citizens, with some recourse to courts, and some political rights. They are being forcibly converted to resident aliens under purely military jurisdiction, that will make their ordinary routines of life so onerous as to impell them to depart. This sort of thing is specifically recognized as ethnic cleansing by all legal authorities: it was, indeed, the early face of Butcher Slobo's campaign in the eighties in Kossovo.

Persons who cling to the idea that sometime in future this wall will come down in a negotiated peace and all this then will be put right are deluding themselves. In several years, legal ownership of the land will have changed, and the people largely departed. That is every bit as much the purpose of this construction as security for the population of Israel. Indeed, to both enclose and embitter a population within a security zone runs rather counter to ordinary conceptions of what such a barrier is meant to achieve: these people, after all, will already be within the barrier, and it can hardly check their activities against the state of Israel, should they choose to engage in any. And if they do, these will only serve as a pretext for more iron-fisted military activity, that will, at best, only hasten their departure.

A security construction along the actual border of Israel, the de facto border accepted on its admitance to the United Nations, would be one thing. It could be readily justified as a legitimate measure, and might actually bring some practical benefit. This is something else, and a damned ugly something else indeed.

The Magistrate already put it brilliantly, I can only add this: Modern day bantustans in an apartheid environment. Israel's shame...

n/t

n/t

completely agreed.

That just about covers it, except to mention that the land being annexed by fiat is very fertile.

I much appreciate your comment, and also those of the gentlemen above: Mr. Soul in particular has been on the other end of some exchanges with me recently, and it is a pleasure to be in agreement instead.

This thing will cost Israel as badly the incursion into Lebanon, politically and diplomatically. It is greivous error, and no friend of Israel can allow it to pass without criticism.

Contrary to Palestinians claiming that the land Israel has allowed them is inferior, now you see that it has great value. They covet what they don't have, which is why what they have is in jeopardy.

It doesn't seem like they have anything right now. And I'd say all these people covet is a chance to live on the land they've been on all their lives. It doesn't seem like all that much to covet...

Violet...

Palestinians are supposed to be all grateful to kind-hearted Israel for allowing them some refugee camps to "squat" on.

I suppose that arrogant view makes sense, if you believe the mythology.

"Jericho will become a tourist prison camp I presume"

Fat-boy's wall plans are on the same level of certainty as the sun coming up in the morning, and Bush not being able to complete two sentences. :eyes:

I'd say all these people covet is a chance to live on the land they've been on all their lives.

If that were true:

There would never be a single suicide bombing attack in Tel Aviv or Haifa. There would be no problem in determining a border, and there would be easy access for both Palestinians and Israelis to the other's territory for work or visits.

How do you account for that?

:shrug:

The plan all along was annexation whether the Palestinians behaved or not.

:eyes:

There were a great many murders of Israeli civilians by Arab Palestinian irregulars and allied leftist groups during those years, and even of Jews in other parts of the world. Those are the years that include the murders at the Munich Olympics, the "Red Army" attacks at the airport, the wave of airliner hijackings and the Achille Lauro seizure, to name just a few off the top of my head.

This is an act of the current Likud Party government led by Sharon: it is not something inherent to the state of Israel. It is possible for Sharon to put it through only because of the current state of active hostilities, just as it is only the current state of active hostilities that opened the way for Sharon to come to power. Many here denounce President Clinton's negotiations, and claim the current hostilities are preferrable to surrender by Arab Palestinians: had they surrendered to Mr. Barak, they would not now be being abused and annexed by Sharon.

This is a rouse. There were many Israeli deaths due to attacks on busses. The addition of "sucide bombers" to the attack arsenal of the Palestinians terrorist groups occurred only in 1993.


The first suicide bombing in Israel occurred on April 16, 1993 (before that, there had been suicide attacks directed against IDF soldiers in Lebanon). In the years 1995-1996, a murderous wave of suicide attacks erupted in Israel.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0m6k0
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0i5d0

In fact, terrorism was pretty much a factor in daily life in Israel before the 1967 war. Here are some examples of attacks:

Major Arab Terrorist Attacks against Israelis Prior to the 1967 Six-Day War

Jan 1, 1952 - Seven armed terrorists attacked and killed a nineteen year-old girl in her home, in the neighborhood of Beit Yisrael, in Jerusalem.

Apr 14, 1953 - Terrorists tried for the first time to infiltrate Israel by sea, but were unsuccessful. One of the boats was intercepted and the other boat escaped.

June 7, 1953 - A youngster was killed and three others were wounded, in shooting attacks on residential areas in southern Jerusalem.

June 9, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a farming community near Lod, and killed one of the residents. The terrorists threw hand grenades and sprayed gunfire in all directions. On the same night, another group of terrorists attacked a house in the town of Hadera. This occurred a day after Israel and Jordan signed an agreement, with UN mediation, in which Jordan undertook to prevent terrorists from crossing into Israel from Jordanian territory.

June 10, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrating from Jordan destroyed a house in the farming village of Mishmar Ayalon.

June 11, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a young couple in their home in Kfar Hess, and shot them to death.

Sept 2, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrated from Jordan, and reached the neighborhood of Katamon, in the heart of Jerusalem. They threw hand grenades in all directions. Miraculously, no one was hurt.

Mar 17, 1954 - Terrorists ambushed a bus traveling from Eilat to Tel Aviv, and opened fire at short range when the bus reached the area of Maale Akrabim in the northern Negev. In the initial ambush, the terrorists killed the driver and wounded most of the passengers. The terrorists then boarded the bus, and shot each passenger, one by one. Eleven passengers were murdered. Survivors recounted how the murderers spat on the bodies and abused them. The terrorists could clearly be traced back to the Jordanian border, some 20 km from the site of the terrorist attack.

Jan 2, 1955 - Terrorists killed two hikers in the Judean Desert.

Mar 24, 1955 - Terrorists threw hand grenades and opened fire on a crowd at a wedding in the farming community of Patish, in the Negev. A young woman was killed, and eighteen people were wounded in the attack.

Apr 7, 1956 - A resident of Ashkelon was killed in her home, when terrorists threw three hand grenades into her house.
Two members of Kibbutz Givat Chaim were killed, when terrorists opened fire on their car, on the road from Plugot Junction to Mishmar Hanegev.
There were further hand grenade and shooting attacks on homes and cars, in areas such as Nitzanim and Ketziot. One person was killed and three others wounded.

Apr 11, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire on a synagogue full of children and teenagers, in the farming community of Shafrir. Three children and a youth worker were killed on the spot, and five were wounded, including three seriously.


Apr 16, 1957 - Terrorists infiltrated from Jordan, and killed two guards at Kibbutz Mesilot.

May 20, 1957 - A terrorist opened fire on a truck in the Arava region, killing a worker.



Apr 5, 1958 - Terrorists lying in ambush shot and killed two people near Tel Lachish.

Apr 22, 1958 - Jordanian soldiers shot and killed two fishermen near Aqaba.

Nov 17, 1958 - Syrian terrorists killed the wife of the British air attache in Israel, who was staying at the guesthouse of the Italian Convent on the Mt. of the Beatitudes.

Dec 3, 1958- A shepherd was killed at Kibbutz Gonen. In the artillery attack that followed, 31 civilians were wounded.

Feb 1, 1959 - Three civilians were killed by a terrorist landmine near Moshav Zavdiel.

Apr 15, 1959 - A guard was killed at Kibbutz Ramat Rahel.

Apr 27, 1959 - Two hikers were shot at close range and killed near Massada.

Oct 3, 1959 - A shepherd from Kibbutz Heftziba was killed near Kibbutz Yad Hana.


Apr 12, 1962 - Terrorists fired on an Egged bus on the way to Eilat; one passenger was wounded.


Jan 1, 1965 - Palestinian terrorists attempted to bomb the National Water Carrier. This was the first attack carried out by the PLO's Fatah faction.

May 31, 1965 - Jordanian Legionnaires fired on the neighborhood of Musrara in Jerusalem, killing two civilians and wounding four.

June 1, 1965 - Terrorists attack a house in Kibbutz Yiftach.

July 5, 1965 - A Fatah cell planted explosives at Mitzpe Massua, near Beit Guvrin; and on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem near Kafr Battir.

Aug 26, 1965 - A waterline was sabotaged at Kibbutz Manara, in the Upper Galilee.

Sept 29, 1965 - A terrorist was killed as he attempted to attack Moshav Amatzia.

Nov 7, 1965 - A Fatah cell that infiltrated from Jordan blew up a house in Moshav Givat Yeshayahu, south of Beit Shemesh. The house was destroyed, but the inhabitants were miraculously unhurt.


May 16, 1966 - Two Israelis were killed when their jeep hit a terrorist landmine, north of the Sea of Galilee and south of Almagor. Tracks led into Syria.

July 13, 1966 - Two soldiers and a civilian were killed near Almagor, when their truck struck a terrorist landmine.

Oct 27, 1966 - A civilian was wounded by an explosive charge on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ldc0


Also see the Hebrew site:
http://www.laad.btl.gov.il/

Hamas terrorism:
http://meria.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/meria/journal/2000/issue1/jv4n1a7.html

That's not every year since 1967 and even more a glimpse at the Btselem statistics of killed Israelis or Palestinians by year is very evident - in some periods there was either virtually no attacks, violence, no victims on either side or minimal (few in a whole year on both sides!) You would have a hard time proving that it was ALWAYS so, or that under Sharon it hasn't gotten much worse...

The Palestinian people aren't Hamas or Islamic Jihad, and no-one who makes claims like yrs has yet to show me any evidence that the goals of an average Palestinian are the same as those groups. What yr doing is the same as someone saying that the goal of the Israeli people is to forcibly move all Palestinians from the Occupied Territories because some in the Knessnet openly advocate doing it. Obviously neither is true....

There is no problem in determining a border between Israel and the Occupied Territories. It's internationally accepted as the Green Line, though I can see how this concept could prove mightily confusing to those who think the Occupied Territories are part of Israel...

So until someone shows evidence to prove otherwise, it's not unrealistic to believe that the Palestinians now to be labelled 'long-term residents' and subject to military rule clearly designed to make their lives so untenable that they'll scamper off somewhere else covet what any other person does, and that is to be able to live on their own land....


Violet...

The Palestians have lived on and worked this land for centuries. Why should it be in jeopardy? Is it Israel's place to grant and revoke their title to it? I don't think so.

As The Magistrate points out, the wall could have been built along the Green Line. No one would have challenged Israel's right to do that. This, however, suggests that the wall is about something more than Israel's legitimate security needs.

Unfortunately, that has been the occupation in a nutshell. Israel has legitimate security needs. Israel should occupy the Palestinian territories for that purpose until such time as a recognized government responsible to the Palestinian people agrees to a non-aggression pact, as have Egypt and Jordan. That does not give Israel the right to settle land beyond her borders, either with active or tacit govenment support. Indeed, that is in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and of Article 8, paragraph 2(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute. The very existence of these settlements -- every one of which is illegal -- suggests that the occupation of the territories is about something more than Israel's security.

It doesn't need to be that way. Israel should dismantle the settlements and build the wall on her borders, not beyond them. The occupation would then become a simple matter of troops being stationed in a beligerant country. Israel and Palestine could then deal with the problem from there, without the complicating factors concerning how much of the West Bank and Gaza Israel will continue to occupy after the occupation ends.

done in the name of security. This, as well as many other things, gives a clear view of the GOI's motives for more annexation via facts on the ground.

I am simply challenging the statement that the settlements or the wall are about Israel's security. Both are about a land grab.

Those saying the wall is about Israel's security would have a better case if the wall were built on the Green Line. The Green Line is Israel's recognized border as determined by the armistice of 1949.

There is no good case for the settlements. How are they about security? Israel moves parts of her own population into territory inhabited by three and half million people who don't want to be either first or second class citizens of Eretz Israel and would like to use their own land and resources for their own benefit. To say that enhances Israel's security is just absurd.

It is in Israel's interest to end the occupation and quit the territories. That will give Israel defined borders that can be defended. Encroaching into the West Bank and Gaza has only made a bad situation worse for all.

I wasn't challenging you.

:-)

Jack, I thought better of you than to make such a sweepingly wrong statement: "the wall could have been built along the Green Line. No one would have challenged Israel's right to do that."

No One? Who are you kidding? No one I guess doesn't include Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, et al that want to destroy Israel, not just the territory taken in the 1967 war.

No matter where Israel built this wall there would be a major hue and cry. Suppose Israel had walled off Palestine EXACTLY along the Green Line. With Gaza walled off as well, there is no easy way for Palestinians to go from point A to point B. Imagine the international hubbub about that. Even in the current peace plan there is a proposal for a corridor in between. That wall would have allowed for no such corridor.

So that means, the world really wants Israel to have relaxed borders, no wall, no incursions into Palestinian areas and the creation of a Palestinian state. In return, Israel gets?

Well nothing other than lots of death and destruction.

It's the Palestinians making concession after concession. From 1948 since, the Palestinians have had to "bargain" for everything that essentially is 100% theirs?

I don't know where you come off with your absurd notion that if Israel built its wall on the 67 border that there would still be an outcry yet it's just better to build the wall on Palestinian land?

That's like hey, I was going to steal your car stereo, but since you'd whine about it anyway, I'm going to steal the whole fucking car. That's exactly the logic you are using.

Good grief, it's hard to argue with some "progressives" here.

:eyes:

Since I haven't been down here in a while, maybe I should reiterate that I believe in a two-state solution, and what I said above goes in that context. Of course, I am excluding Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc., not to mention Moledet and a good piece if not most of Likud. So let me rephrase that: No one reasonable would challenge Israel's right to fortify her border on the border.

You are probably right, there would have been some protest because Israel would have been dividing the West Bank from Gaza. Had Israel taken that route, we could at least hope that soemthing could have been worked out later. However, that would be different from the hue and cry we hear now because Israel is seizing fertile Palestinian land be fiat. She has no right to do that. As for working out a solution later, we can only hope that General Sharon has some intention of doing that, even if Palestinians replace Arafat with a more reasonable leader. Pardon me if I shatter that optimistic image, but I have no more faith in Mr. Sharon to make peace than in Sheikh Yassin or Mr. Arafat to do so.

So that means, the world really wants Israel to have relaxed borders, no wall, no incursions into Palestinian areas and the creation of a Palestinian state. In return, Israel gets? Well nothing other than lots of death and destruction.

I cannot agree that the world would expect a sovereign state to willingly roll over and open its borders to attack. Obviously some sort of agreement will have to be reached between the Isaraelis and Palestinians. Unfortunately, there will be no such agreement as long as either Sharon and Arafat are in power. The only thing to be optimistic about is that those two thugs are both in their mid-seventies and both will soon have an appointment with Father Time. Of course, not even that will guarantee that cooler heads will prevail.

Otherwise, I must agree with Mr. Equinox: even if the world howls, it would still make a difference where that wall goes. The question being asked here is: What is the wall about? A wall at the Green Line would be about security and nothing else. Israel is entitled to that. The wall where it is being built may be about security, but it is also about grabbing land to which General Sharon and his allies have no right.

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

The Patriot Act has a different/similar end goal here in America as well if you follow Ashcroft's MASSIVE roundup (typically but not always) leading to the same kind of "technical" deportations for "visa violations" that will occur in Palestine as "permit" violations.

(Sung in the tune of, "Mr. Ed".)
"...UUUUUHHH Horse is a Horse, of couse of course...!

Your comments above in No. 9, pup, only confirm the impression of belligerent ignorance and deliberate blindness created by your previous efforts.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

And I missed it?

Damn.

A General Assembly resolution would be mere pious noise. This should be forbidden by the Security Council, and with penalties for violation. We are both aware, more is the pity, it will not be..

I fear you are correct my friend. There is more to this than just "security". Sharon is way to crafty and pragmatic to not let it not serve more than one purpose in furthering his ideological goals.

L-

I think the Magistrate got it right as well....

Violet...

Being an "ARMCHAIR GENERAL" is akin to "monday morning quarterbacking"...everyone is an expert.

Israel having suffered relentless attacks since even before Intafada I
has been faced with rather poor options. The Wall is the best TEMPORARY solution under these attacks. Your definition of
"annexation of land" strains credulaity. Perhaps you may want
to turn your ire to Jordan for not estalishing a palestinian state.
In fact ,perhaps you want to actually pin that phrase of "ethnic
cleansing" on jordan.

Bringing up the inflammory phrase "Ethnic Cleansing" is disingenuous at best....and an outright lie at worst, I'm sorry to say.
Israel will never return to the 67 borders given the events of 67 and
intafada 1 and 2. Your definition of the hot-button phrase
"ethnic cleansing" of those misplaced persons fails to even raise
to that level and even more miserably fails when the fact is approx
20%+ of the israeli population is of palestinian descent. I am fairly certain that if Israel wanted to engage in your "ETHNIC CLEANSING"
Israel it would have started a long time ago.

Perhaps some light rather than "smoke and mirrors" might be useful.

http://www.munfw.org/archive/50th/4th1.htm

"Ethnic Cleansing: The elimination of an unwanted group from a society, as by genocide or forced migration."

Where is the elimation of the palestinians from Israeli society by
forced migration?? In fact THERE IS NONE....

also:

"Ethnic cleansing has been defined as "the elimination of an unwanted group from society, as by genocide or forced migration." This definition is inherently broader than that of genocide alone, and thereby encompasses mass killings and forced removals in far greater number and scope. The U.S. State Department, in a recent report on Kosovo, concluded that ethnic cleansing "generally entails the systematic and forced removal of members of an ethnic group from their communities to change the ethnic composition of a region."

Whatever population may be affected by the wall is NOT to change the
"ethnic composition of a region"....therefore your description of the
of "ethnic cleansing" is simply untrue.

I'm indeed saddened you chose to link Israels wall to Slobos
ethnic cleansing and genocide. In fact, the facts speak just
the opposite.

In some ways it's even worse then Slobo's...

while Ariel gets to continue his murderous warpath and theft of Palestinian land as he pleases.

Hey Sharon, need more bombs and missiles to blow Palestinians away with? Sure, we'll send it to ya old buddy! Don't worry about hitting those civilians, doctors and peace activists. We don't give a shit. That Corrie girl burned a flag anyway, and the doctor was a terrorist sympathizer!

Need more bulldozers to destroy Palestinian homes and shopping centers? Sure, it's on the way pal! We read the Old Testament too, so we're with ya on stealing their land. Oops, make that taking the land that rightfully belongs to Eretz Israel!

Need more money to continue the settlements? Sure thing! Consider it done. And don't worry about condemnations from the UN and the international community. We'll back Israel up with force if needed, but for now we'll just veto every UN resolution which condemns your aggression. Oops make that self-defense, not aggression!

Who does land belong to? Isn't it all essentially taken from someone else? Which claim counts? Israel's that is 2,000 years old or the Palestinians or something older or perhaps the Turks since they ruled the area. Maybe the English can reclaim it as well.

The problem is a complex one. Different groups define the borders differently. Many in the Palestinian terror infrastructure define ALL of the area to be Palestinian and will continue fighting until it is. Nearly all Palestinians want the entire West Bank and Gaza. Others in Israel want all of Israel's old land back. Most in Israel expect that Israel will not give up Jerusalem. They are right about that.

So there we are, a Mideast stand-off.

and moved into their house you stole it, it's not that hard.

Either pay for the damn thing or give it back.

What land do you want Israel to give back?

Just trying to tell whether you accept the Hamas formulation of the question.

It's really, really, easy. You can't go steal someone's house. It's bad and while I can sympathize with why European Jews headed for Palestine it doesn't change that basic principle. You make it right with the people you ran out in that case, it's like stealing someone's hose if your house is on fire and it gets damaged, you at least pay for it and say sorry.

you are making a statement that the "lands overrun in 1967" are not occupied territory?

According to UN resolutions, geneva conventions, and international law.

No! It's the Law of Muddleoftheroad, Gimel, and don't forget Jim Sagle that we must obide by.

Oh...brother....

Wait a minute? Let me get this right, you question whether it is actually Palestinian land, the land they have lived on for their whole life before immigrants from other parts of the world came -before even Israel existed as such? No wonder then! No matter all the UN conventions, resolutions saying that Israel OCCUPIES the land (gee wonder what occupation means, like being not on your own land) and international law, it's really all Israeli land anyway so Palestinians should stop making any claims to it. At least we've cleared that out. Even most od the Israelis never claimed that land. You're more "Israeli" then them apparently..

Whether any land belongs to anybody. Every nation on earth was formed from somebody else's land, including especially the U.S. In the case of Israel, a whole bunch of groups have lived in that territory. Which claim trumps which? How do you decide?

Like who lived on it before being driven out (not 1000 years or more before but NOW, the present generation!) That would be a good start, hey...

If I got away with chasing you away from the land a while back I get to keep it?

Shouldn't Russia be much bigger then? Would all the Native-American claims be void? Does that mean that China has to give up Tibet? How about Syria giving up Lebanon?

You talk about the present generation, but generations are widely assumed to last about 20 years. Do you mean in the last 20 years?

2,000 years ago. Palestinians can claim ancestral ties to the land. Not to mention that they actually happened to be there in 1890 when the first of many ways of Europeans started to drive them out.

Since the area was under the rule of the Turkish Empire until 1917, and extended through the area of today's Lebanon and Syria, there could not really have been a "driving out". History shows that the Arab Moslem population was not well organized. There were attacks on Jewish settlers, by hostile groups of terrorists, such that each Jewish community built had to be surrounded by a high wall and with a tower for denfense. Some of these towers are still visible in Israel, as well as barbed wire fenses around every school. The attacks are still occurring.

was settling the land from 1890?

I'm not talking about the indigenous Jewish population now. Let's play along, Gimel.

Was there or was there not an organization designed to realize the Zionist dream from 1890 forward, even under Turkish rule?

Is your "began to drive them out" usage. It is not supportable from the date you urge.

Most of the land purchased in the early stages of the Zionist enterprise was fallow, or even required great labor to put in order for agcriculture. Further, by far the greatest proportion of Zionist immigrants settled in cities, being themselves, after all, mostly city folk: though there is a great rural mythos about those days, it was a very small fraction of the people involved. At the start of World War Two, it seems that only about 60,000 Jews were resident in rural quarters, involved in agriculture. As the rural Arab populace was on the order of half a million at that time, there cannot have been much displacement. Nor was there any displacement by extra-legal violence prior to the war at the end of the Mandate. The only real grand episode of driving out occured in that spasm of mutual violence: there has been since, in the period after the '67 war , a slow niggling of expropriation for settlements in the lands overrun then.

The advent of zionism predates 1890. I am not countering "your claim" that Jews were settling in Palestine. Richon Lezion, Rosh Pina and Zikharon Ya'acov were founded by about 15,000 Jewish immiagrants in the years 1882-1903. While there was Arab opposition, the settlements did not "drive out" the Arabs. Your claim to this is what I was objecting to.

The advent of Zionism predates 1890.

It emerged in Europe in the last two decades of the 19th century, so that puts its advent at 1880, though the term came into being in 1885...

Violet...

"Whether any land belongs to anybody. Every nation on earth was formed from somebody else's land, including especially the U.S."

If a thief made this absurd argument in court, the thief would be convicted and jailed. Obviously.

Some of the arguments made pro-Israel makes me forget the obvious. It's like explaining to a child why it's necessary to look both ways before crossing the road.

:eyes:

n/t

Everyone gets to live on the land with equal citizenship.

Can't beat that with bat, yo!

Neither of these embittered peoples will tolerate even the possiblity of living under the rule of an electoral majority wielded by the other.

There will have to be two states.

Perhaps after some passage of time in that arrangement, in some future where the killings are merely a grand-dad's memory of something the old folks told him about when he was tyke, a closer union might be possible, but not before then.

imaginable. The two state solution is impossible.

:shrug:

That any solution will prove impossible, save one of victory enforced by military power. That would be most unfortunate, save in that it could bring about an end to continual killings. It is certainly not my preference.

It seems to me that there is still time for a political and diplomatic solution, involving among other things dismantlement of the settlements. It will certainly require a change of government in Israel to achieve this, and so long as the current hostilities continue, that will not occur.

It may be uncomfortable for many, for a variety of reasons, but the keys to the Kingdom, so to speak, remain bound up in a cessation of attacks against Israeli civilians by the various armed Arab Palestinian bodies.

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

One expression alone exposes your true mentality - "so called Palestinians". So first their is no Palestinian land, now their are no Palestinians... Are you sure you're on..ah whatever

Calling the wall "ethnic cleansing" is really contemptable.

And ignoring Jordans history toward the palestinians
is morally indefensible.

um...so what the hell was your argument again?

To use the same analogy as Suadade. If someone steals something and uses the excuse that someone else stole too but got away with it is not going to let that person off the hook.

It brings me no particular pleasure to disagree with you on so important a matter.

As to the use of the term "ethnic cleansing", you know it is not my practice to use words loosely. The term does cover a range of behaviors, including manipulation of adminstrative decrees and law enforcement to render life so difficult as to encourage departure: it does not require the point of a gun, and it is certainly nothing equivalent to genocide. It was precisely such measures which formed the early stages of Butcher Slobo's campaign of clearance in Kossovo; land use regulations formed a principal tool in the dispossession of Albanians there. It is true my comments embody a speculation on the future, which as Mr. Berra noted is difficult to predict, since it has not happened yet, but my wager at large sums and any odds would be that over the next several years, should there be no other change in the situation save the completion of this barrier, matters will play out close to my prediction above. It must be remembered that the policy of the Likud Party is one emphasizing "Greater Israel" as a goal, and this thing is too apt in its potential toward that goal for it to be ignored, whatever else it might be intended for. Sharon is a skilled strategist, and this implies both a capacity for concealing the actual point of effort, and awareness that a single move aimed at two possible goals is almost sure to get at least one, and more likely to gain both than a single-minded drive at a single goal is to succeed.

A security barrier erected basically on the Green Line would not be open to the charge that it sought de facto annexation of land. Certainly it would be still denounced by serious enemies of Israel, such as Hamas, and by the shrillest of radicals. Their charges would, however, carry little weight, for they denounce everything, after all, and always in the wildest of tones whatever the actual scale of the matter they are in cry over. A security barrier of the sort being erected, if emplaced basically along the Green Line, would be of material assistance in providing security for the people of Israel: such barriers are indeed effective against infiltration, when properly maintained and manned. Israel has every right to take such a measure in the current circumstance, just as it has every right to take military action against those who assail its people from whatever quarter they do so. Any state, if its people were subject to the sort of attack Israel's are, would doubtless take similar measures.

This thing is something else. It is an attempt to incorporate the bulk of settlements into Israel proper, by de facto annexation of adjacent lands. The people on these lands will not become citizens of Israel, but resident aliens, without political rights. If they are not harrassed into departure by red tape and checkpoint, they can only become a sub-class within the Israeli polity, the existance of which will lend substance to the oft-levelled, but wildly exaggerate, charge, that Israel is an "apartheid state". This thing, along the lines suggested by these regulations, particularly in the light of how similar regulations were enforced in the past, will be a disaster for the state of Israel.

Those familiar with Democratic Underground know that you do not use such language lightly. However, if Israeli law denies rights to Arabs living in the territory between the Green Line and the wall and systematically makes life miserable based on the ethnicity of the Arabs residents, how is that not Apartheid? And if the denial of rights and the depravity of Apartheid are what forces the Arab residents of this strip of land to leave, how is that not ethnic cleasing?

That would be a hard judgment and one I hope we will not have to make.

Israel cannot swallow the occupied territories and remain a Jewish democracy. The territories are populated by three and a half million Arabs with a high birthrate who would rather die than be Israeli citizens. Either full citizenship is granted to the Arabs and the Leventine state ceases to be Jewish as the Arabs come to outnumber the Jews; or the Arabs are granted a limited franchize, which would an affront to the democratic principle of equality and would be met with the same kind of resistance and violence we already see; or the Arabs are forced from the land, which would be one of the major crimes of modern times.

The best hope for both peoples to live in a demoractic state is for them to make peace, for Israel to agree to the birth of an independent and sovereign Palestine with full rights as a nation and for the Palestinian government to prohibit private militias from making war in its name. Is that too much for which to hope? It is the only hope for democracy on either side of the Green Line or simply to avert a greater humanitarian disaster than already exists.

for both you and The Magistrate , I will hold
my opinion and will refer you to post # 25.

eom

But we disagree.

Both Jack Rabbit and the Magistrate have well and truly addressed the points you raised, and I would have been interested in seeing an insult-free attempt to refute what they said. If yr opinion was addressing what they said rather than about them, then there'd be no need for you to withhold it out of respect. At times I strongly disagree with the Magistrate and don't withhold my opinion, but that doesn't mean I don't respect him. It just means I can argue the issue with him without feeling I have to stay quiet because all I could come back with was an insult. If yr opinion is insult-free, there's zero to worry about when it comes to respect. People with a lot of respect for each other can and do disagree with each other all the time...

Violet...

I appreciate your sentiment, and also the depth of your feelings in this matter. It is my hope you will give my position in this some reflection. You know, at least, it is not based on a reflexive hostility to Israel, but comes from a genuine support for it, and its good name and promise.

it's the things you think you know and don't.

See number 8, above.