UN official condemns Israel’s ‘strategy of Judaization’ throughout Israel/Palestine

Israel/Palestine
on 19 Comments
homedemolition
A home demolition in Hebron. (Photo: Occupied Palestine)

AFP reports:

Israel is dispossessing Palestinians in east Jerusalem and the West Bank as well as its Arab minority with a “strategy of Judaisation,” a United Nations representative charged on Sunday.

Presenting her preliminary findings after a tour of Israel and the Palestinian territories this month, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, Raquel Rolnik, said she had seen a pattern of discrimination.

“From the Galilee and the Negev to east Jerusalem and the West Bank, the Israeli authorities promote a territorial development model that excludes, discriminates against and displaces minorities, particularly affecting Palestinian communities, side by side with the accelerated development of predominantly Jewish settlements,” she said.

“As a whole, it is clear that Israeli policies and practices for the Palestinian population in east Jerusalem and the West Bank violate international human rights and humanitarian law,” she added. . .

Her findings will be presented to Israel and the Palestinians, before being compiled into a final report due out in May 2013.

The initial findings presented on Sunday also accuse Israel of violating the rights of “low income persons of all identities, who find it increasingly difficult to obtain housing under existing policies.”

Rolnik noted that the state controls 93% of the land inside Israel, providing it with a “golden opportunity to promote housing,” she said.

“You can control land prices here, unlike other countries,” she said.

Helena Cobban added in an email to me:

What is really interesting is this UN official moving from a laws-of-war (IHL) context for her judgments to using a generalized anti-discrimination frame that extends seamlessly over the (once and former) Green Line.

From one perspective this is very concerning. Under IHL Israel, as the occupying power in East Jerusalem, has no right to move any of its civilian population into OEJ, period. And that would apply whether it implanted a robust mix of Palestinian-Israeli citizens and Jewish-Israeli citizens into OEJ and the rest of the occupied West Bank, or not. (Which of course, it doesn’t.)

From another perspective, this shift from an IHL optic to a general human-rights optic erases the increasingly fictional notion of the Green Line. It focuses an international spotlight on issues of gross housing and land-use discrimination inside as well as outside 1948 Israel… and it opens the way for a much more robust discussion of Palestinian *rights*, as such, and how they may be restored…

About Adam Horowitz

Adam Horowitz is Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

19 Responses

  1. seafoid
    February 13, 2012, 2:19 pm

    I don’t think it’s right to call it Judaisation. These people are not really Jews in the sense of belonging to a religious community with a long shared tradition of morality and decency , of adherence to the tenets of faith , of respect, of tikkun olam etc.
    They are more like members of a cult.

    • Krauss
      February 13, 2012, 3:25 pm

      I understand it’s painful to come to terms that these are indeed ‘our’ people, seafoid. But they are. And the mainstream of Jewish debate defends these people at every turn. And if you defend their actions then you take responsibility for their actions. In some measure; you become them through your backing of what they are doing, by protecting and enabling them.

      It’s we who are the outcast cult. And that’s the sad part.

    • American
      February 13, 2012, 5:52 pm

      I don’t know about Judaisation- but I am ready to do some Mafia-cation on the Israel firsters.

      link to aljazeera.com

      Will AIPAC and Bibi get their war?
      Does Netanyahu really want a war on Iran, or does he want to prove that no one could stop him if he did?
      MJ Rosenberg
      (excerpts)
      “Still, the conventional wisdom holds that it can, because this is an election year and the assumption is that no-one will say no to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
      War enthusiasm will rise to a fever pitch by March, when AIPAC holds its annual policy conference. Netanyahu will, if the past is any indication, bring the crowd of 10,000 to its feet by depicting Iran as the new Nazi Germany and by coming very close to stating that only war can stop these new Nazis. Other speakers will say the same. The few who mention the idea of diplomacy will be met with stony silence.
      From the convention centre, 10,000 delegates will be dispatched to Capitol Hill with two or three “asks” for members of Congress. One will, no doubt, be that “containment” of a nuclearised Iran be ruled off the table (leaving war as the only remaining option should Iran get the bomb). Another will likely be that the US stop all dealings with the Palestinian Authority should Hamas and Fatah permanently reconcile. A third could apply either to Iran or Palestine and will inevitably demand fealty to whatever Netanyahu’s policy of the moment happens to be. I’ve sat in on those meetings where the AIPAC “asks” are developed, and it was always clear that the substance didn’t matter all that much.
      The goal of the “asks” is ensuring that Congress follow the script. Invariably at least one of these AIPAC goals will be put into legislative language and quickly pass both chambers of Congress. In fact, usually the “ask” is already in legislative form, so that the AIPAC citizen lobbyists can simply demand that their legislators sign on as co-sponsors (if they haven’t already done so). Once the AIPAC bill has the requisite number of co-sponsors, the House and Senate leadership brings it to the floor where it passes with few dissenters.
      All hell breaks loose if a member of Congress should object.
      Speaking out
      One member of Congress has actually described what happened when she voted no on an AIPAC “ask”. Representative Betty McCollum (Democrat – Minnesota) refused to support a bill (opposed by the State Department) that would have essentially banned all US contacts with Palestinians. AIPAC was not pleased with her recalcitrance.
      In a letter to AIPAC executive director, Howard Kohr, McCollum described what happened next. In short, she was threatened by an AIPAC official from her district, called a “terrorist supporter” and warned that her behaviour “would not be tolerated”. In response, McCollum told AIPAC not to come near her office again until it apologised.

      McCollum was not, of course, the only legislator threatened that way. She is, however, the only one in memory who went public.
      As one who worked on Capitol Hill for 20 years, I know that many, if not most, legislators who vote with AIPAC complain about its strong-arm tactics – but only in private. In fact, some of the most zealous defenders of Netanyahu and faithful devotees of the lobby complain most of all. Among staff, AIPAC’s arrival in their offices during the conference is a source of dread. Hill staff, much like legislators themselves, like to think they are perhaps a little important. AIPAC eliminates that illusion. Although AIPAC calls its requests “asks”, they are, in fact, “tells” – and “no” is not a permissible response. (Staffers who like AIPAC, and there are a few, tend to work with it hand-in-glove, which is how AIPAC invariably knows what is going on even before the elected representatives do.)

      • Bumblebye
        February 13, 2012, 6:55 pm

        This has spent meany hours as the top story on the Guardian website:
        link to guardian.co.uk
        The central panel of the page has further linked stories to the attempted bombings in Georgia and New Delhi, marking the events as considered a major story in respect of the growing war-mongering against Iran.

      • Bumblebye
        February 13, 2012, 8:31 pm

        To add:
        just listened to Trita Parsi being very careful about the bombings, but wondering why Iran would carry out an attack in India, which is one of the few countries that has refused to go along with the sanctions. Is this the ‘false flag’ op various commenters have been warning us of?

      • Annie Robbins
        February 13, 2012, 9:28 pm

        just as likely another false flag/ zionist scheme of ‘throw enough crap against the wall and see what sticks’.

        Tbilisi, an Israeli embassy driver discovered a device planted on the undercarriage of his car.

        uh huh. so convincing/not.

      • seafoid
        February 14, 2012, 8:34 am

        It sounds very fishy. Imagine if it was the Mossad in a false flag and what Mrs Indian ambassador would say.

      • Chaos4700
        February 14, 2012, 8:47 am

        Gee, it’s a good thing the chauffeur decided to go under the car to check if the muffler was in good shape or the cap for the oil pan was still in place, right? I know I do that every single time before I drive. Especially in winter!

      • Chaos4700
        February 14, 2012, 9:10 am

        And not to put too fine a point on it, but there are much better places than stuck to the underside, like what Penguin’s minions did to the Batmobile in Batman Returns. Because that’s how “realistic” this story is to my ears.

      • Bumblebye
        February 14, 2012, 10:27 am

        While I think this is very likely to be a false flag op, it must be noted that it was a common tactic used by the IRA, then by extremist animal rights groups and even the occasional murderous hubby over here. Those of us over a certain age can still remember how to fashion a mirror on a stick for the purpose of checking under a vehicle!

    • teta mother me
      February 13, 2012, 6:50 pm

      what are YOU going to do about it?

  2. American
    February 13, 2012, 4:20 pm

    The UN has condemned this for 60 years. Wake me when they actually do something.

  3. seafoid
    February 13, 2012, 4:21 pm

    Krauss

    Judaism has always outlasted its zealots and extremists . There is no other way to endure over 25 centuries . And this time is no different.

    Hajo Meyer on Leviticus 19:34

    link to vimeo.com

    • teta mother me
      February 13, 2012, 6:46 pm

      frankly seafoid, I’m more concerned with whether the United States, the Palestinian people, and Iran can survive “Judaism’s zealots and extremists.” It seems other people are always the ones to pay the price of Judaism’s civil wars and identity crises.

      this time, it’s all on the record, and this time, Judaism or zionism or whomever is not going to get away with blaming it on “Hitler” or “the Romans” or Pharaoh or the dog that ate my homework.

  4. Kathleen
    February 13, 2012, 5:03 pm

    And nothing will be done

  5. Kathleen
    February 13, 2012, 5:59 pm

    link to theatlantic.com
    Israel and Proxy Terrorism
    By Robert Wright

    Feb 13 2012, 8:43 AM ET 83

    Should Israel be classified as a state sponsor of terrorism? That question is being debated in the wake of a story that NBC News broke late last week.

    Citing unnamed US officials, NBC reported that Israel has used an Iranian opposition group to carry out those much-publicized assassinations of Iranian scientists. The group in question is the M.E.K. (Mojahedin-e Khalq, or People’s Mujahedin of Iran), which since 1997 has been designated a terrorist group by the United States because of its alleged assassinations of US citizens.

    The argument for considering Israel a supporter of terrorism comes in two varieties:

    1) According to NBC, Israel gives the M.E.K. the funding, training, and weapons to carry out the assassinations–and that would seem to constitute support for a terrorist group.

    2) Leaving aside the M.E.K. involvement, there’s the argument that the assassinations inherently constitute terrorism. Andrew Sullivan and Kevin Drum had previously suggested that whoever is behind the assassinations is committing terrorism, but this NBC story is the first mainstream media corroboration of the widespread suspicion that Israel is behind them.

    After the NBC story broke, Paul Pillar, a former CIA official who teaches at Georgetown, dusted off the definition of terrorism used by the US government for purposes of keeping statistics: “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” That, says Pillar, is what these assassinations are.

  6. American
    February 13, 2012, 6:23 pm

    False Flag, False flag

    link to washingtonpost.com

    Israelis injured but identites and extent can’t be revealed due to security. LOL
    Iran did it, Iran did it. LOL

    And in other Israeli pranks…did you know that Palestine is now aligned with Iran? Yep Nettie says so.
    Iran and Palestine now twin Hitlers going to destroy Israel.

    • Chaos4700
      February 14, 2012, 12:49 am

      Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton issued a condemnation of the bombing incidents, calling them acts of terrorism, but she avoided any accusation of responsibility.

      Did she do the same thing for the bombs that have gone off in Iran?

  7. Amar
    February 14, 2012, 12:20 pm

    For her use of the term “Judaization,” Rolink earned the drummed-up outrage of right-wing pressure group NGO Monitor, which screamed “anti-Semitism” and demanded her resignation. Claiming the term “originated with Arab rejectionists” and is “promoted by fringe [NGOs]”, the group called Judaization “an anti-Jewish racist term which suggests that the presence of Jews is alien and unacceptable”.

    One person who will have been worried to read NGO Monitor’s press release is Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, who can only hope that the lobby groups’ keen body of researchers never alight on his own declaration that “the focus for today is to Judaize the Negev and the Galilee”.

    link to electronicintifada.net

Leave a Reply