Major olive producing village ordered to uproot 1,400 trees by May 1

Deir Istiya
Villagers relaxing in Deir Istiya, 2009. (Photo: Genevieve Long)

Earlier this week, Israel ordered Palestinian farmers in Deir Istiya, a major West Bank olive producing village, to uproot 1,400 trees by the end of this month. By comparison, this order is 400 more trees than the total number uprooted in all of 2011.

“This is the largest order for uprooting trees that the farmers of Wadi Qana have ever been given,” said the International Women’s Peace Service (IWPS). And Amal Salem, 63, from Deir Istiya, but now living in St. Louis says unearthing olive trees effects everyone in the village, “When I visited last year, every house I went to has had uprooted trees.”

Amal’s family has farmed olive for five generations.  It was their livelihood, and afforded her to attend school in Cairo. “I went to school because of the olive trees. I went to school because in Cairo because of the trees. My father had no other income but the olive trees.” In Amal’s family, Israeli authorities uprooted 300 trees of her 83-year old uncle’s land. Amal described them as ancient growth, “1,000 years old,” stemming from the Roman period. The day the bulldozers arrived, her cousins protested, clinging to the trees, although they were uprooted regardless. But within a day or two, her family proudly re-planted what was unearthed. Yet Amal’s uncle has night terrors from this incident, stirring over the sight of seeing his child nearly smashed by a bulldozer.

Since the Mamluk period, Deir Istiya has been one of the largest olive producing regions in the West Bank. But, even with 10,000 dunums of agricultural land, the village’s full farming capacity is weakened by Israel’s military and civilian occupation. Nearby, eight settlements are built on, or adjacent to, a total of 15,000 dunums of Palestinian land. “From my parents’ house we can see were they built a settlement on our land,” says Amal. And from the outposts, wastewater seeps into and is illegally dumped into a natural spring used by Palestinians producing olives.  Amal says the wastewater flows down from the settlements like a river, “but it isn’t a river.” At times, the wastewater overflows from the dumping site to onto Palestinian orchards. Last fall, over 100 trees in Deir Istiya were destroyed by flooded wastewater.

Additionally, the settlers themselves cause problems to Deir Istiya’s farmers through acts of harassment and violence, including arson to agricultural lands and “price tag” attacks. Amal has seen them holding guns a schoolchildren and earlier this year, settlers desecrated a mosque during a wave of price tag actions sparked by the demolition of an illegal Israeli outpost.  And devastatingly, Amal says a few years ago a settler ran over one villager with a car.

Today IWPS held an action in support of the farmers and released the following statement:

On April 25, 2012 nine farmers of Deir Istiya, Salfit were given orders to uproot 1400 olive trees in the Wadi Qana agricultural area by May 1, 2012. This is the largest order for uprooting trees that the farmers of Wadi Qana have ever been given. Most of the trees were planted approximately 5 years ago on privately owned Palestinian property. The orders, placed on retaining terraces, rocks and fences in the vicinity of the trees, state that if the farmers do not uproot their trees they will face punishment which could, according to Deir Istiya mayor Nazmi Salman include large fines and imprisonment.

About Allison Deger

Allison Deger is the Assistant Editor of Mondoweiss.net. Follow her on twitter at @allissoncd.
Posted in Activism, Israel/Palestine, Israeli Government, Occupation, Settlers/Colonists | Tagged

{ 243 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. flyod says:

    not to worry. zionists make the desert bloom….

    • Les says:

      US taxpayer dollars make the desert bloom.

    • We can sign the International Women’s Peace Service’s petition asking that the Israeli government stop its unspeakable destruction of the 1400 olive trees here:

      link to change.org.

      • I wonder when Zionists will learn to love the land more than they hate Palestinians. Oh right, the olive trees remind them of the indigenous people, nevermind.

    • AllenBee says:

      I posted a link to this Mondoweiss article on the website of National Catholic Reporter, here — Archaeology expedition creates hope of God’s plan for all of us

      (Comments go to moderation before posting; my comment may not make it thru the censors).

      The NCR article is one of a series by Presbyterian elder Bill Tammeus, who is blogging his trip to Israel.

      “TEL MARESHA, Israel — The underground cave in which we are digging for archeological treasures here is domed with rock, cool and a bit damp.

      Our Jewish-Christian study tour group has stopped at Bet Guvrin-Maresha National Park in the Judean lowlands to get a sense of the astonishing layers of history in the Holy Land. And the experts who oversee this ongoing archeological dig are letting us do some real digging.

      Using small claw-like tools, we churn up soil that has remained untouched by human hands for at least 2,000 years. As we do so, we watch for pieces of pottery, jewelry or anything else that seems not to be chalky rock or simply soil. The burden of not losing history seems palpable.

      NCR and Tammeus need some consciousness-raising.

      I urge MW participants to take on the mission of educating NCR readers.

  2. pabelmont says:

    One wonders, what justification, what authority other than the usual “barrel of a gun”, Israel can have for thus interfering with the economic and traditional lives of these people. How can this be a step necessary for assuring the safety of the people of Israel living in pre-1967 Israeli territory? How otherwise can it be justified?

    How can any ethical person be justified to purchase any goods manufactured in Israel, or to hire any services from any Israeli company, when Israel is thus deliberately making it impossible for that ethical person to buy olive oil from these farmers?

    How can Beinart and MJRosenberg justify their refusal to join ranks with the total-Israel BDS effort in the face of such atrocities?

    Of course, one is glad that Beinart and MJR approve the partial or OPT-BDS effort, even though that effort seems rather pointless, but one asks them to please reconsider! Perhaps Phil can ask them to make personal responses to THIS POSTING including their thoughts on the efficacy against this sort of thing of the partial-BDS which they espouse.

    It is not the Israeli industries on the West Bank which are uprooting these trees, but the IOF, a branch of the government of (whole, entire) Israel. If there is a crime here — as I perceive that there is — it is a crime of the entire Israeli people, for it is their government that acts here, not (mere ?) settlers (who are, of course, settlers at all only by the help and permission of that same government of all the Israelis).

    • “One wonders, what justification, what authority other than the usual “barrel of a gun”, Israel can have for thus interfering with the economic and traditional lives of these people.”

      Good question. I can’t find anything anywhere about this on the web. And it doesn’t look like this person asked anyone from Israel, which is leaving out a lot of this story. I did not even see any stories about it on Haaretz or anywhere else.

      “It is not the Israeli industries on the West Bank which are uprooting these trees, but the IOF, a branch of the government of (whole, entire) Israel.”

      What’s the IOF? You mean like the Israeli Occupation Force? That’s not actually a real thing. Like, it’s made up… totally imaginary. It’s probably part of the Shin Bet, which is like the Israeli FBI/National Guard or maybe the IDF even but I doubt it.

      Shouldn’t you find out what the other sides story even is before condemning the entire Israeli people for it though?

      • pfp, the israeli offense force is what palestine’s solidarity activists call israel’s military. as for finding something about this on the web, check allison’s links, there’s a copy of the order. here it is blown up

        link to iwps.info

        • Annie,

          I’m aware of what is meant when people say “IOF”. I guess my point was that while I don’t have a problem with using euphemistic names to make a political point or to denigrate an opponent, it seems different when you’re using it in the context of a hard news story or describing its relationship to the government of Israel. For instance, Pabelmont described the IOF as a branch of the Israeli government… since neither the IDF or the Mossad or the Shin Bet are branches of the GOI, it begins to get very unclear what he’s referring to or if he’s just exaggerating or what. When a post is peppered with half-truths and false leads like that it weakens the credibility of his assertions. For this we should consider condemning the whole of Israel’s population?

          BTW, I don’t doubt that it is happening, I would just like to hear what was given as the justification for it.

        • pfp, the iof needs no justification. they implement a sadistic agenda all the time. my guess (just my hunch) is may first was also the date the illegal outpost of ulpana was supposed to be demolished, by court order. so this is payback for that. of course, it won’t be demolished. the court gave them 2 more months today, and then it will be delayed again. but my hunch is this is a settler payback implemented via the military.

        • sardelapasti says:

          “… described the IOF as a branch of the Israeli government… since neither the IDF or the Mossad or the Shin Bet are branches of the GOI,…”

          Very, very original. So the Zionist entity has a state but the army, the spy department or the internal repression services are explicitly not part of the state. What next? I think that not even the Jesuits ever got to the point of inventing anything so original. You have me in stitches.

        • Shingo says:

          So the Zionist entity has a state but the army, the spy department or the internal repression services are explicitly not part of the state.

          Well, it’s not that strange if you think about it sardelapasti. It would certainly explain why the IDF or the Mossad or the Shin Bet defiy the orders of the Israeli Supreme Court so regurarly.

      • Shingo says:

        Shouldn’t you find out what the other sides story even is before condemning the entire Israeli people for it though?

        Why? The entire Israeli people have supported teh occupation from day 1, which is reflected in their voting record.

      • Sumud says:

        Shouldn’t you find out what the other sides story even is before condemning the entire Israeli people for it though?

        We know what the other side of the story is.

        It’s the same reason several hundred thousand Palestinians in Area C don’t have piped water and Israel destroys whatever water storage they can set up.
        It’s the same reason 25,000 Palestinian homes have been demolished since 1967.
        It’s the same reason 180,000 chickens were killed in Gaza during the bloodbath in 2008/2009.
        It’s the same reason there are hundreds of checkpoints all over the West Bank, restricting movement and strangling the economy.
        It’s the same reason there is literally zionist shit from the settlements polluting Palestinian village’s agricultural land (see how zionist express their love of the land).
        It’s the same reason Israel is holding thousands of Palestinian political prisoners.
        It’s the same reason for every Israeli child killed Israel kills at least ten Palestinian children.
        It’s the same reason that as well as these 1400 olive trees, a million other olive trees have been destroyed since 1967.

        Israel is trying to wipe Palestine and her indigenous people from the map.

        • Fredblogs says:

          no, that would be the Palestinian side of the story.

        • as opposed to your side of the story. you are a joke.

          link to mondoweiss.net

        • Sumud says:

          no, that would be the Palestinian side of the story.

          Fredblogs – I’ve relayed 8 factual descriptions of events that have occurred or are occurring in the occupied Palestinian territories.

          Are you disputing the factual accuracy of what I’ve written?

        • Daniel Rich says:

          Hi Annie,

          Jokes are funny and I ain’t laughing when I read blogs’ bs.

        • heartbeatt says:

          Please stop this annoying agitation and go out and inform yourself. It is quite simple, visit one of these villages or go to youtube to witness olive trees being torn up. There can be absolutely no reason, nor excuse for destroying these trees or the livelihood of Palestinian farmers unless Israel’s government wants to get rid of them. It has become quite obvious that this is precisely what they do intend. This information is widely corroborated by independent witnesses, human rights groups, government officials from various countries, and Jews who either care or who have bothered to question the Zionist narrative and indoctrination. Israel’s government flails around desperately, disputing facts, presenting bald-faced versions of their own invention, bullying some into silence. It is foolish to believe they can go on for ever without destroying themselves.

        • Thousands of political prisoners?

          Israel is trying to wipe Palestinians from the map?

          Israel killed thousands of chickens on purpose as part of a larger strategy against the Palestinians?

          I challenge those as factual.

        • Shingo says:

          Thousands of political prisoners?

          Yes, thousands. At least 1,000 are imprisoned without any charge.

          Israel is trying to wipe Palestinians from the map?

          Of course not. They achieved that long ago. One of the main pruposes for all those pine tree forrests was to hide the ruins of the hundreds of villages they destroyed in 1948.

          Israel killed thousands of chickens on purpose as part of a larger strategy against the Palestinians?

          Sure.

          I challenge those as factual.

          Really? So you believe those chikens posed a threat to Israel’s existence, or were they simply illegal immigrant chickens?

        • tree says:

          For pfp, from the Goldstone report:

          942. On or around the night of 3 January 2009 Israeli troops arrived at a number of houses on al-Sekka Road in Zeytoun. The Mission interviewed four people who were direct witnesses to and victims of the events that occurred in the aftermath of their arrival. One witness was interviewed three times for a total of five hours and testified at the public hearings in Gaza.499 Another three were interviewed for an hour each. The Mission also visited the site of the Sawafeary chicken farms. Finally, the Mission addressed questions to the Government of Israel with regard to the military advantage pursued in attacking Mr. Sawafeary’s chicken farms, but
          received no reply. The following narrative reflects the eyewitness accounts.

          943. Sameh Sawafeary is a chicken farmer. His family has been in the egg production business for many years. He indicated that he, his brothers and his children owned 11 chicken farms in Zeytoun as of December 2008. The farms housed more than 100,000 chickens.

          944. On 3 January, Mr. Sawafeary, who was in his home on al-Sekka Road in the al-Samouni neighbourhood of Zeytoun with his family, was alerted by an al-Jazeera television news broadcast at around 8 p.m. that an Israeli ground invasion was imminent.500 As a result, he took a number of precautions, including hiding money and other valuables. He then gathered around 11 members of his family on the upper floor of the two-storey concrete house. At around 10 p.m. a missile struck the house, entering through the rear of the upper floor and exiting near the
          window of the living room opposite. The missile passed over several of Mr. Sawafeary’s children and grandchildren, who were lying on the floor. No one was injured.

          945. At around 11 p.m., Mr. Sawafeary heard the sound of helicopters flying over his house followed by soldiers landing on his roof. The soldiers remained there until 7 a.m. the next morning, firing what he described as “a rain of bullets”. The family stayed, terrified, on the floor of an upstairs room.

          946. At around 7.15 a.m. on 4 January, soldiers came into the upstairs room where the family was sheltering. They separated the men from the women and put the women in another room. The hands of the men and the boys were tied behind their backs, except for one of Mr. Sawafeary’s sons who has only one arm. After some time the commander told Mr. Sawafeary that they should walk south and “go to Rafah”. The soldiers then searched the house. The 11 members of the household there at the time left the house as instructed.

          947. The Sawafeary family spent the following five days in terror. Together with neighbouring families they spent one night in the Abu Zur house and the following three in the nearby house of Mr. Rajab Mughrabi. During that time they suffered a number of violations at the hands of the Israeli armed forces, including the killing of the child Ibrahim Juha (see chap. XI).

          948. For the purposes of this section the Mission refers to the information it received about the systematic destruction that occurred for several days and which the witnesses were able to see during the time they were forced by the circumstances to remain in the house of Mr. Mughrabi.

          949. Mr. Sawafeary and Mr. Mughrabi informed the Mission that they had watched Israeli armoured bulldozers systematically destroy land, crops, chickens and farm infrastructure. Mr. Mughrabi stated that he watched the bulldozers plough through fields with crops and trees, destroying everything in their path. Mr. Sawafeary stated that he saw less, as he was watching through a small opening because he was afraid of being seen and shot. He stated that he saw only two or three “tanks”, but was not in a position to say whether there were more. He watched as the armoured bulldozers destroyed the chicken farms, crushing the wire mesh coops with the chickens inside. He could not see his own farms and the chickens he could see being destroyed were not his. He noted that the drivers of the tanks would spend hours flattening the chicken coops, sometimes stopping for coffee breaks, before resuming their work.

          950. When he left Mr. Mughrabi’s house on 8 January, Mr. Sawafeary was able to see that his own farms did not appear to have been subjected to the destruction he had witnessed from inside the house. However, when he was able to return to his home after the Israeli withdrawal all 31,000 of his chickens had been killed and the coops systematically flattened.

          951. The Mission visited the site and saw the still flattened mesh coops, which had been covered with corrugated iron, as well as the remains of water tanks and machinery. The Mission was also shown the remnants of a small mosque near the end of one of the lines of the coops that had been destroyed. The remains of some dead chickens were still visible and Mr. Sawafeary stated that it had been a mammoth task to clean up the area when he returned. He pointed out that, in addition to the loss of livestock, the farm had been completely automated with significant investment in machinery, all of which had been destroyed, as had the plant for packaging the eggs. In short, the business had been razed to the ground. A protective grille, believed to be part of a D-9 armoured bulldozer, was found at the site.

          952. The Mission notes comments from one soldier to Breaking the Silence that appears to broadly corroborate the destruction in Zeytoun, probably at the hands of the Givati Brigade.501

          953. The Mission inspected the inside of Mr. Sawafeary’s house and noted damage to the upper floor, where a missile had penetrated. It also observed a number of graffiti that appeared to have been written by Israeli troops. One said “424 Givati”. There were others apparently written in Russian.

          954. Mr. Sawafeary told the Mission that he and his family together supplied approximately 35 per cent of the egg market in Gaza. His own farms supplied over 10 per cent. He noted that it was not only his farms that had been destroyed but also most of his family’s farms had been
          destroyed in the same way as his. He estimated that close to 100,000 chickens were killed in the process.

          955. The Mission has reviewed the relevant UNOSAT report and satellite imagery. One satellite image shows the Sawafeary chicken farms in June 2007 and another shows the area in January 2009. The images depict clearly the size of the farms and the surrounding area. The destruction is plainly visible in the second image.502

          1. Factual findings

          956. The systematic destruction along with the large numbers of killings of civilians suggest premeditation and a high level of planning. Even in the context of a campaign that had many serious violations of international humanitarian law, the events in Zeytoun at this time stand out.

          957. The Mission finds that the destruction of the land and farms in the area was not justified by the pursuit of any military objective. The Israeli armed forces that arrived took control of the area within a matter of hours. They remained there until 18 January. The destruction of the land was not necessary to move the tanks or equipment or gain any particular visual advantage.

          958. An inspection of the scene indicates that the area is relatively sparsely populated. The Mission rejects the idea that the Sawafeary farm was destroyed in the pursuit of any military objective.

          959. The destruction of the farms appears to have been wanton and not militarily necessary. Not only were the coops with the chickens destroyed, but all of the plant and machinery of the farms as well.

          960. From the facts ascertained by it, the Mission finds that the Sawafeary chicken farms, the 31,000 chickens and the plant and material necessary for the business were systematically and deliberately destroyed, and that this constituted a deliberate act of wanton destruction not justified by any military necessity.

          link to www2.ohchr.org

        • Fredblogs says:

          I’m saying that someone asked for the Israeli’s side of the story and you posted the Palestinian side of the story instead. Unless you were there at all eight incidents, you are going by what someone told you happened. The people that told you gave the Palestinian side of the story.

          Take here for example. The Palestinian side of the story was just that the Palestinians were ordered to uproot 1400 trees for no reason other than “4 teh evulz”. The Israeli side of the story is (according to another poster here) that the trees were planted on a nature reserve.

        • tree says:

          PFP,

          ICAHD, Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, has a series of maps, here:
          link to icahd.org

          You might want to particularly notice this series of maps here:

          link to icahd.org.dolphin.nethost.co.il

        • tree says:

          For the number of Palestinian political prisoners, see here:

          link to addameer.org

          As of 1 April 2012, there were 4,610 Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli prisons and detention centers, including 322 administrative detainees, 6 women and 203 children.

        • Sumud says:

          Thank you Shingo & tree.

          playforpalestine – note carefully I said “8 factual descriptions”.

          Israel trying to wipe Palestine from the map is my net assessment of what 65+ years of Israel’s behaviour means. It is not included in the list of 8 factual descriptions).

          It’s pretty obvious to any honest observer that Eretz Israel is all about wiping Palestine from the map – though of course you are free to disagree.

          Tree has provided a source to the number of Palestinian political prisoners.

          The last issue is the number of chickens killed by the IDF during their bloodbath in Gaza in 2008/2009. The figure I named is a compilation of figures as described in the UN FF Mission to Gaza (‘The Goldstone Report’). It recounts the IDF destroying poultry farm after poultry farm, mostly just by driving directly over the chicken coops with the birds still, inside crushing them – a most grotesquely cruel act. Cruel because of the obvious animal cruelty involved, and cruel because deliberately destroying people’s ability to support themselves is reprehensible.

          You can easily find the figures by searching the report for ‘chicken’ and ‘poultry’.

          I suggest you read the whole thing – see why the world is so thoroughly disgusted with Israel, and find out if you have a shred of humanity or decency.

          *I see while I was writing tree has included excerpts of the UN FF Mission to Gaza report, on the chickens. Thanks again tree.

        • fred, you’re the hasbarist. (hasbara=to explain). isn’t that your job? to give us israel’s side? as far as we are concerned there is no justification for ethnic cleansing. you’re barking up the wrong tree here.

          The Israeli side of the story is (according to another poster here) that the trees were planted on a nature reserve.

          it’s not israel’s right to decide what is or what is not a ‘nature preserve’ in palestine. if it’s not a ‘nature preserve’ it is a ‘closed military zone’ (until settlers move into it). people are not stupid. this is ethnic cleaning. it’s area c.

        • tree says:

          Take here for example. The Palestinian side of the story was just that the Palestinians were ordered to uproot 1400 trees for no reason other than “4 teh evulz”. The Israeli side of the story is (according to another poster here) that the trees were planted on a nature reserve.

          The “other poster” here (Shmuel) made clear that the legal “excuse” was that the area was designated a nature preserve(despite the fact that it is privately owned village land), but he also pointed out that the GOI has no problem with Jewish incursions on designated natural preserves. And he backed it up with a report from B’Tselem, an independent source, and not a “Palestinian” one. The excuse is a mere fig leaf to cover the dispossession of Palestinian land by the Israeli government and if you didn’t have your hands so firmly planted over your eyes you could easily see this. But you refuse to see what you don’t want to see. The only other possibility is that your head is so firmly planted where the sun don’t shine that we’d need a crane to remove it.

        • Sumud says:

          Fredblogs ~ I’ll ask again if you are disputing any of the 8 factual observations I have made.

          These things either did, or did not happen.

          It is not the Palestinian side of the story to say Israel has destroyed over a million olive trees, it is just an objective fact.

          I’m more than content to leave people to make up their own minds as to *why* Israel does what it does – my subjective opinion is that (I repeat):

          ‘Israel is trying to wipe Palestine and her indigenous people from the map.’

          That’s my opinion – and if Palestinians happen to agree with me, then so be it. You can disagree with me if you like, but the rest … well that is simply fact.

        • Sumud says:

          Take here for example. The Palestinian side of the story was just that the Palestinians were ordered to uproot 1400 trees for no reason other than “4 teh evulz”. The Israeli side of the story is (according to another poster here) that the trees were planted on a nature reserve.

          Anyone interested to understand the ‘Israel side of the story’ on how Israel uses planning laws to perpetrate and conceal ethnic cleansing of Palestinians should read Israeli activist Jeff Halper’s great book ‘An Israeli in Palestine’.

        • Shingo says:

          The Israeli side of the story is (according to another poster here) that the trees were planted on a nature reserve.

          Yeah right, declared a nature reserve on the occupied territories AFTER the olive orchards had already been established.

          ” In Amal’s family, Israeli authorities uprooted 300 trees of her 83-year old uncle’s land.

          Don’t you love how Israel retroactively declares Palestinisn homes – that were built long before Israel was even created – illegal for not having Israeli issued permits. And now this – declaring olive groves illegal because they reside on land that Israel has suddenly decided is a nature reserve.

        • tree says:

          An, in case you missed it, Fred, I posted a refutation of your insistence that most of the land taken by Israel in 1948 was state owned land, here:

          link to mondoweiss.net

          Note that the refutation comes not from “the Palestinian side” but from the British Mandate Government and the Jewish National Fund.

        • Shmuel says:

          Anyone interested to understand the ‘Israel side of the story’ on how Israel uses planning laws to perpetrate and conceal ethnic cleansing of Palestinians should read Israeli activist Jeff Halper’s great book ‘An Israeli in Palestine’.

          Or Akiva Eldar and Idit Zertal’s Lords of the Land, or many other excellent and thoroughly researched publications. The information is all there, if one is interested in such “trivial” matters as truth and facts. Even Pliah Albeck, one of the main architects of Israel’s “legal” framework for the theft of Palestinian land, admitted that her goal was to secure as much land as possible for Jewish settlement, employing whatever legal excuses and inventions she could devise.

        • Sumud says:

          Thanks Shmuel, I haven’t read that, I’ll check it out.

        • Fredblogs says:

          Right, and how many of them are in prison for their politics and how many of them for violent crimes they committed in support of their politics?

          ” It is for my accent, and the airs and graces I affect that I am to board this prison hulk for Australia.” “And for all them murders ya done.”

        • How many of the Israelis are imprisoned for violent crimes they committed in support of their politics (i.e. lebensraum)?

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Right, and how many of them are in prison for their politics and how many of them for violent crimes they committed in support of their politics?”

          Fredo, you appear to be an irredeemable racist, for whom the mere insinuation of crime attributable to a non-Jew is enough to convict. If you cannot establish that any of these people committed any crime, then you should be banned for your vile racism. In any event, your parents should be ashamed of themselves for not teaching you to be a decent human being, or you should be if they tried and you didn’t listen.

        • Sumud says:

          ??? I’ll take that as a no Fredblogs.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “The Palestinian side of the story was just that the Palestinians were ordered to uproot 1400 trees for no reason other than “4 teh evulz”.”

          Yes. And given the decades of continuous evil by these Jews in Palestine, against Palestinians, that is a more likely answer (even with your internet childishness) than the Israeli excuse of building a “nature reserve” on someone else’s land.

        • Fredblogs says:

          You can take the fact that they censored my answer to your question any way you like Sumud. Sorry, I tried to answer you, but the censors here won’t let me.

          BTW, I answer any direct, non-personal question anyone addresses to me, if I see it. So if you ask a question and don’t see a reply, then either I didn’t see your question, or they censored my reply.

        • Sumud says:

          So Fredblogs ~ which of those eight factual statements are you actually disputing?

          I only ever make verifiable claims.

          I’m not sure why your response was censored – just copy my original statement and write “i dispute this” next to it. I can’t see why that would be censored.

        • alec says:

          You are really shameless FB. You had best hope there is no karma in this world or the next.

        • At least 1,000 are imprisoned without any charge.

          You mean administrative detainees? According to B’tselem it’s 320, not thousands. And what is your evidence that even those are being held as political prisoners?

          Of course not. They achieved that long ago.

          Wipe the Palestinians from the map? There’s quite a few Palestinians left in Israel and the rest of the world. If anyone has been wiped from the map it would be the Jewish presence in Arab lands.

          Really? So you believe those chikens posed a threat to Israel’s existence, or were they simply illegal immigrant chickens?

          There is a difference between what you’re writing there and the idea that it’s part of a larger strategy against “the Palestinians.”

        • Shingo says:

          According to B’tselem it’s 320, not thousands.

          That’s funny because according to The Israeli government, it’s 1000.

          And what is your evidence that even those are being held as political prisoners?

          What reason is there for holding them when they have not been charged?

          Wipe the Palestinians from the map? There’s quite a few Palestinians left in Israel and the rest of the world.

          And there were quite a few Jews left after the Holocaust. Your point?

          If anyone has been wiped from the map it would be the Jewish presence in Arab lands.

          Rubbish.  The Jewish presence in the Arab world is a consequence of mass migration by Jews to Israel.

          The only place any expulsion took place was in Egypt, following the Lavin Affair.

          Don’t waste your time peddling your lame Hasbra trash here. We’ve heard it all before, and sadly for you, we know this stuff better than you.

        • Hostage says:

          There is a difference between what you’re writing there and the idea that it’s part of a larger strategy against “the Palestinians.”

          No there’s not. Israel has deliberately cited its own domestic laws in order to justify grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions that constitute war crimes. We gone over this subject in the past here at Mondoweiss, but let’s review the situation again:

          Israel ignores the prohibition against transfer and deportation from occupied territories contained in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949). It is illegal to transfer civilians out of an occupied territory to prisons in another country. Prior to the Shalit prisoner exchange, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics said that there were over 7,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.

          The expired Oslo Agreements only granted Israel criminal jurisdiction “in accordance with international law”, but Israel has ignored the provisions of international law and the accords. The Israeli High Court of Justice (HCJ) rejected a petition to order the State to refrain from holding Palestinian prisoners and detainees in facilities located in Israeli territory within the Green Line. See HCJ Rejects Petition against Holding Detained Palestinians in Israeli Territory [HCJ 2690/09] [28.3.2010] link to idi.org.il

          The HCJ held that Israeli national legislation overrides the provisions of international conventions to which Israel is party, including conventions that reflect customary international law, and that the petition should be rejected.

          Israel and Great Britain are two examples of the three or four modern states which have no formal written constitutions to define the role of treaties or international law. In “International Law in Domestic Courts: Israel”, Prof. David Kretzmer explains:

          In the absence of domestic legislative provisions the Supreme Court looked to the approach of the English legal system.
          The English approach rests on three principles: 1. Parliament is supreme in the field of legislation. Hence, any law enacted by parliament is valid, even if it is incompatible with the state’s international law obligations. 2. Customary international law is part and parcel of the common law of the land, and will be enforced by the domestic courts unless it is incompatible with parliamentary legislation. 3. International treaties that were duly ratified by the state and bind it in international law will not be enforced by the domestic courts unless their provisions have been incorporated in domestic law through parliamentary legislation. The Supreme Court of Israel adopted all three principles.

          link to papers.ssrn.com

          On the other hand, international courts have stated time and again that it is a universal principle of international law that a State cannot invoke its own municipal law as the reason for the non-fulfillment of its obligations under international law. Any attempt to excuse non-fulfillment of an international obligation on the basis of municipal law constitutes a breach of those obligations. See for example André Klip, Göran Sluiter, Annotated leading cases of International Criminal Tribunals: The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 1997-1999, Intersentia nv, 2001, ISBN 9050951414, page 137, paragraph 39 or Judge Sir Hersch Lauterpach, “The Development of International Law by the International Court”, Cambridge University Press, 1982, ISBN 0521463327, page 262

          President Abbas has demanded the release of all Palestinian prisoners held in Israel and intends to take the matter up with the United Nations and the international courts, e.g. link to jpost.com

        • “That’s funny because according to The Israeli government, it’s 1000.”

          Got a source for that? What’s wrong with B’tselem anyway? Also, 1000 is not “thousands.” It’s 1000. And detained without a trial still is not the equivalent of “political prisoner.”

          “What reason is there for holding them when they have not been charged?”

          That’s a question. Not evidence.

          “And there were quite a few Jews left after the Holocaust. Your point?”

          Seriously? You’re comparing less than 15,000 deaths (on both sides) over 65 years to the most famous genocide of all time? Fine, here’s my point… there’s more evidence that the Arabs are trying to wipe Palestinians from the map than there is for Israel.

          “Rubbish. The Jewish presence in the Arab world is a consequence of mass migration by Jews to Israel.”

          Mass migration caused by pogroms and massacres is the equivalent of expulsion.

          “The only place any expulsion took place was in Egypt, following the Lavin Affair.”

          Except for Libya and Iraq you mean. But then that’s assuming that fleeing in fear for ones life does not equate to “expulsion.” You might as well argue that Jews were never expelled from Poland, or Palestinians from Israel.

          20% of Israel is currently Arab while almost none of the Arab world is Jewish. Do you honestly think that reality represents a simultaneous, complete “mass migration” of Jews who were not coerced, and 65 years of genocide waged against the Palestinians by Israel? Because those numbers seem to indicate otherwise.

          “We’ve heard it all before, and sadly for you, we know this stuff better than you.”

          Dude, you didn’t even know that Iraq expelled its Jewish population. And you apparently can’t tell that there’s a significant difference between 15,000 and 6 million. This isn’t an ideal time for you to brag about your wealth of knowledge on this subject.

        • detained without a trial still is not the equivalent of “political prisoner.”

          sure it is. do you think we are idiots?

        • Shingo says:

          And detained without a trial still is not the equivalent of “political prisoner.

          If course it is. There is no difference whatsoever.

          That’s a question. Not evidence.

          If they are not charged, then they are political prisoners. Both constitute grave abuses of power and violations of human rights.

          Seriously? You’re comparing less than 15,000 deaths (on both sides) over 65 years to the most famous genocide of all time?

          No I am not comparing the conflict to the Holocaust, I am testing your lame brained argument that the increase in surviving populations means they were not the subject of violence.

          Secondly, the conflict has claimed at least double that number, with 6000 killed on the Palestinian side since 2000 alone.

          … there’s more evidence that the Arabs are trying to wipe Palestinians from the map than there is for Israel.

          And where do I find that evidence? What Palestinian land is being stolen by Arabs. What homes are they demolishing? Who is bombing them?

          Mass migration caused by pogroms and massacres is the equivalent of expulsion.

          None of which had anything to do with the Palestinians.

          Except for Libya and Iraq you mean.

          Iraq was the consequence of Jewish terrorists setting off bombs in Baghdad against Jewish targets to incite flight to Israel.

          Lybia was blowback for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians carried out by the Zionist militias.

          You might as well argue that Jews were never expelled from Poland, or Palestinians from Israel.

          Lame and vaccuous argument. Even the Jewish population in Israel that came from Arab states reject being referred to as refugees, and insit they arrived in Israel to make Alyah.

          20% of Israel is currently Arab while almost none of the Arab world is Jewish.

          So what? The fact that the Jewish population has dwindled in the Arab world can mean one fo 2 things: either they forced to leave or they left of their own accord. The vast majority were the latter.

          There was no simultaneous, complete “mass migration” of Jews. The migration took place over at least a decade, which clearly debunks the claim that there was a flight of Arab Jews from Arab states.

          The only place Jews were forcibly expelled was from Egypt after Britain, France and Israel attacked Egypt in 1956, and the only Jews expelled were those who had British or French citizenship (along with other non-Jews who had similar citizenship) and not Egyptian citizenship. You might want to read Joel Beinin on Egyptian Jews.

          In all other Arab countries, although some Jews may have had bad times and feared for their lives because they were associated in the minds of some Arabs with the actions of Israel, no Jews were forcibly expelled from any other Arab country. In many cases, Arab countries had laws against their Jewish citizens immigrating to Israel, and only relented under considerable pressure from Western countries, only to be later falsely accused of expelling them instead.

          A large number of Arab Jews went to Israel because of messianic feelings, attachment to other Jews and concerns for Jewish safety in Israel, because they were induced with promises and monetary rewards, or because they wished to join relatives there. Some may have likewise felt insecure in their home countries, most specifically because they were mentally associated with a country that was grossly mistreating Arabs in the name of being “the state of all Jews”, and sometimes even because that same country, Israel, sought to make their lives more insecure so as to push them to “make aliyah”.

          The largest number of Arab Jews came from Morocco, over a span of ten or so years from the 50′s to the sixties , and yet there are few to no reports of any attempts to push them out of Morocco and there are reports of attempts to retain them in Morocco, and to get them to return. The King of Morocco was, after all, the one who refused to turn over the names of his Jewish subjects to the Vichy government that ruled Morocco during WWII. Most of those Jews who first left for Israel were younger, and more adventuresome, and they were eventually followed by their parents who wished to retain family ties. Eventually, with a shrinking demographic steeped in endogamy, the population reached a point of unsustainability.

          Dude, you didn’t even know that Iraq expelled its Jewish population.

          LOL. Dude you didn’t even know that the so called Iraq expulsion was instigated by Jewish terrorists setting off bombs in Baghada against Jewish targets.

          In Iraq, during and immediately after the 1948 War, Jews were banished from government jobs. Reprehensible, yes, but it pales in comparison to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and even compared to the US internment of our own Japanese American citizens. You might want to try reading Shiblak’s “Lure of Zion”, Shabti’s “We Look Like the Enemy” , Rejwan’s “The Last Jews in Baghdad”, and Woolfson’s “Prophets in Babylon”, or even the writings of Avi Shlaim , whose parents came from Iraq, on his life growing up in Israel. And David Shasha and Ella Shohat are also worth a read.

          Did you really think you could get away with peddling your recycles hasbra trash on this forum?

        • If they are not charged, then they are political prisoners.

          even when charges are made, 9 times out of 10 they are still political prisoners.

          History – praise be to Clio, the Greek muse of history – is no longer written only by the victors. But the conquerors still decide who is the hero, who is the soldier who acts as the judge and who is the defendant who is declared a terrorist even before he is convicted. The Palestinians are not recognized as prisoners of war whose weapons are less advanced, less sophisticated than those of their jailers.

          Israelis are not satisfied with the various measures to worsen their prison conditions. When it comes to Palestinians, punishment is not enough. Prison must also be never-ending revenge that extends what Israel tries to do outside its walls as well: to break up the collective, to weaken the individual, to deter others from resistance to the foreign regime.

          The hunger strike is, in effect, a protest against these goals. Not all of the Palestinian prisoners have joined it. In prison, as outside of it, Palestinian political and social cohesion has declined, and many of the inmates lack the cultural and social awareness of their predecessors. Nevertheless, the hunger strike underlines the fundamentally political nature of the collective of Palestinians incarcerated in Israel.

          Amira Hass link to haaretz.com

        • This isn’t an ideal time for you to brag about your wealth of knowledge on this subject.

          you’re a fine one to talk pfp, you act as if israel wasn’t lobbying those governemtns and citizens of those countries for the exact outcome that eventually happened, for the jews of those countries to migrate to israel. then, low and behold it happens, and you whine about it and beg compensation.

          who is this stupid? you must know israel tried to work out a ‘trade’ for iraqi jews and palestinian regugees. they wanted to offload the population of palestine sans any reprecussians, sans any compensation..they are still trying to ‘balance’ their debt to palestine by yammering about debts owed to jews from those countries, as if palestinians had anything to do with those expulsions, which..(again) was the exact outcome israel wanted.

          the history is no longer written by the victors, those were pre internet days..now we rule the info..get used to it.

        • Hostage says:

          Zionists perfected the scam of claiming that they were still homeless or stateless after 80 generations and thousands of years and that this condition was inherited. They claimed that a solution to the Jewish Question was an international obligation. They are still aggressively pursuing claims for their own compensation from the WWII era, while at the same time Zionist charlatans argue “that there should be no Palestinian refugee issue at all after 64 years,” e.g. link to jpost.com

          Nuff said.

        • “Did you really think you could get away with peddling your recycles hasbra trash on this forum?”

          I’m not trying to convince you of anything, I’m just curious to see how you justify these concepts you hold. It’s impossible to dislodge true believers by offering evidence, since they are always going to be more likely to believe their own evidence, no matter how weak it might be. In your case though, I get the impression that you’re not even really trying.

          You argued that Israel was trying to “wipe Palestinians from the map.” Yet when I offer evidence suggesting that very few Palestinians have been killed in the past 65 years, suddenly I am supposedly arguing “that the increase in surviving populations means they were not the subject of violence.” (Which is the first time I ever saw that statement.)

          Of course killing Jews is hardly given the same regard. Rather, excuses are made to blame the victim. Libyan Jews weren’t expelled, (they were btw), and violence against them was because of Israel anyway, (an argument even weaker than blaming the Mufti for the Nakba. At least he was actually a Palestinian leader.)

          Don’t you find it weird that Israel is supposedly trying to wipe the Palestinians from the map, yet 20% of Israel is Palestinian? While the Arabs supposedly loved their Jews, yet they are suspiciously wiped from their map? You even make the argument that these Jews went willingly; they all loved Israel so much that they willingly abandoned all of their land, money and possessions to move there, I guess.

          And Iraq’s Jews all left because of the bombings and not because of the pogroms and massacres in 1941 following the Mufti’s dissemination of Nazi propaganda. AND those bombs were planted by Jews too! (So what if there was never a shred of evidence to support such a thing. It happened because someone said it did.) As evidence you even direct me to read Marion Woolfson and Abbas Shiblak, who follow the same pattern. (Shiblak’s evidence is that Woolfson said it.) Yet while you seem to have read 4 or 5 books on this very subject (I kid) you somehow missed Moshe Gat’s eloquent dismemberment of the very same Jewish bomber theory that you are relying on here.

          At any rate, it’s clear to you that violence against Palestinians indicates a Zionist conspiracy to “wipe them from the map” while similar violence against Jews is merely “bad times” which were ultimately caused by Israel anyway.

          But some of your arguments actually defy logic. “The migration took place over at least a decade, which clearly debunks the claim that there was a flight of Arab Jews from Arab states.” (It does? Why) or “If they are not charged, then they are political prisoners.” (Why can’t they simply be suspects for a crime that Israel lacks sufficient evidence to convict with? Like José Padilla.)

          The double standard is evident here too. Oppressing Jews by denying them the right to leave the state suddenly becomes evidence of how much the state values them. (That 100,000 Jews left Morocco the instant it became legal again in 1963 is seen as evidence against “Jewish flight.” After all, if they were running why did they wait until ’63?) Stripping Jews of their citizenship, robbing them of their property and assets, even publicly hanging them on trumped up charges does not indicate ethnic cleansing; Jews who left everything behind save a suitcase and $50 do not count as refugees. They left out of a love for Israel. (A love that suspiciously didn’t arise until their neighbors were being arrested and hanged.) Yet Palestinians who left for similar reasons; to avoid the war, out of fear of violent reprisals or because they were expelled, THEY are the only true refugees. After all, they want to return, unlike the Jews. (Maybe the Jews would want to return too if they had been forced to live like stateless refugees, oppressed in camps for 65 years instead of being given citizenship by Israel.)

          Rest assured, I don’t expect to change your mind. If you are really unaware of how the Arab states have disenfranchised, oppressed and even massacred the Palestinians in the past several decades then nothing I say will make a difference. I’ll tell you this, if the verifiable facts actually resembled the history you believe, then I would probably share your ideology regarding Zionism. But they don’t. No one really knows who planted those bombs in Iraq in the 50s. There are arguments about it, certainly. But the fact remains, we really don’t KNOW who did it.

          I realize that you think you know who did it. But then you’re getting your history about Iraqi Jews, and Israel, from just one viewpoint.

        • Shingo says:

          It’s impossible to dislodge true believers by offering evidence, since they are always going to be more likely to believe their own evidence, no matter how weak it might be. In your case though, I get the impression that you’re not even really trying.

          I’m the one whos offering the evidence here PFP, you’re simply repeating pro Zionist garbage. If you have evidence, fire away and let’s see how it stands up to scruitiny.

          I get the impression that you know the facts are not on your side, so you’re just rambling and pretending to understand my motivations.

          You argued that Israel was trying to “wipe Palestinians from the map.” Yet when I offer evidence suggesting that very few Palestinians have been killed in the past 65 years

          That’s beside the point. First fo all, you lowballed the figure of casualties by about 50%, and secodnly, I already explained that wiping Palesine off the
          map did not require the population to be exterminated.

          Of course killing Jews is hardly given the same regard.

          Well, that might be because the number of Jewish caualties is about 10% of the Palestinian body count.

          Rather, excuses are made to blame the victim.

          Obviosuly you’re one fo those who believes that the rapist is always the victim.

          Gee could you squeeze any more lame non sequiters into that statement. The only Libyan Jews that were exeplled were expelled by German troops. There were riots, but there was no program of expulsion aimed and driving out Jews.

          Oh, and the Mufti was appointed by the British, even though he lost the election.

          Don’t you find it weird that Israel is supposedly trying to wipe the Palestinians from the map, yet 20% of Israel is Palestinian?

          I didn’t say Palestinians, I said the vesiges of what could become a Palestinian state.

          While the Arabs supposedly loved their Jews, yet they are suspiciously wiped from their map?

          You even make the argument that these Jews went willingly; they all loved Israel so much that they willingly abandoned all of their land, money and possessions to move there, I guess.

          Yes, as thousands do every year as they move to Israel. Did you miss the part about Iranian Jews being offered $50,000 each to leave Iran?

          blockquote< And Iraq's Jews all left because of the bombings and not because of the pogroms and massacres in 1941 following the Mufti's dissemination of Nazi propaganda.

          I’d course not. The Mufti was already 4 years in exile and on the run from the British you fool. He had no authority anywhere in the Arab world by that stage.

          AND those bombs were planted by Jews too! (So what if there was never a shred of evidence to support such a thing. It happened because someone said it did.)

          Wow, this is just too easy. There is debate as to whether Zionist terrorists carried our the bombings but the CIA seems to be pretty sure they did and the bombings are consistent with the Lavon Affair.

          link to en.m.wikipedia.org

          Shiblak’s evidence is that Woolfson said it.

          The theory is shared by Uri Avnery and Marion Wolfsohn. It’s also shared by Wilbur Crane Eveland, a former senior officer in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in his book Ropes of Sand.

          The British Embassy in Baghdad assessed that the bombings were carried out by Zionist activists trying to highlight the danger to Iraqi Jews, in order influence the State of Israel to accelerate the pace of Jewish emigration. Another possible explanation offered by the embassy was that bombs were meant to change the minds of well-off Jews who wished to stay in Iraq.

          Then of course, you had Mossad guy Shlomo Hillel, who was supposed to organize an airlift of Iraq Jews to Cyprus, but lo and behold, took them to Israel. This is the same Hillel who had trained Zionist militants in Baghdad under the alias Fuad Salah.

          Just a coincidence of course. Nothing to see here, move right along. Incidentally, Shlomo Hillel,was quoted in Haaretz as saying that:

          “I don’t regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists.”

          As for Moshe Gat’s theory, he raised some doubts, but his arguments were are far from compelling.

          But some of your arguments actually defy logic.

          You’ll have to do better than that. Simply resorting to hysteria and flinging all the mud you can find is no substitute for a cogent argument.

          Oppressing Jews by denying them the right to leave the state suddenly becomes evidence of how much the state values them.

          Huh? You really are losing it PFP. What re you suggesting? That they were denied the right to leave so thatthey could be killed? In the early 1950s, Zionist organizations encouraged emigration for teh purpose of cheap labor. The 80,000 (not 100,000) that emigrated to Israel afer 1961 did so over 3 years. Hardly a case of flight – it certainly wasn’t the consequence of any pogroms. None were stripped of their citizenship. No property was taken from them.

          Jews who left everything behind save a suitcase and $50 do not count as refugees.

          I am sure there were a few, but unless they fled for fear of their lives, no they do not. As I already pointed out, those refugees resent being called refugees. In a Knesset hearing, Ran Cohen stated emphatically:

          “I have this to say: I am not a refugee.” He added: “I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee.”

          As early as 1975, at the time of WOJAC’s formation, Knesset speaker Yisrael Yeshayahu declared:

          “We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations.”

          Mmebers of Strasburg’s Jewish community were so offended at being labelled refugees that they threatened to boycott organization meetings should the topic of “Sephardi Jews as refugees” ever come up again.

          They left out of a love for Israel.

          In their own words, they left ot of Zionist aspirations. Sorry if the people you insist are refugees disagree with you.

          Yet Palestinians who left for similar reasons; to avoid the war, out of fear of violent reprisals or because they were expelled, THEY are the only true refugees.

          There is no comparison.

          The majority of Palestinians were forcefully expelled by Zionist militias. Israeli historian make no bones about the fact that Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, with well over 300,000 expelled withi a space of 5 months.

          If you are really unaware of how the Arab states have disenfranchised, oppressed and even massacred the Palestinians in the past several decades then nothing I say will make a difference.

          There is no dspute that the tratment metterd out to Palestinian refugees by Arab states has been shameful, but the fact remains that it was Israel that created these refugees in the fist place. The guilt lies entirely with Israel and it’s delibertel programs of forces expulsion.

          I’ll tell you this, if the verifiable facts actually resembled the history you believe, then I would probably share your ideology regarding Zionism.

          I can tell you that you are full of it. Zionists have a blind spot to reality and historical facts. Even Liberal Zionists like Petre Beinardt have openly admitted that they have always been prepared to check their liberal values at the door when it comes to the Israeli Palestine conflcit. You are no different.

          No one really knows who planted those bombs in Iraq in the 50s. There are arguments about it, certainly. But the fact remains, we really don’t KNOW who did it.

          Keep telling yourself that, but those attacks bear all the hallmakrs of Zionist distry tricks al la Lavon Affair.

          But then you’re getting your history about Iraqi Jews, and Israel, from just one viewpoint.

          No, I am getting it from several sources actually.

        • Hostage says:

          The double standard is evident here too.

          I’ll say. Jews have demanded and gotten billions in compensation for their own WWII claims, e.g. link to claimscon.org

          The “Jewish state” has a law on the books that gives Jews the right to return after 2,000 years or a 100 generations. At the same time, Israel argues that there should be no Palestinian refugee issue at all after only 64 years:

          Many of the 1948-era Palestinians have found new homes in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, and Israel says the majority of the rest will have to do the same because letting them back would effectively bring an end to the Jewish state. They argue that there should be no refugee issue at all after 64 years.

          link to jpost.com

        • eljay says:

          >> Don’t you find it weird that Israel is supposedly trying to wipe the Palestinians from the map, yet 20% of Israel is Palestinian?

          Israel has done – and continues to do – a damned fine job of wiping Palestine from the map.

          >> While the Arabs supposedly loved their Jews, yet they are suspiciously wiped from their map?

          Jews were wrongfully expelled from their home countries, the countries to which they belonged and of which they were citizens. Repatriation or compensation in lieu is absolutely in order. Swarming into Palestine and using terrorism and ethnic cleansing to create a religion-supremacist state is an immoral and unjust solution.

          BTW, I like how pfp says it’s acceptable to ACTUALLY wipe Palestine off the map as long as there are “quite a few Palestinians left in Israel and the rest of the world”, but it’s unacceptable to even contemplate replacing a religion-supremacist Zionist state with a secular, democratic and egalitarian state for all citizens of Israel-Palestine, even though there would be “quite a few Jews left in a unified [Insert Name of New State Here] and the rest of the world”.

        • Tree,

          That number is the total Palestinian prisoners currently held by Israel. Are you of the mind that 100% of these prisoners qualify as “political prisoners?” That they are guilty only of political acts that Israel finds threatening, not of any violent or criminal behavior?

        • pfp, wrt “violent or criminal behavior” please check out howard zinn:

        • Shingo says:

          That they are guilty only of political acts that Israel finds threatening, not of any violent or criminal behavior?

          Israel regards all form of resistacne to occupation to be criminal. Last week, it arrested demonstrators simply for reading out the names of Palestinian villages ISrael destroyed in 1948.

          Do you consider that criminal behaviour?

          Israel ranks 2nd per capita in imprisoned journalists. Do you consider journalism to be criminal behaviour?
          link to eurasiareview.com

        • “Israel ranks 2nd per capita in imprisoned journalists. Do you consider journalism to be criminal behaviour?”

          Were they arrested for being journalists?

          “Do you consider that criminal behaviour?”

          No. But that’s besides the point. I’m asking if you are classifying every palestinian prisoner of Israel’s as “political” despite the fact that many of them are there because they committed acts of terrorism.

          Israel can’t win with you, can it? When Israel was occupying Gaza and could pick up terrorist leaders more or less at will it was told that it had to leave. After it left, if Israel targeted militant leaders for assassination then they were told they were breaking international law. If they go into Gaza to apprehend someone, possibly resulting in the deaths of several resisting Palestinians, they have no business invading Gaza anyway. And if they manage to enter Gaza, arrest their target, bring him back, try him and imprison him, then they are breaking the law by taking him out of Gaza (even though Israel has no prisons in Gaza because they left), and he is a political prisoner anyway, regardless of what he did.

        • Shingo says:

          Were they arrested for being journalists?

          Unless you have evindece to the contrary, it’sa safe to assume so.

          I’m asking if you are classifying every palestinian prisoner of Israel’s as “political” despite the fact that many of them are there because they committed acts of terrorism.

          No, and there is no evidence that many of them are there because they committed acts of terrorism.

          When Israel was occupying Gaza and could pick up terrorist leaders more or less at will it was told that it had to leave.

          That’s right, it had no business being in Gaza.

          After it left, if Israel targeted militant leaders for assassination then they were told they were breaking international law.

          That’s right becasue it is. And BTW. Neither these two scenarios are contradictory.

          If they go into Gaza to apprehend someone, possibly resulting in the deaths of several resisting Palestinians, they have no business invading Gaza anyway.

          No state has the legal authority to go into Israel to apprehend anyone (including the US), so why should Israel (who refuses to sign any extradiction treaties) be any difefrent? In fact, a few US citizens who were murder suspects took refuge in Israel and remain free men.

          And if they manage to enter Gaza, arrest their target, bring him back, try him and imprison him, then they are breaking the law by taking him out of Gaza (even though Israel has no prisons in Gaza because they left), and he is a political prisoner anyway, regardless of what he did.

          What’s the confusion here? Do you consider Hamas’ capture of Gilad Shalit legal, or do you simply get a kick out of soiling yourself on this forum whiel everyone is watching?

        • “I get the impression that you know the facts are not on your side, so you’re just rambling and pretending to understand my motivations.”

          Oh I don’t understand your motivations at all. I’m just curious as to what it is you actually believe. But after reading this I have to say that I’m a little floored as to how comprehensive your investment in this revisionist history is. Some generally accepted (ie: non-controversial) history is flat out denied by you. Some stuff that’s specifically known to be untrue is repeated as fact. It is genuinely unsettling.

          The main issue that I find so disturbing is your refusal to believe in the continent-wide refugee crisis perpetrated by Muslim states against their Jewish populations. How someone can take an interest in this subject, accept the tragedy that is the Arab Nakba while still refuting the occurrence of this crime is nothing short of breathtaking.

          The fact that a few examples of dissenting opinions among the population itself serves as the exceptions that prove the rule. These three (?) people argued so vehemently because the other side’s interpretation was the accepted view in Israel. Groups like the JJAC, JIMENA, WOJAC, Historical Society of the Jews from Egypt, International Association of Jews from Egypt and the Babylonian Jewry Heritage Center all exist in part to educate people about the second Nakba caused by the I/P conflict; Jewish expulsion from Arab/Muslim lands. Even the UNHCR ruled that Jews from Arab states were categorized as refugees who qualify for assistance on two occasions.

          Rather than refute each of your points I’ll just give you basic information that you should be aware of. In the event that I don’t link a particular claim, you won’t have any problem finding independent verification. If I write anything that’s at all controversial I’ll mark it as such.

          Iraq: Throughout the 30s European anti-semitic materials began circulating in Iraq, resulting in some violent acts. A few Jews were killed, a few bombs were thrown at businesses, etc. In 1941, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseni used his connections with the Nazis to organize a coup in Iraq and install Rashid Ali. Following the coup, riots known as the Farhud broke out in Baghdad in which approximately 180 Jews were killed, 240 wounded and hundreds of houses and businesses were ransacked.

          While you obviously disagree, I find the evidence supporting the theory that Zionists perpetrated the bombings problematic. The British Embassy supports the theory, as does a former senior CIA agent. Mossad’s investigation turned up no evidence either way. Journalists fall on either side and make various arguments. Since there are almost assuredly political aspects we are unaware of, I’m discounting the findings of the British, the CIA guy, the Iraqis and the Mossad. My main issues with this theory is that the first bombing happened before Israel was even able to accept a big influx of refugees. Worse, almost everyone who was leaving had already signed up to leave when the final bombs were exploded. Why continue to bomb Jewish targets if the goal was achieved. And far from resembling the Lavon Affair, these bombings used unsophisticated bombs like hand grenades, were made to go off at a time and place where people were sure to be hurt, and none of the Jews arrested/executed were even charged with the crime. While a single false-flag act in Egypt WAS perpetrated by the Mossad a few years later, countless bombings were perpetrated by Arab anti-Zionists/Semites. Without ANY hard evidence I don’t see how anyone could rationally think they know what occurred.

          In 1950 all assets of Jews who left/were leaving were seized. Anyone wishing to remain had to sign a statement denouncing Zionism or lose their citizenship and all of their money/property. This law was used in the following decades to trump up charges… Jews had their passports taken, credit denied and some property seized, with the rest forbidden to sell. Colleges were no longer allowed to admit them. After the six day war all transactions with Jews were outlawed, including bank ones. They could not sell cars or furniture and their phones were all cut off. Many began to starve. In 1969- 70 dozens were arrested, then hanged on false charges. In 1971 the government allowed some Jews passports and 1300 fled.

          Libya: (From wikipedia) “In 1948, about 38,000 Jews lived in Libya. A series of pogroms started in Tripoli in November 1945; over a period of several days more than 130 Jews (including 36 children) were killed, hundreds were injured, 4,000 were left homeless, and 2,400 were reduced to poverty. Five synagogues in Tripoli and four in provincial towns were destroyed, and over 1,000 Jewish residences and commercial buildings were plundered in Tripoli alone. The pogroms continued in June 1948, when 15 Jews were killed and 280 Jewish homes destroyed.”

          During the six day war, the remaining few thousand Jews were told by the government to leave. They were allowed to take a suitcase and $50. The 100 Jews who remained were stripped of all their assets, property and finally citizenship in 1970.

          These are just two examples, but they are fairly representative of what was happening all over the Arab world. The parallels one must draw between this and the Arab Nakba require no description. We can debate whether the Nakba was planned (I’m sure we disagree on that point), but ultimately it does not matter. We are in agreement that it constituted ethnic cleansing. Now though, you have to admit that the same standards must apply to the Jewish refugees. Whether or not this was retribution centrally planned by the Arab League, there is no question that it constitutes ethnic cleansing.

          What happened to the two refugee communities could not be more different. The Jews were lucky enough to have Israel, where they were admitted as citizens without any delay. The Palestinians were used as political pawns in a series of injustices that I truly find numbing to think about. I realize you think the Israelis bear the guilt for the Nakba’s occurrence and thus, all subsequent events, but I disagree. While the Nakba may have been a war crime, it was perpetuated in the name of attaining security and safety for Jewish refugees. But the perpetual limbo that the Arab League then held the Palestinians in; the rules they enforced that sentenced generations of Palestinians to statelessness and poverty; the official Palestinian UN refugee group dedicated to perpetuating their disenfranchisement in the name of protecting their interests… the sum of all of that oppression is impossible for me to fathom. Despite what you may think I do care about the Palestinians’ welfare and I truly hope that there will eventually be a way out of this conflict. And while I don’t hesitate to criticize Israel for actions that oppress others, nothing they’ve done comes close to what the Arabs have done under the guise of helping them.

        • Shingo says:

          But after reading this I have to say that I’m a little floored as to how comprehensive your investment in this revisionist history is. Some generally accepted (ie: non-controversial) history is flat out denied by you.

          It was non cntroversial to believe that Saddam has WMD or the Earth was flat. Hindsight has turned those conventional wisdoms upside down.

          You’re debates and arguments are so vaccuous that you cannot help but be evasive.

          Some stuff that’s specifically known to be untrue is repeated as fact. It is genuinely unsettling.

          Like what? You yourself even argued that there is no way of knowing who was behind the Baghdad bombings, so by definition, you cannot know that the narrative Zionist terrorists were behidn it to be untrue.

          The main issue that I find so disturbing is your refusal to believe in the continent-wide refugee crisis perpetrated by Muslim states against their Jewish populations.

          What I find so pathetic (apart from your faux outrage), is your desperate effort to defelect attention from Israel’s crimes by pointing to similar crimes by others, as though that sugegsts the Israelis are less to blame.

          The fact that a few examples of dissenting opinions among the population itself serves as the exceptions that prove the rule. These three (?) people argued

          Groups like the JJAC, JIMENA, WOJAC, Historical Society of the Jews from Egypt, International Association of Jews from Egypt and the Babylonian Jewry Heritage Center all exist in part to educate people about the second Nakba caused by the I/P conflict

          Absolute BS. The whole Jewish expulsion narrative was invented in the 1970′s. beginning with WOJAC. The person who came up with the idea of “Jewish refugees” was Yaakov Meron, head of the Justice Ministry’s Arab legal affairs department. At the time Meron came up with his thesis, it was considered the most radical thesis ever devised concerning the history of Jews in Arab lands. He claimed Jews were expelled from Arab countries under policies enacted in concert with Palestinian leaders – and he termed these policies “ethnic cleansing.” Vehemently opposing the dramatic Zionist narrative, Meron claimed that Zionism had relied on romantic, borrowed phrases (“Magic Carpet,” “Operation Ezra and Nehemiah”) in the description of Mizrahi immigration waves to conceal the “fact” that Jewish migration was the result of “Arab expulsion policy.” In a bid to complete the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Mizrahi Jews, WOJAC publicists claimed that the Mizrahi immigrants lived in refugee camps in Israel during the 1950s (i.e., ma’abarot or transit camps), just like the Palestinian refugees.

          The organization’s claims infuriated many Mizrahi Israelis who defined themselves as Zionists. As early as 1975, at the time of WOJAC’s formation, Knesset speaker Yisrael Yeshayahu declared: “We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations.” As I explained to you, Shlomo Hillel, who was most intimately involved in spiritign Iraqi refugees to Israel emphatically rejected the claim that the Jews from Arab lands were refugees. But hey, what would he know?

          Even the UNHCR ruled that Jews from Arab states were categorized as refugees who qualify for assistance on two occasions.

          Jews from Arab states or Jews from Egypt?

          Iraq: Throughout the 30s European anti-semitic materials began circulating in Iraq, resulting in some violent acts.

          Britain’s pro-Zionist attitude in Palestine had triggered a growing anti-Zionist backlash in Iraq, as it did in all Arab countries. Writing at the end of 1934, Sir Francis Humphreys, Britain’s Ambassador in Baghdad, noted that, while before WW I Iraqi Jews had enjoyed a more favorable position than any other minority in the country, since then “Zionism has sown dissension between Jews and Arabs, and a bitterness has grown up between the two peoples which did not previously exist.”

          A classic example of how Israel has always endangered Jews in the disapora.

          In 1941, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseni used his connections with the Nazis to organize a coup in Iraq and install Rashid Ali.

          Yawn. al-Husseni had nothing to do with it. He had lost what little legitiamcy he had by 1941, having been in exile since 1937. He was on no relevance.

          Al-Kilani and the Golden Square wanted to rid themselves of the British and began to negotiate for German support. This led the pro-British regent Abd al-Ilah to dismiss al-Kilani in January 1941. By April, however, the Golden Square officers had reinstated the prime minister.

          The British responded by sending military forces into Basra on April 12, 1941. Basra, had a Jewish population of 30,000. Most of these Jews made their livings from import/export, money changing, retailing, as workers in the airports, railways, and ports, or as senior government employees. It was a classic case of subversion by the British, create chaos and conflcit to justify an intervention. The British set up the Jewish leaders by notifuying them that they wanted to meet, and set them up as being complicit in the invasion. The British regent were never in Basra, but they sought to bring about an ethnic war in order to give the British army a pretext to intervene.

          It was British backed Gurka units, led by British officers, that looted and plundered the place. Jews and Muslism resisted by were overhwlemed. The Gurka’s were famous for their discipline, so if they resorted to such thuggery, they were following orders.

          On June 1, fighting broke out in Baghdad between Jews who were still celebrating their Shabuoth holiday and young Iraqis who thought the Jews were celebrating the return of the pro-British regent. Many Muslims rose to defend their Jewish neighbors. There were 124 killed and 400 injured, according to a report written by a Jewish Agency messenger who was in Iraq at the time.

          Yosef Meir, one of the most prominent activists in the Zionist underground movement in Iraq (aka Yehoshafat), claims it was the British who were behind the rioting in the Jewish quarter. Meir, who went on to work for the Israeli Defense Ministry, argues that, in order to make it appear that the regent was returning as the savior who would reestablish law and order, the British stirred up the riots against the most vulnerable and visible segment in the city, the Jews. And, not surprisingly, the riots ended as soon as the regent’s loyal soldiers entered the capital.

          It was subsequently revealed that the British aimed to discredit the pro-nationalist regime in Baghdad.

          The anti-Jewish riots gave the Zionists in Palestine a pretext to set up a Zionist underground in Iraq, first in Baghdad, then in other cities such as Basra, Amara, Hillah, Diwaneia, Abril and Karkouk. By this stage, the new of the Deir Yassin massacre had made it’s way around the Arab world.

          The evening after the first grenade was hurled into Baghdad’s El-Dar El-Bida Café, leaflets were distributed calling on Jews to leave Iraq immediately. It worked as the next day, Jews jammed emigration offices to apply for permission to leave for Israel.

          A few weeks later (May 10), a grenade was tossed in the direction of the display window of the Jewish-owned Beit-Lawi Automobile Company, destroying part of the building. No casualties were reported. On June 3, another was hurled from a speeding car in the El-Batawin area of Baghdad. Again, no casualties were reported, but following the explosion Zionist activists sent telegrams to Israel requesting that the quota for immigration from Iraq be increased. Another bomb exploded on June 5, again no casualties.

          The goal was not achieved. The total number of immigrants to Israel i 1941 adn

          The fact that the bombs using in Iraq bore no resemblane to those in the Lavin Affair. As you can see, very few were killed or hurt in the 1950′s bombings, which suggests the intent was to create panick without killing Jews, unlike the Lavon Affair, which were directed at Egyptian, American and British targets, so caulaties were the aim of the excercise.

          Many Jews who left werepoor with nothing to lose.

          Libya: (From wikipedia) “In 1948, about 38,000 Jews lived in Libya.

          The same Wiki link explains that the only Libyan Jews that were exeplled were expelled by German troops.

          These are just two examples, but they are fairly representative of what was happening all over the Arab world.

          No Mr Werdine, this is what took place in Egypt and to some extent in a Lybia.

          Anyway, it’s beyind dispute that the whole narrative of the Jewish expulsion from Arab lands was largely ginned up to support the Zionist claim that there had been a mutual population transfer, and it has been overwhelmingly rejected in Israel itself. In fact, when WOJAC came up with the theis in the 70s, the government eventualy ltold them to shut up as it might open a can of worms that woudl lead to relevantions about their own crimes.

          Anyway Mr Werdine, I am going to let the moderators know that, in spite of being banned for Nakba denial, you have returned under another alias.

        • “Anyway, it’s beyind dispute that the whole narrative of the Jewish expulsion from Arab lands was largely ginned up to support the Zionist claim that there had been a mutual population transfer, and it has been overwhelmingly rejected in Israel itself.”

          I did not say there was a mutual population transfer. I said that the Jews largely left due to pogroms and justified fears of violence and official anti-semitic policies.

          So where did you get all of this revisionist history anyway?

    • Shmuel says:

      One wonders, what justification, what authority other than the usual “barrel of a gun”, Israel can have for thus interfering with the economic and traditional lives of these people.

      The justification this time is “illegal presence in a nature reserve” (Nahal Qana Nature Reserve) – one of the many “legal” excuses Israel has used to steal Palestinian land and livelihood. See e.g. “Closing land classified as nature reserves”, in “Dispossession and Exploitation: Israel’s Policy in the Jordan Valley and Northern Dead Sea (B’tselem, May 2011), p. 15: link to btselem.org

      Needless to say, the Civil Administration has no interest in the numerous settler incursions into the Nahal Qana Reserve (including construction). In October 2011, Dror Etkes (former researcher for Peace Now’s “Settlement Watch”) counted nine such incursions by settlements and outposts in the area.

      For background on the ongoing battle over Palestinian-owned agricultural land in Wadi Qana, see link to haaretz.co.il (Hebrew, sorry).

      • RE: “The justification this time is ‘illegal presence in a nature reserve’ ”
        ~ Shmuel

        MY REPLY: Yes, the old “nature preserve” trick is one of Israel’s many strategies for dispossessing the Palestinians.

        • FROM WIKIPEDIA [Nahal Qana]: . . . As of 2006, the area around Nahal Qana is being considered as a nature reserve, as requested by the Israel nature and parks authority. . .
        SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

        National park land-grabs from two East Jerusalem neighborhoods
        Jan 6, 2012 – There is only one case where the Israeli government reversed a decision to re-zone Palestinian land as a nature reserve. – link to mondoweiss.net

        “Israel declared it a Nature Reserve” Israeli Military Evacuation Orders for the Palestinian Lands in Wadi Qana area in Deir Istiya Village North of Salfit Governoratelink to poica.org

        Wadi Qelt – Parts of the wadi were declared a nature reserve by Israel and given the name Nahal Prat. – link to en.wikipedia.org

        Thousands of Palestinians in the Jordan Valley risk forced displacement, says UN body ~ by Adri Nieuwhof, Electronic Intifada, 2/11/12

        (excerpt) Sixty thousand Palestinians live under harsh conditions in the Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea area – one of the most isolated and restricted areas in occupied Palestine. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has summarized their humanitarian situation in its February 2012 fact sheet.
        The Jordan Valley and Dead Sea area covers about one third of the West Bank. Eighty-seven percent of the land is designated as Area C, where Israeli exercises full control over security, planning and construction. The area is earmarked for the use of the Israeli military or falls under the jurisdiction of the illegal Israeli settlements. An additional 7% is designated as a nature reserve. In total, Palestinians are prohibited from using 94% of their own land. . .

        ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to electronicintifada.net

        Palestinian herders fined for trespassing West Bank nature preserve ~ By Yuval Azoulay, Haaretz, 2/22/12

        (excerpt) The Israel Nature and Parks Authority fined three Palestinian brothers in the West Bank because their cows trespassed “in an unmarked area.”
        A spokesman at human rights organization Machsom Watch said, “The cruelty of the authorities knows no bounds. This is a by-product of the occupation in the territories.”
        Late last year, three Palestinian brothers who own a small herd from which they earn a living received the fine from an inspector visiting the Jordan Valley. Each brother – from the Daraghma family – was required to pay NIS 660.
        The incident occurred in the Um Zuka nature preserve in the West Bank near Route 90 and the Jordan Valley settlement of Mehola. For years, Palestinian shepherds, including those from the Daraghma family, have marched their herds on their lands next to the road. Before the fining incident, no one had interrupted their routine. . .

        ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to haaretz.com

        • P.S. SPEAKING OF “NATURE PRESERVES”, I read somewhere several years ago that some Israelis wanted a very scenic area in northern Israel (somewhere in Galilee, I think) designated as a nature preserve. But they were told by the Olmert government that the area had already been promised to U.S. Christians (fundies like Pat Robertson and/or John Hagee, I presume). This area is apparently where the fundies plan to fight Zog and/or Magog and get Raptured up (after they breed the “perfect red heifer”*, of course). It’s confusing, so you might want to consult your local fundies for more details. Suffice it to say that “Pastor” John Hagee has some very big plans!

          * SEE: “Pastor Strangelove”, by Sarah Posner, American Prospect, 05/21/06

          (excerpts) . . . Besides his million-dollar compensation package, [John] Hagee has a portfolio of other ventures, including a cattle ranch in south Texas that may have religious significance. Many evangelicals believe that the arrival of a “perfect red heifer” will signal the end times. In the Old Testament, burning a red heifer and sprinkling its ashes is described as a purification ritual for priests entering the temple. Ultra-orthodox Jews believe that the birth of a modern perfect red heifer will herald the arrival of the messiah, leading to a confrontation with Muslims over the Temple Mount, where Jews believe the Temple will be rebuilt. Some evangelicals likewise regard the red heifer as a harbinger of the ultimate showdown at the Temple Mount, which they believe will be the site of the Second Coming. And they believe that time is near.
          To many other observers, the advent of the red heifer threatens to provoke a violent struggle for control of the Temple Mount, with worldwide repercussions. In the late 1990s, a group of unidentified Texas ranchers reportedly bred a perfect red heifer, which generated excitement in evangelical circles until the animal sprouted some black hairs.
          Six years ago, the John C. Hagee Royalty Trust paid more than $5.5 million for a 7,600-acre ranch in Brackettville,
          Texas, where cattle are raised in a venture with the Texas Israel Agricultural Research Foundation
          , a nonprofit outfit operated by the pastor… Earl [Hagee's lobbyist] said that Hagee wants to share information to improve the production of livestock, particularly cattle, with an Israeli research project, but otherwise claimed to be unsure of the particulars. Dr. Scott Farhart, an obstetrician and trustee of the John C. Hagee Royalty Trust (and an elder at Hagee’s church), did not respond to a request for comment, nor did the director of the ranch. . .

          ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to prospect.org
          ALSO SEE: Is the Red Heifer Here?link to jesus-is-the-way.com

        • Hostage says:

          MY REPLY: Yes, the old “nature preserve” trick is one of Israel’s many strategies for dispossessing the Palestinians.

          Yes, when the government of Great Britain lost its Court case on involuntary population transfer and could not prevent the Chagos Islanders from returning to their homes any other way, it employed an Order in Council under the Royal Prerogative to overturn the decision. link to newstatesman.com

          When the Islanders appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, Great Britain established the world’s largest marine sanctuary around the Chagos Islands and said that the return of the Islanders would have a detrimental effect on the environment. link to news.bbc.co.uk

          Of course Great Britain doesn’t worry about the environmental effects of the 99-year lease for Diego Garcia Island that it gave the U.S. for a giant Air Base (they paved paradise and put up a 12,000 ft runway among other things).

    • RE: “One wonders, what justification, what authority other than the usual ‘barrel of a gun’, Israel can have for thus interfering with the economic and traditional lives of these people.” ~ pabelmont

      FROM ALISTAIR CROOKE, London Review of Books, 03/03/11:

      (excerpts). . . It was [Ariel] Sharon who pioneered the philosophy of ‘maintained uncertainty’ that repeatedly extended and then limited the space in which Palestinians could operate by means of an unpredictable combination of changing and selectively enforced regulations, and the dissection of space by settlements, roads Palestinians were not allowed to use and continually shifting borders. All of this was intended to induce in the Palestinians a sense of permanent temporariness. . .
      . . . It suits Israel to have a ‘state’ without borders so that it can keep negotiating about borders, and count on the resulting uncertainty to maintain acquiescence. . .

      SOURCE – link to lrb.co.uk
      ALSO SEE: Learned helplessness - link to en.wikipedia.org

  3. Amar says:

    The purpose is ethnic cleansing though slow economic strangulation which is less noticeable in MSM than outright expulsion/genocide.

  4. bintbiba says:

    My heart BREAKS!!!!!!!!!!!

    This isn’t savagery,barbarism?

    • Fredblogs says:

      No, this is land management. Almost every civilized country reserves some of it’s land area for nature.

      • Hostage says:

        No, this is land management. Almost every civilized country reserves some of it’s land area for nature.

        Israel obviously doesn’t concern itself with behaving like a civilized country or it would have taken notice when 167 civilized countries adopted the annual resolution on the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people over their natural resources. Here is a relevant extract:

        Expressing its grave concern about the extensive destruction by Israel, the occupying Power, of agricultural land and orchards in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the uprooting of a vast number of fruit-bearing trees and the destruction of farms and greenhouses, and the grave environmental and economic impact in this regard,

        2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, cease the exploitation, damage, cause of loss or depletion, and endangerment of the natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan;

        3. Recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to claim restitution as a result of any exploitation, damage, loss or depletion, or endangerment of their natural resources resulting from illegal measures taken by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,
        link to un.org

        FYI, the Nuremberg Tribunal noted that every civilized country had recognized the rules of occupation annexed to the 1907 Hague Convention, including Articles 46, 47, and 55 that prohibit the illegal measures Israel is taking in this case.
        link to avalon.law.yale.edu

      • Shingo says:

        Almost every civilized country reserves some of it’s land area for nature.

        But only ethnocentric. apartheid colonialist state reserve someone else’s.

        • Sumud says:

          But only ethnocentric. apartheid colonialist state reserve some else’s.

          In one badly written sentence you’ve hit the nail on the head Shingo [damn auto correct!].

          Israel has no business pretending to do ‘land management’ outside their own declared borders.

        • Fredblogs says:

          @Sumud
          Well, someone’s got to. Or should they just let every random Palestinian build whatever they want, wherever they want without any zoning laws or regulations?

        • Or should they just let every random Palestinian build whatever they want, wherever they want without any zoning laws or regulations?

          like the settler outposts they are now retroactively legalizing? or the settler outposts they just started building near ramallah?

          link to mondoweiss.net

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Or should they just let every random Palestinian build whatever they want, wherever they want without any zoning laws or regulations?”

          FredBigot, it is up to the Palestinians to decide who gets to build what, when & where in Palestine. It’s none of you Jews’s business.

        • Shmuel says:

          Or should they just let every random Palestinian build whatever they want, wherever they want without any zoning laws or regulations?

          Yep, just good government at the service of all residents of the OT, settlers and Palestinians alike. Just like any other “civilised country”. Yesiree, those Israelis sure know how to keep “random” Palestinians from building “whatever they want”.

          After you’ve finished reading the B’tselem links I provided above (be sure not to miss “Under the Guise of Legality”), here’s a little something on zoning and planning in the OT (I know, the title is something of a spoiler):

          “The Prohibited Zone: Israeli planning policy in the Palestinian villages in Area C” (Bimkom, June 2008): link to eng.bimkom.org

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “like the settler outposts they are now retroactively legalizing? or the settler outposts they just started building near ramallah?”

          But, Annie, you see? Fredo specified “random Palestinians,” not Jews. To bigots like Fredo, a Jew can do no wrong and an Arab can do no right…

        • he’s driving me crazy woody, he’s just spamming this thread. i just finished blasting him here, link to mondoweiss.net

          this is nothing but fred’s spam.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          He should have been banned a long time ago, but what can you do? You keep swatting them down and sometimes they get bored and go away. I don’t think even they can stand to spread their zio-fascist nonsense day after day.

        • eljay says:

          >> FredBigot, it is up to the Palestinians to decide who gets to build what, when & where in Palestine.

          Perhaps the Zio-supremacist views “land management” in Palestine as just an extension of Glorious Jewish State’s self-proclaimed “Light Unto the Nations” mandate.

        • Sumud says:

          Or should they just let every random Palestinian build whatever they want,

          That is EXACTLY what they should do – end the occupation and go home to Israel.

          It’s called self-determination.

        • How can it be both apartheid AND colonialist? The two seem somewhat mutually exclusive, don’t they?

        • The two seem somewhat mutually exclusive, don’t they?

          by all means please explain how you think they are mutually exclusive.

        • Shingo says:

          How can it be both apartheid AND colonialist? The two seem somewhat mutually exclusive, don’t they?

          Ya think? How did the white population end up in South Africa? Where they an albino I indigenous population?

        • Hostage says:

          How can it be both apartheid AND colonialist? The two seem somewhat mutually exclusive, don’t they?

          Hell no. Many of the settler colonial societies practiced genocide; population transfer and deportation (ethnic cleansing); and apartheid (establishment of “reservations” and Bantustans).

        • Well, according to wikipedia colonialism is the establishment, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. Inequality between colonists and natives is inherent in this system.

          Apartheid however, is the imposition of racial segregation among a single national group. If the people in question are of differing nationalities then it isn’t apartheid. Otherwise our whole system of nations and borders is itself an expression of apartheid. Discriminating on the basis of nationality is inherent to the concept of bordered nation-states. Therefore apartheid must only apply to members of the same state.

        • Huh? There WERE colonists, once. Those colonists did not set up apartheid. Their ancestors did.

        • Shingo says:

          Those colonists did not set up apartheid. Their ancestors did.

          Yes Iserael is unique in the the same generation achieved both solonization and apartheid simulatenously.

        • Shingo says:

           Well, according to wikipedia colonialism is the establishment, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. Inequality between colonists and natives is inherent in this system.

          Which describes Israel to a T.

          Apartheid however, is the imposition of racial segregation among a single national group.

          Not sure where you found that definition.

          This Wiki definition describes apartheid as:

          .  inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”

          link to en.m.wikipedia.org

          No mention there of “nationalities” or members of the same state there so yes, Israel is a colonizer and an apartheid state.

        • There WERE colonists, once.

          settlers are colonialists, they are not past tense.

        • eljay says:

          >> How can it be both apartheid AND colonialist?

          According to Merriam-Webster.com:
          - Apartheid: racial segregation
          - Colonialism: control by one power over a dependent area or people

          The Glorious Jewish State of Greater Israel is driven by Zio-supremacism, which is powerfully hateful and immoral stuff. I’m shocked that a Zio-supremacist like pfp would have so little faith in his ideology that he would question its ability to implement apartheid and colonialism simultaneously.

        • Hostage says:

          Discriminating on the basis of nationality is inherent to the concept of bordered nation-states. Therefore apartheid must only apply to members of the same state.

          Palestinians are an indigenous population in Palestine. Israel has never been recognized as “a bordered nation-state” with the legal right to exclude its Palestinian refugee population in accordance with the Law of Return and the Nationality Laws that were introduced during the 160th Sitting of the First Knesset.

          Both Jews and Arabs were citizens of Palestine in accordance with Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, the League of Nations Mandate, and the UN Partition Plan. Any legislative measures and other measures, like the Law of Return and the Nationality Laws, calculated to prevent a racial group from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country, including denial of a nationality, are specific examples of the crime of apartheid listed in Article II of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.
          link to www1.umn.edu

          Apartheid however, is the imposition of racial segregation among a single national group. If the people in question are of differing nationalities then it isn’t apartheid.

          The preamble of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid notes that:

          in accordance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, States particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction,

          Article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination states that

          In this Convention, the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

          FYI, South Africa tried to use the same lame-assed nationality excuse and separate national homelands when it imposed the so-called Bantustan policy in South Africa and in the occupied territory of Namibia. The ICJ rejected the proposition that discrimination against an indigenous population on the grounds of nationality is legal under the terms of the UN Charter.

          A “people” cannot be defined in terms of ethnic identity alone, because if it were, participation in the political process would then be determined solely on the basis of ethnic characteristics. That’s contrary to Article 1(3) of the UN Charter and customary minority rights to equality under international law. A new state or people in the modern era will always include all of the indigenous groups inhabiting a territory. See Thomas D. Musgrave, Self-determination and National Minorities, Oxford Monographs in International Law, 1997, page XV.

        • Hostage says:

          There WERE colonists, once.

          There are STILL hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens living in territory that Israel itself claims is not a part of its sovereign territory and jurisdiction. See for example CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, para 8 or E/1990/6/Add.32, para 6-7

          Would you rather we use the Zionist-preferred label and call them infiltrators instead colonists?

        • Hostage says:

          Well, according to wikipedia colonialism is

          Both the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination cite the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and note that the United Nations has condemned colonialism and all practices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith

          link to www1.umn.edu
          link to www2.ohchr.org

        • Hostage,

          The Palestinian refugees were never Israeli citizens, they are not refugees from Israel, but from Palestine. Nothing guarantees them citizenship of a state formed on land they inhabited prior to the civil war.

          “Any legislative measures and other measures…are specific examples of the crime of apartheid listed in Article II of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.”

          No they aren’t. Don’t be absurd. Besides, nothing about those prevent Israeli Arabs from participating in Israeli life.

          “In this Convention, the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin…”

          They key word here is “origin.” We aren’t talking about discriminating because of national origin but on the basis of nationality. Discrimination on that basis is pretty much the cornerstone of our system of nation-states. In the OPT Israel is discriminating by citizenship. All states do that. It only makes sense to define apartheid as discrimination that occurs among citizens of the same state. Otherwise every state practices apartheid.

          “FYI, South Africa tried to use the same lame-assed nationality excuse and separate national homelands when it imposed the so-called Bantustan policy in South Africa and in the occupied territory of Namibia.”

          But they were all citizens of the same state.

          Look, I’m not arguing that the Palestinians aren’t oppressed or that Israel doesn’t discriminate against its own Arab population. Just that it is logically untenable to have both apartheid and colonialism at the same time. If you are arguing that all Palestinians should legally have Israeli citizenship then you must abandon the criticism of settlers as being colonists. Similarly if you are arguing that settlers have no right to be in the OPT and should leave then you can’t argue that apartheid occurs there. Because logically, discriminating on the basis of citizenship is not apartheid.

          “A “people” cannot be defined in terms of ethnic identity alone”

          Sure they can, and many do. Article 1(3) just says that the UN’s job is to argue that discrimination is bad. Not that it’s illegal. New states almost never include everyone who was living there because most states are born out of some kind of conflict. That said, Israeli citizens represent a diverse spectrum of ethnicities, religions, etc.

        • Hostage,

          I’m not defending either apartheid or colonialism. I’m just saying that it is logically inconsistent to accuse Israel of being guilty of both, simultaneously.

        • “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group”

          Actually, that definition won’t work. Neither Israelis nor Palestinians are racial groups.

        • Shmuel says:

          Actually, that definition won’t work. Neither Israelis nor Palestinians are racial groups.

          “Race” is a tricky concept, and some anthropologists will even tell you that there is no such thing. Fortunately for us, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination has defined “racial discrimination” as pertaining to “race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin”. That should cover the differences between Israeli Jews and those eligible to become Israeli citizens according to the law of return on the one hand, and Palestinians on the other.

          The Convention does exclude “citizenship” from its definition, but citing that distinction in Israel’s case is rather cynical (beyond the fact that the distinction is in fact between Jews [and their relatives] and non-Jewish Palestinians, rather than citizens and non-ctizens), as the Yishuv ethnically cleansed Palestine and created a new kind of citizenship specifically designed to exclude the ethnically cleansed non-Jewish population.

          Areas under Israeli control basically comprise two systems. Both systems entail elements of colonialism and apartheid, although not to the same degree. As others have pointed out, South Africa was both colonialist and apartheid – both within its sovereign borders and in the territory it occupied in Namibia. There is no inherent contradiction between the two terms.

        • Shingo says:

          Actually, that definition won’t work. Neither Israelis nor Palestinians are racial groups.

          Wrong again Hasbrat. The definition applies equally to race, ethnicity or religion.

        • Shingo says:

          I’m not defending either apartheid or colonialism. I’m just saying that it is logically inconsistent to accuse Israel of being guilty of both, simultaneously.

          Yes you are. Zinism is both apartheid and colonialism. As a supporter of Zionism, you are defacto a supporter apartheid and colonialism.

          And has been demonstrated, the two are not mutually exclusive, but practically synonimous. Israel beign a perfect example.

        • Since when? Doesn’t matter, it still doesn’t apply. Israel is discriminating on the basis of citizenship, not ethnicity, race or religion.

        • You think that apartheid and colonialism are practically synonymous? For real? Because they are actually really different.

          BTW, there’s also a difference between saying that Israel practices apartheid or colonialism and saying that Zionism IS both of those things. (And that supporters of Zionism must therefore support apartheid/colonialism.)

          Very faulty logic. Look, if Zionism was really so monstrous then you would likely not feel the need to misrepresent it so ostentatiously. Saying that Zionism IS apartheid doesn’t even make sense.

        • Hostage says:

          The Palestinian refugees were never Israeli citizens, they are not refugees from Israel, but from Palestine.

          Correction: The State of Israel was established on 15 May 1948. The Provisional Government adopted the Law and Administration Ordinance No. 1 of 5708-1948 which provided that:

          The law which existed in Palestine on the 5th Iyar, 5708 (14th May, 1948) shall remain in force, insofar as there is nothing therein repugnant to this Ordinance or to the other laws which may be enacted by or on behalf of the Provisional Council of State, and subject to such modifications as may result from the establishment of the State and its authorities. . . . “Palestine”, wherever appearing in the law, shall henceforth be read as “Israel”.

          See the Law and Administration Ordinance No. 1 of 5708-1948
          link to geocities.com

          So the Palestinian Citizenship Orders, 1925-1942 remained in full force and effect and the word “Palestine” was changed to read “Israel”. That meant that both Jews and Arabs remained citizens. When the Constituent Assembly subsequently met, it adopted the Transition Law 5709-1949 which turned the Constitutional body into a Knesset. That was the state of affairs when the representative of Israel accepted an undertaking to implement the minority rights agreement contained in UN General Assembly resolution 181(II) and the provisions regarding refugees contained in resolution 194(III) during the Ad Hoc Committee hearings on Israel’s UN membership application.

          Several years later the Nationality Law, 5712-1952 attempted to retroactively repeal the Palestinian Citizenship Orders, 1925-1942 and redefine legal residency to exclude individuals in Palestine or abroad who had been habitual residents and citizens under the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestinian Citizenship Orders, 1925-1942, and minority and refugee agreements contained in UN General Assembly resolutions 181(II), 194(III), and 273 (III).
          *http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/israellaws/fulltext/nationalitylaw.htm
          *http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,LEGAL,,LEGISLATION,ISR,4562d8cf2,3ae6b4ec20,0.html

          Israel’s actions violated two basic principles of international law: 1) a state cannot cite its own municipal laws as an excuse for violating international obligations; and 2) Pacta sunt servanda, “agreements must be kept”.

          The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People submitted a report on Israel’s continuing legal obligations to the Security Council that said:

          19. In this respect, it was pointed out that Israel was under binding obligation to permit the return of all the Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the hostilities of 1948 and 1967. This obligation flowed from the unreserved agreement by Israel to honour its commitments under the Charter of the United Nations, and from its specific undertaking, when applying for membership of the United Nations, to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, safeguarding the rights of the Palestinian Arabs inside Israel, and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, concerning the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or to choose compensation for their property. This undertaking was also clearly reflected in General Assembly resolution 273 (III).

        • Shingo says:

          Because they are actually really different.

          No they are not. They are both crimes against humanity and based fundametally on one race, ethnicity, religion, aserting control and subjugation on another.

          BTW, there’s also a difference between saying that Israel practices apartheid or colonialism and saying that Zionism IS both of those things.

          No, that’s a disctinction without a difference. Like I said, we have to deal with the Zionism that we have (which ractices apartheid and colonialism) not the Zionism you are hoping for. Thus, as a Zionist who supports Israel and insists that Israel much maintain a Jewish majority, you support apartheid/colonialism. Why? Because the Jewish majority was achieved by colinialism and the Jewish majority is maintained by apartheid.

          Simple.

          Look, if Zionism was really so monstrous then you would likely not feel the need to misrepresent it so ostentatiously.

          As usual, you have it backwards. If Zionism was so benevolent, you woldn’t feel the need to defend it so desperately. In case you forgot, you’re the one who’s come to this blog to defend Israel. It’s not like I or anyone here has gone looking for you.

          Saying that Zionism IS apartheid doesn’t even make sense.

          Only insofar as it’s worse than apartheid. Herzl defined Zionism as segregation. He also said:

          “Let us start by acquiring our colonies! From them, we shall launch the conquest of our Homeland.”

          I don’t know if it possible to make it any clearer than that.

        • eljay says:

          >> BTW, there’s also a difference between saying that Israel practices apartheid or colonialism and saying that Zionism IS both of those things.

          Zionism was the impetus behind the creation in (all of) Mandate Palestine of a Jewish State for people of the Jewish faith from countries around the world. Zionism remains a driving force behind the existence of a Jewish State for people of the Jewish faith from countries around the world.

          Zionism has never advocated for the self-determination of the inhabitants of Mandate Palestine and the creation of a secular, democratic and egalitarian state of and for all of those inhabitants, equally.

          Two birds with one stone.

        • Hostage says:

          I’m not defending either apartheid or colonialism. I’m just saying that it is logically inconsistent to accuse Israel of being guilty of both, simultaneously.

          The only logical inconsistency here is your claim that you are not defending apartheid and colonialism.

          Both UN treaties on racism and apartheid mention the fact that segregation and racism were practices associated with Colonialism. All of the primary UN organs have condemned the linkages between economic and political dependency, land confiscation, population “displacement,” and the implantation of settlements in the Palestinian territories. In 1998 the CERD panel of experts said that the status of the Jewish settlements was clearly inconsistent with the prohibition of “apartheid and similar policies of racial segregation” contained in Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee noted General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries; and that there was a consensus among legal publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, was an imperative norm of international law. CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998

          So the elected panel of legal experts who supervise the implementation of the ICERD have not found any logical inconsistent with accusing Israel of both colonialism and apartheid in connection with its policy of implanting settlements in Palestine.

          “FYI, South Africa tried to use the same lame-assed nationality excuse and separate national homelands when it imposed the so-called Bantustan policy in South Africa and in the occupied territory of Namibia.” . . .But they were all citizens of the same state.

          No they were not. The Union of South Africa and Namibia were not the same state. The General Assembly adopted resolution 2145 (XXI) of 27 October 1966, by which the United Nations decided that the Mandate for South West Africa was terminated. That resolution also provided that the UN organization had assumed direct responsibility for the Territory until its independence. Those acts were in line with the general powers and functions of the General Assembly in accordance with Articles 18 and 85 of the UN Charter and were subsequently affirmed by the Security Council in resolution 276 and by the ICJ in its decision on the Namibia case.
          *http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_276

          *Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) link to icj-cij.org

        • Hostage says:

          Actually, that definition won’t work. Neither Israelis nor Palestinians are racial groups.

          They certainly are different racial groups under the terms of the definition of racial discrimination contained in Article 1 of the ICERD convention. Article 3 of the ICERD contained the first general prohibition of apartheid in international law. Israel is a state party to the ICERD convention. The CERD panels of experts have cited numerous concerns over the years regarding possible violations of Article 3 by the State of Israel.

          Even if that was not the case, you’d still be left with genocide and persecution, which are the other international crimes that target identifiable groups. Here are the relevant extracts of the text of the Rome Statute for those two crimes, e.g.:

          “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such . . .& et seq
          . . .
          “Persecution” against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

          –See the Rome Statute Articles 6 and 7(1)h. link to untreaty.un.org

          The preamble of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid explains that, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide contains certain acts which may also be qualified as acts of apartheid and constitute a crime under that denomination in international law. Those acts of Genocide/Apartheid were explicitly and implicitly cited in the written submissions of the Secretary-General and the interested state parties in the 2004 ICJ Wall Case. For example:

          “The construction of the wall and the resulting situation correspond to a number of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, as enumerated in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the General Assembly on 30 November 1973: that is to say, the denial of the liberty and dignity of a group, the deliberate imposition on a group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part, measures calculated to deprive a group of the right to work, the right to education and the right to freedom of movement and residence, the creation of ghettos, the expropriation of property, etc. Such actions constitute measures of collective punishment.” — See Written Statement of Lebanon

          link to icj-cij.org

          FYI, the Court declared that, with the exception of Israeli citizens, the associated administrative regime that Israel had instituted in the Occupied Palestinian Territory had violated the basic human rights of the inhabitants and was illegal (See paras 122, 134, 137, and 142). link to icj-cij.org

          Goldstone cited those ICJ findings of fact and Israel’s legislative measures which confirmed that:

          Despite prohibitions under international humanitarian law (IHL), Israel has applied its domestic laws throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 1967. . . . .[T]he application of Israeli domestic laws has resulted in institutionalized discrimination against Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the benefit of Jewish settlers, both Israeli citizens and others. Exclusive benefits reserved for Jews derive from the two-tiered civil status under Israel’s domestic legal regime based on a “Jewish nationality,” which entitles “persons of Jewish race or descendency” to superior rights and privileges, particularly in land use, housing, development, immigration and access to natural resources, as affirmed in key legislation. Administrative procedures qualify indigenous inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory as “alien persons” and, thus, prohibited from building on, or renting, large portions of land designated by the Government of Israel as “State land” (para 206). . . . . From the facts available to it, the Mission believes that in the movement and access policy there has been a violation of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin (para 1548).

          The Goldstone Mission also noted that a Court could reasonably conclude that such measures amounted to the crime of persecution (para. 1936). An International Fact Finding Mission to Gaza, headed by Prof. John Dugard, noted several instances of incitement to commit genocide and reported them to the ICC Prosecutor as well.

        • American says:

          “the deliberate imposition on a group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part,…”

          A.b.s.o.l.u.t.e.l.y ….as plain as day.

        • “They are both crimes against humanity and based fundametally on one race, ethnicity, religion, aserting control and subjugation on another.”

          Gorillas and whales both breathe air. Do you believe they are the same animal?

          “Why? Because the Jewish majority was achieved by colinialism and the Jewish majority is maintained by apartheid. Simple.”

          Yes, simple. Wrong, but undoubtedly simple. It is actually quite common to support a country’s existence while opposing some of their policies. America was achieved via genocide, does supporting America means you support genocide?

          “If Zionism was so benevolent, you woldn’t feel the need to defend it so desperately.”

          No, I have it right. Defending something does NOT prove that the thing is bad or guilty. That’s nonsensical. But consistently relying on misrepresentation to make a point DOES weaken your argument.

          “Herzl defined Zionism as segregation.”

          Hahaha, no he didn’t. No one defines Zionism as segregation. See what I mean, you seem to rely on hyperbole to make your argument.

          “I don’t know if it possible to make it any clearer than that.”

          You should probably focus on making it more accurate before worrying about clarity.

        • Hostage says:

          Since when? Doesn’t matter, it still doesn’t apply. Israel is discriminating on the basis of citizenship, not ethnicity, race or religion.

          Citizenship and nationality are two separate things under Israeli law. Israel has dozens of laws that discriminate against all of its non-Jewish citizens on the basis of their so-called “nationality” as reflected in the complete listing of the Israeli population maintained by the Ministry of the Interior. Israel has specific legislation and military orders that discriminate against Palestinians no matter where they live.

          For more details see Luciana Coconi & David Bondia, Apartheid against the Palestinian people link to acsur.org
          The HSRC/SOAS study Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid link to electronicintifada.net

        • Hostage says:

          Look, if Zionism was really so monstrous then you would likely not feel the need to misrepresent it so ostentatiously. Saying that Zionism IS apartheid doesn’t even make sense.

          We aren’t discussing theoretical Zionism. There is only one Eretz Israel where you can conduct experiments in Zionism today and it is an apartheid state.

        • MHughes976 says:

          I don’t know that Herzl actually offers a definition of ‘Zionism’. He certainly attacks assimilation, on the grounds that non-Jews can never sincerely accept it. I don’t understand how, at this rate, he expected the Palestinians to accept the Jewish State. In his novel Altneuland he suggests that they will accept it because it will bring them economic benefit, though this seems to be a contradiction of the idea that non-Jewish people never accept Jewish people. After all the Christians have never accepted the Jewish presence on the ground of Jewish contribution to national prosperity. He does not explain how any objection to a Jewish takeover of Palestine can rightfully be overridden.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Saying that Zionism IS apartheid doesn’t even make sense.

          Oh my gosh, I guess somebody needs to phone up Nelson Mandela and Archbiship Desmond Tutu and inform them both that they’re full of shit, according to this guy.

        • Hostage says:

          I don’t know that Herzl actually offers a definition of ‘Zionism’. He certainly attacks assimilation, on the grounds that non-Jews can never sincerely accept it.

          He actually cited analogies of Darwinian theories and taught that diaspora Jewry inherently produced an abundance of mediocre intellects or bankers:

          Anti-Semitism increases day by day and hour by hour among the nations; indeed, it is bound to increase, because the causes of its growth continue to exist and cannot be removed. Its remote cause is our loss of the power of assimilation during the Middle Ages; its immediate cause is our excessive production of mediocre intellects, who cannot find an outlet downwards or upwards—that is to say, no wholesome outlet in either direction. When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of all revolutionary parties; and at the same time, when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse. — The Jewish State link to gutenberg.org

        • Shingo says:

          Gorillas and whales both breathe air. Do you believe they are the same animal?

          Sorry, was there point you were trying to make?

          It is actually quite common to support a country’s existence while opposing some of their policies.

          No it isn’t. No one bust Zionists believe that the the existence of the state they support needs to be defended. The whole argument about Israel’s right to exist is nothing but a lame attempt to paper over the crimes and illegitimacy of Israel’s policies.

          People critize other countries all the time, yet never feel threatened that such criticism threatens the existence of that country. What you are defending ultimately is Zionism, not Israel and Zionism is racism.

          America was achieved via genocide, does supporting America means you support genocide?

          No, but then again, America has made no bones of the fact that it accepts those crimes were commited and has made some effort to pay reperations and ensure those crimes are indeed prohibited by American laws from being repeated. Furthermore, those crimes were commited at a time when they were not considered crimes, at least not in a legal sense.

          Israel on the other hand, commited the crimes when they were unambiguously accepted as such and denies it’s responsibility to this day. Even worse, Israel contginues to commit those crimes.

          Defending something does NOT prove that the thing is bad or guilty. That’s nonsensical. But consistently relying on misrepresentation to make a point DOES weaken your argument.

          No you have it wrong. You’ve come to this blog with the goal of defending the indenfensible. Your arguments are being shredded, which suggests that you are doing the misrepresenting, not I.

          No one defines Zionism as segregation.

          Of cours they do. Israel’s very existence is founded on the prionciple, though to be sure, they don’t use the word segregation.

          You should probably focus on making it more accurate before worrying about clarity.

          I don’t need to worry about either. You’re refusal to accept that your argument is bankrupt is not my problem. You might have noticed that no one is finding your argument remotely compelling here, so you might want to adress your own accuracy, though it is abundatly clear where you stand.

        • “Israel has dozens of laws that discriminate against all of its non-Jewish citizens on the basis of their so-called “nationality” as reflected in the complete listing of the Israeli population maintained by the Ministry of the Interior.”

          Really? Huh, would you mind listing a dozen or so in that case?

          “Israel has specific legislation and military orders that discriminate against Palestinians no matter where they live.”

          Like what? Those links did not have anything regarding Israeli citizens.

        • Shmuel says:

          Really? Huh … Like what?

          You might want to check out Adalah’s latest Inequality Report (March 2011), which refers to “more than 30 main laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel”: link to adalah.org

          Also, have a look at Special Report: 10 Discriminatory Laws (June 2010) and
          April and June 2011 updates (2011 was a busy year for anti-democratic legislation):
          link to adalah.org
          link to adalah.org
          link to adalah.org

        • “Oh my gosh, I guess somebody needs to phone up Nelson Mandela and Archbiship Desmond Tutu and inform them both that they’re full of shit, according to this guy.”

          Just desmond tutu. Mandella never equated zionism with apartheid.

        • “Zionism was the impetus behind the creation in (all of) Mandate Palestine of a Jewish State for people of the Jewish faith from countries around the world.”

          In all of mandate palestine? No, not really. Transjordan was sectioned off immediately. Israel never encompassed all of mandate palestine, even post-TJ palestine.

          “the creation of a secular, democratic and egalitarian state of and for all of those inhabitants, equally.”

          Sure it did. It’s in the declaration of independence.

        • Taxi says:

          playforisrael!

          You can’t even spell Mandela’s name correctly let alone know what he REALLY thinks about israel. Here’s a letter he wrote to the dastardly Thomas Friedman way back in 2001 describing israelis as racist and israel as an Apartheid system- it should shut your denialism up FOR GOOD:
          link to bintjbeil.com

        • Shingo says:

          Just desmond tutu. Mandella never equated zionism with apartheid.

          Neither of them explicitly equated Zionism with apartheid, but they both decribed Israel as apartheid.

        • Shingo says:

          In all of mandate palestine? No, not really. Transjordan was sectioned off immediately. Israel never encompassed all of mandate palestine, even post-TJ palestine.

          That’s not how the Zionist leadership saw it.

          In fact, long after the Lague fo Nations passed the Transjordan memorandum, Ben Gurion said that “The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan: one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today, but the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.”

          Then last year, Iaraeli BS artist in chief, Danny Ayalon, put out a propaganda video claiming that the Zionist founders made a painful concession by giving up Transjordan, even though it was never theirs to give up.

          Sure it did. It’s in the declaration of independence.

          Which Israel have violated and ingored from day 1.

          During the 48th session of the Ad Hoc Political Committee that was considering Israel’s application for membership, the representative of Cuba asked if Israel had supplied the required declaration? Mr Abba Eban said he could answer in the affirmative and cited the Declaration of Independence. See pages 2-3 of the .pdf A/AC.24/SR.48 link to doc.un.org

          At the 51st session of the Ad Hoc Committee on Israel’s membership in the UN Mr Eban affirmed that the rights stipulated in section C. Declaration, chapters 1 and 2 of UN resolution 181(II) had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as required by the resolution when the Declaration of Independence had been promulgated as law in the official gazette. See the verbatim UN record, A/AC.24/SR.51
          Mr. Eban’s explanations and Israel’s acknowledgment of those undertakings were specifically noted in the text and footnotes of General Assembly Resolution 273 (III) “Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations”, 11 May 1949.

          In 1950 the representative of Israel claim that, although Israel had expressed its willingness to provide the required declaration, it had been admitted to membership in the United Nations without ever providing one. See the Yearbook of the International Law Commission: 1950 , vol. II, Law of Treaties, UN Document: A/CN.4/19, page 21, paragraphs 21–23, link to untreaty.un.org

        • “You can’t even spell Mandela’s name correctly let alone know what he REALLY thinks about israel.”

          Seriously dude? Focusing on a typo as though it represents some sort of greater ignorance is an intellectually dishonest debating tactic of the laziest kind. (At least try to make it a little funny or something.)

          “Here’s a letter he wrote to the dastardly Thomas Friedman way back in 2001 describing israelis as racist and israel as an Apartheid system- it should shut your denialism up FOR GOOD:”

          Fair enough, it’s true… I have been in denial. I came here with the assumption that unyielding anti-Zionists such as yourself MIGHT be open to alternate viewpoints if it could be shown that many of their sources are heavily biased, or that a lot of the “facts” they assumed to be true were actually just made up out of thin air. But now I realize that is unlikely to ever happen. Thank you for opening my eyes.

          By the way, you remember that letter from Mandela that you mentioned a little while ago? Yeah… that letter is totally fake.

          It was published as a “what-if” piece by electronic intifada. Believe me when I say I get very little pleasure from telling you this fact. You seemed SOOO proud to show it to me in your last post (and it SO would have nailed me if it wasn’t completely imaginary), I even briefly considered not telling you it was fake and conceding defeat instead. But then I remembered that super annoying spelling crack you made, soooo…. yeah.

        • “Neither of them explicitly equated Zionism with apartheid, but they both decribed Israel as apartheid.”

          I really don’t believe so. When did Nelson Mandela ever describe Israel as apartheid?

  5. Taxi says:

    Uprooting the symbol of peace is not a surprise but always a heartbreaker.

    Are the israelis gonna line up Palestinian doves against the wall and shoot them in the back too?

    Well that wouldn’t surprise me either.

    And then they tell us that they’re hated cuz they’re jewish and only cuz they’re jewish – yeah right.

    Where’s the outrage of the global Green Parties?! This isn’t just a Palestine/israel issue you know!

    • pabelmont says:

      And they sometimes tell us that they do all this stuff in order to have a home for the otherwise homeless (or at least countryless) Jewish people. When they say that, it might make anyone think they uproot these olive trees because they (the uprooters) are Jewish, in which case there’s a good chance they’ll be hated b-t-J.

      If someone who goes to synagogue would tell this story and ask for reactions * * * what would they hear? What would American Jewish voices say?

      There is often a slight-of-hand here, where they say they “need” a country, and the country they “need” include the West Bank, Golan, south Lebanon, Jordan, etc. And then ask, rhetorically, “We have a right to a country, right? so why not to THIS country?” But the olive tree “op” was not merely rhetorical.

  6. If Israel wants to breed hatred of itself then consider the job done. No-one can possible continue making excuses for this ethnic cleansing and barbarism. They haven’t got hearts, just blackened evil souls.

    • Fredblogs says:

      ROFL. Sounds like Mr. Garrison’s description of gays (before he realized he was one). Also, this is neither ethnic cleansing, nor barbarism. It is nature conservation, possibly with some eminent domain thrown in.

      • Shmuel says:

        It is nature conservation, possibly with some eminent domain thrown in.

        And you would know this how? It seems you’ve done as much research as asherpat. The only piece of actual information you have comes from an article I provided that you obviously haven’t read, but you know that “it is nature conservation” and you feel confident enough to throw around terms like “eminent domain”.

        The story is (according to the Hebrew Haaretz article I cited above and other sources) that Israel declared the Wadi Qana area a nature reserve in the 1970s, allowing Palestinian farmers to continue to work their land within the reserve, but not to extend cultivation, regardless of ownership. Israel proceeded to build settlements all around the designated area (on both private and “state” land), polluting most of the springs in the area with untreated sewage, forcing hundreds of Palestinian farmers to leave the valley itself and move to the village of Deir Istiya. The settlements and “outposts” have been allowed to expand unchecked into the reserve, including the paving of a road. Palestinians on the other hand, have been constantly harassed both by settlers and the Civil Administration – prevented from planting, protecting their trees or adequately using the little unpolluted water left in the previously (i.e. before it was declared a “nature reserve” and trashed by the Israeli authorities) pristine valley.

        There is nothing new or exceptional about Israel’s selective use of planning and zoning to prevent Palestinian construction (while favouring Jewish construction), agriculture and life. The Shahak Industrial Zone, for example (not far from Wadi Qana) was built inside another “nature reserve”, in which any Palestinian construction is met with demolition and fines.

        But don’t let reality get in your way. Continue assuming and presuming and throwing the words “possibly” and “some” in from time to time so you never actually have to provide any facts, evidence or links. You know that Israel is always right and “civilised” and besmirched, and that’s all that matters.

        • Fredblogs says:

          Thank you, that info is what I’ve been asking for. 1970s it was declared a nature reserve and the Palestinians were on notice when they planted the trees 5 years ago. So they are being told to uproot trees they knew they were planting in violation of the rules of the effective government of the area. Bet this gets censored.

        • Bet this gets censored.

          if your stuff is getting censored this might serve as an excellent example why. did you even read shmuel’s post or are you just yammering away unawares?

          Israel declared the Wadi Qana area a nature reserve in the 1970s, allowing Palestinian farmers to continue to work their land within the reserve, but not to extend cultivation, regardless of ownership. Israel proceeded to build settlements all around the designated area (on both private and “state” land), polluting most of the springs in the area with untreated sewage, forcing hundreds of Palestinian farmers to leave the valley itself and move to the village of Deir Istiya.

          that is a ethnic cleansing. link to stopthewall.org

          Wadi Qana is located close to Deir Istiya in Salfit district and one of the spots of the West Bank that is first ethnically cleansed from its Palestinian population and then its nature devasted by the Israeli settlement project.

          The valley was once famous for its lush nature, its water resources including eleven springs and fertile agricultural lands. It spans some ten thousand dunum of lands, planted predominantly with citrus trees. Before the occupation, the springs in Wadi Qana served as the main water resource for agricultural, animal and human needs in the area.

          Today Wadi Qana is to be completely isolated by the Wall and is surrounded by 9 settlements with a total population of over ten thousand settlers. Most of its springs are unusable because of the pollution caused by the untreated waste and sewage water that are dumped into the lands and the waters from these settlements. (See in the image youth volunteers reclaiming one of the springs in Wadi Qana.)

          Until 1986, around 350 people used to live in the valley. Most of them were forced to leave and live now in the nearbby village of Deir Istiya. The ruins of their houses are still visible beneath the Karnei Shomron settlement. Through home demolitions and other military orders and harassment, people were pushed out of the valley.

          you can find that link and others on kates list today! link to mondoweiss.net , as everyday this is documented here. here is another, from today’s list:

          QALQILIA (WAFA) 30 Apr – Israeli army Monday informed Palestinian residents of Kufr Qaddoum of its plan to demolish several homes in the village located east of Qalqilia, said residents … The Israeli authorities want to turn most of Kufr Qaddoum land into area controlled by nearby settlements or roads leading to the settlements.

          >

          and another, from today’s list:

          Jewish settlers started building a new settlement outpost in Yanbu area near Nabi Saleh village to the north of Ramallah, Hebrew press reported on Monday. Ha’aretz newspaper recalled that the civil administration had declared as a historic spot an area of 15 dunums in Yanbu in February 2010, despite being owned by Palestinians.

          and here’s you, predictably:

          ‘Thank you, that info is what I’ve been asking for. 2010 it was declared a historic spot and the Palestinians were on notice ..bla bla … they knew they were in violation of the rules of the effective government of the area. Bet this gets censored.’

          never mind there are no rules for settlers! i wish you could hear yourself as others hear you. so the next time you whine about being censored by all means let’s look at this comment of yours as an example of what the moderators are denying us..SPAM!

        • Shmuel says:

          Thank you, that info is what I’ve been asking for.

          Your selective reading skills are quite something, Fred. These people have had part of their land stolen and given to settlers, their water supply and valley polluted (by the very same “effective government” so concerned by the effects of traditional agriculture on the local ecosystem) killing more of their trees and forcing them to move, have been the victims of settler harassment, were unilaterally told that they could not plant trees on their own land and ordered to uproot what they had planted (repeat: on their own land) in the name of “nature conservation” – when settlers were allowed to actually build homes (on both “legal” settlements and “outposts”) as well as a road within the very same “nature reserve”, and all you take away from this is “the Palestinians were on notice”?

          Your challenge to the moderators is touching, but what you are doing is dishonest trolling, and deserves to be blocked.

        • eljay says:

          >> 1970s it was declared a nature reserve and the Palestinians were on notice when they planted the trees 5 years ago.

          The trees that were planted, and the land they were planted into, is in the West Bank, far outside of the Glorious Jewish State‘s 1948 1967 borders.

          Leave it to a Zio-supremacist to embrace hatefulness, injustice and immorality.

        • Hostage says:

          Your challenge to the moderators is touching, but what you are doing is dishonest trolling, and deserves to be blocked.

          What he is doing is publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivializing crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) and crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the purposes of incitement. He’s done the same thing in comments on several other articles, despite the fact that we’ve pointed out all along that population displacement and transfer is a serious war crime. At this point it is obvious and deliberate Nakba denial.

        • Shingo says:

          1970s it was declared a nature reserve and the Palestinians were on notice when they planted the trees 5 years ago.

          No idiot, read the article again. The orchards are 82 years old.

          And Israel has no authority to designate occupied territory a nature reserve.

        • Blake says:

          Well said/spotted Shingo. Standard Israeli propaganda claims of dis-info without checking any facts whatsoever. So transparent.

        • alec says:

          Alas, the government of the area is neither effective or legal. It’s a bunch of racist clowns in KKK-issued yamulkas like you.

        • Fredblogs says:

          Non-sequitur there.

          “Jewish settlers started building a new settlement outpost in Yanbu area near Nabi Saleh village to the north of Ramallah, Hebrew press reported on Monday. Ha’aretz newspaper recalled that the civil administration had declared as a historic spot an area of 15 dunums in Yanbu in February 2010, despite being owned by Palestinians.”

          That paragraph says that 15 dunums (about 4 acres?) in one particular area were declared historic land. The settlement is being build in the same geographic region, but nothing says that it is being built on those 15 dunums.

        • Hostage says:

          Non-sequitur there. . . Jewish settlers started building a new settlement outpost in Yanbu . . . the civil administration had declared as a historic spot an area of 15 dunums in Yanbu in February 2010, despite being owned by Palestinians

          A sequitur is a logical conclusion or consequence of facts. Article 46 of the rules attached to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 says that private property cannot be confiscated. That rule doesn’t permit any exceptions:
          *http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp#art46

          Article 23 prohibits the seizure of any enemy property, unless such seizure is imperatively demanded by the necessities of war. Seizures of so-called “state land” or private land carried-out by civilian settlers for their own use is not a military necessity.
          *http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp#art23

          So it logically follows from the facts that both acts are violations of international law. 18 USC § 2441 defines violations of Article 23 of the Hague Convention as a War Crime. Those acts committed by the Israeli occupying power and its civilians are also defined as War Crimes in accordance with Article 8 of the Rome Statute.
          *http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441
          *http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/STATUTE/99_corr/cstatute.htm

        • Djinn says:

          “the effective government of the area.”

          A government which Palestinians have no say in, glad you’re finally admitting that the state you unquestioningly support is an Apartheid one.

        • Hostage says:

          “the effective government of the area.” . . . A government which Palestinians have no say in, glad you’re finally admitting that the state you unquestioningly support is an Apartheid one.

          That’s true. The General Assembly ordered South Africa to withdraw its armed forces from Namibia, in much the same way that it ordered Israel to withdraw unconditionally from the occupied Arab territories. Israel has no right govern there or to declare private property a nature preserve in violation of the rules of occupation.

          When the Namibia case was being argued before the ICJ, the international convention on the suppression of apartheid had not entered into force and South Africa was not a state party. The Court nonetheless ruled that it’s policy of apartheid and the continued presence of its armed forces in Namibia violated UN General Assembly resolutions and its obligations under the UN Charter to respect the right of self-determination of peoples and to give the UN organization every assistance in any action it undertakes in maintaining international peace and security.

          In the 2004 Wall Case, Palestine and a half dozen other states supplied written and oral arguments that said Israel’s administrative regime satisfied the Court’s definition of apartheid in the Namibia case and that it violated the right of self determination. Like the Union of South Africa, Israel has never been a party to the apartheid convention, the 1st Additional Protocol, and the Rome Statute. The Court’s findings of fact cited many of the constituent acts of apartheid mentioned in those treaties and declared that both the Wall and Israel’s administrative regime were illegal, because they violated a number of internationally guaranteed rights, including the right of self determination.

          In the summer of 2010, a review conference of the State Parties to the Rome Statute voted to accept the same definition of the crime of aggression that was adopted by the General Assembly in the “Definition of Aggression”, resolution 3314 (XXIX) (1974). It includes any military occupation, no matter how temporary, that violates the provisions of the UN Charter. The ICJ advisory opinion had already explained that Israel could not justify its violation of the right of self determination on the grounds of a state of necessity or self defense. So its occupation regime satisfies the definitions of the crimes of aggression and apartheid.

        • Nakba denial? He’s talking about an even that happened 65 years after the nakba. And Israel isn’t even a signatory to the Rome statute, it’s under no obligation to follow it. That said he isn’t condoning anything that breaks these rules anyway.

        • Hostage says:

          Nakba denial? He’s talking about an even that happened 65 years after the nakba.

          Once again, publicly denying, condoning, or trivializing any war crime that targets a national or ethnic group is a crime in many jurisdictions around the globe – and that’s exactly what you and he are doing in the comment threads of a number of articles here at Mondoweiss. If you insist on doing that after repeated warnings, you should both be banned. The same laws that permit prosecution of Holocaust denial, apply to Israeli violations of international law. For example the EU Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia criminalizes:
          *public condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) and crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal

          Courts in Europe and other countries with similar hate speech laws, e.g. Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act link to laws-lois.justice.gc.ca , have ordered content removed or blocked access to websites in many cases.

          The ICJ noted in 2004 that Palestinians had been displaced in violation of Article 49(6) of the Geneva Conventions and that their lands had been expropriated in violation of the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Those are grave breaches and war crimes in accordance with Article 8 of the Rome Statute. The Court noted UN reports that listed factors including press reports about a government policy of Bantustanization, expropriation of land and property, demolition of homes, destruction of orchards, and other crops, deportations, encirclement by walled ethnic enclaves, and of course the restrictions on freedom of movement and right of residence caused by construction of an illegal wall and the imposition of a permit system. The Court’s findings of fact included most of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, i.e. violation of the right to work, right to an education, access to health care, adequate supplies of food and water, and access to housing. The Goldstone Mission arrived at similar findings. The Mission noted that a Court could reasonably conclude that these practices amounted to the crime of persecution, which is also a crime subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC in accordance with Article 7 of the Rome Statute.

          And Israel isn’t even a signatory to the Rome statute, it’s under no obligation to follow it.

          The Rome Statute criminalizes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and customary international law that are binding on the Israeli officials responsible for the acts listed in the ICJ’s findings of fact. Nothing prevents other states or the ICC from investigating and bringing those responsible to justice – and no statutory limitations apply.

          When the Rome Statute entered into effect in 2002, future Israeli Supreme Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein was serving as the Attorney General. He warned that the decision not to ratify the Statute would not eliminate the danger of prosecutions. Deputy Attorney General Rachel Sukar explained that non-ratification does not provide immunity from prosecution by the court. She noted that the court also does not recognize diplomatic immunity, so even a sitting prime minister can be indicted. link to haaretz.com

        • “Once again, publicly denying, condoning, or trivializing any war crime that targets a national or ethnic group is a crime in many jurisdictions around the globe – and that’s exactly what you and he are doing in the comment threads of a number of articles here at Mondoweiss. If you insist on doing that after repeated warnings, you should both be banned.”

          Interesting discussion. I actually find such laws reprehensible. Free speech is essential to the democratic process and any limitation serves against the interests of truth and transparency. Hate speech should be combated with truthful speech, not a gag.

          Anyway I checked the comments policy here and it says the opposite of what you stated. “One of the goals of this site is to promote critical discussion and debate on US foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” How can you have open debate or critical discussion if any deviation from a specific viewpoint is grounds for banning? It’s not like only a single ideology exists regarding I/P. Just the opposite. And how does one draw a line between “minimizing” crimes and merely offering context? Between “denial” and presenting alternative narratives?

          All you are doing is laying the groundwork for excusing our eventual dismissal; you aren’t “warning” anyone. You present a system where any disagreement is grounds for banishment. Meaning this site is really just a board to bash Israel, not a forum for discussion at all.

          And would you hold yourself and all other anti-Zioinists here to this same standard? Do none of you ever violate these absurdly rigid rules when Israeli victims are involved? (I already know you do.)

        • You know what my main issue with the rome statute is? I take offense that an organization like the UN should expect any state they have barred from participating in the creation of a treaty to be equally bound by it. Every other member state is allowed to participate in UN functions like that, or the security council or to serve on committees, and so on. Why would we expect an organization that discriminates against Israel to consider its interests when drawing up legislation? We wouldn’t.

        • Shingo says:

          take offense that an organization like the UN should expect any state they have barred from participating in the creation of a treaty to be equally bound by it.

          Yes PFP, it sucks when your side violates international law and commuts crimes against humanity and it caught in the act. It’s like Israel insisting it commited no war crimes in Gaza, but then argued that the laws of war should be changed.

          I’m sure Charles Manson is pissed he didn’t get to write a law that designated that killed less than a dozen people is not misdemeanour punnishable by 100 hours of community service.

        • Shingo says:

          Interesting discussion. I actually find such laws reprehensible.

          Most of us find Zionism reprehensible, but it’s allowed on this forum. If you miss the freedom to indulge in Holocaust and Nakba denial so much, you’re more han welcome to join your colleagues over at Stormfront, where your free speech is boundless.

          How can you have open debate or critical discussion if any deviation from a specific viewpoint is grounds for banning?

          The moderators have established that historical facts like the Holocaust and the Nakba have ben sufficiently proven and that debating them is a distraction from the actual debate. Pervios commenters on both sides of this argument have been banned. If you don’t like it, move on over to Daily Kos.

          Meaning this site is really just a board to bash Israel, not a forum for discussion at all.

          Not at all. You’ve been allowed to present pro Israeli arguments and you are still permitted to post here.

          Stop wining. Put up or shut up.

        • You didn’t answer the question. Manson is represented in congress, he had the same access to lawmakers as any other citizen.

          Yet only Israel is barred from these functions. Why should Israel expect an organization that blatantly discriminates against it to form a court able to render judgements free of political bias?

          BTW, war crimes? I know that the Palestinians committed war crimes, but what did Israel do that meets that standard? Or rather, what do you THINK Israel did?

        • Holocaust and Nakba denial? Straw man, I mentioned no such thing.

          “Not at all. You’ve been allowed to present pro Israeli arguments and you are still permitted to post here.”

          I was just threatened with banning for those same alternative arguments.

          “Stop wining. Put up or shut up.”

          Please. Even in this post you can’t address what I actually said, preferring to accuse me of genocide denial. Why? To create evidence for my banning in a few days?

        • Shingo says:

          Holocaust and Nakba denial? Straw man, I mentioned no such thing.

          Holocaust and Nakba deniers rarely admit they are.

          And yes, what you said has been addressed and debunked. Apartheid and colonialism go hand in hand.

        • Hostage says:

          Interesting discussion. I actually find such laws reprehensible.

          It is nothing new when the Zionists find the law reprehensible, but that has never prevented the Zionist lobby from demanding the adoption and enforcement of memory or Holocaust denial laws.

          Free speech is essential to the democratic process and any limitation serves against the interests of truth and transparency. Hate speech should be combated with truthful speech, not a gag.

          I suppose that you can take that issue up with the Courts in Canada, Germany, and other countries that have blocked access to websites containing hate speech. In the meantime, the comment rules here prohibit those sort of comments. Phil and Adam advised:

          1. No Holocaust or Nakba denial

          We’re not going to tolerate any discussion of the Jewish role in the rise of the Nazis. This is complex history that we just don’t have the time for– and unfortunately, the issue is used as a pretext for blaming Jews for the Nazi rise, a form of Holocaust denial we want no part of. Therefore we’re going to strike all comments on the issue.

          Similarly, this policy includes Nakba denial as well, and efforts to blame the expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 on Palestinian actions.

          Here is another comment thread in which you were a participant. It should have resulted in a ban for both you and Fredblogs and comment deletions: link to mondoweiss.net

          Anyway I checked the comments policy here and it says the opposite of what you stated.

          There’s no difference between that and the Holocaust deniers who attempt to employ free speech rationalizations, Jewish boycotts, and Jewish declarations of war on Germany to justify the crime of genocide. Nothing justifies ethnic cleansing, or incitement to commit genocide, they always result in international criminal responsibility. Even if you admit that 6 million Jews perished, or that there were 700,000 Palestinian refugees, the comment rules here require deletion and a ban if you attempt to assign the blame to the victims of war cimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

          Do none of you ever violate these absurdly rigid rules when Israeli victims are involved? (I already know you do.)

          I generally disagree with attempts to justify attacks on non-belligerent civilians going about their daily business. That even includes rationalizations about attacks on Israeli citizens on their side of the Green line. See for example my comment on the controversial Derfner editorial. link to mondoweiss.net

          I also recognize the rights of anyone born in Israel or Palestine to live, leave, and return to their country of origin. link to mondoweiss.net

          In most civilized legal systems it is recognized that legal rights may only be exercised conditioned upon compliance with legal duties. The State of Israel has refused to honor its minority rights obligations with respect to the right of Palestinians to live, leave, and return to their country of origin so that it can control the demographic balance it achieves through colonization, ethnic cleansing, deportations, and other illegal forms of population transfer, i.e. the catastrophe or the Nakba.

        • Hostage says:

          You didn’t answer the question. Manson is represented in congress, he had the same access to lawmakers as any other citizen.

          Your analogy is correct, but the proposition that Israel didn’t participate in the UN or Rome Conference of the ICC is completely wrong. FYI, the UN didn’t adopt the Rome Statute. The General Assembly merely arranged for a diplomatic conference of plenipotentiaries which drafted and adopted the Rome Statute and set-up a criminal court that is independent and exists outside of the UN organization. Israel participated fully in the committees that drafted and adopted the Rome Statute. The Statute was approved and adopted by an overwhelming majority, despite the negative vote cast by Israel. See the statement by the head of the Israeli delegation, Judge Eli Nathan, link to iccnow.org

          There isn’t a single criminal justice system in the world that operates on the rule of legislative unanimity. Even Israel subjects aliens to its criminal justice system without obtaining their prior consent. Why shouldn’t the Palestinians have the same right in connection with crimes committed by Israeli aliens on the territory of Palestine?

        • pfp, what are you going on about. if you do not like the rules here write adam and phil about it, don’t come into an almost 2 week old thread and spam it. that is exactly what you are doing. these are your words below, switching out ‘i/p’ for holocaust:

          How can you have open debate or critical discussion if any deviation from a specific viewpoint is grounds for banning? It’s not like only a single ideology exists regarding the Holocaust. Just the opposite. And how does one draw a line between “minimizing” crimes and merely offering context? Between “denial” and presenting alternative narratives?

          All you are doing is laying the groundwork for excusing our eventual dismissal; you aren’t “warning” anyone. You present a system where any disagreement is grounds for banishment. Meaning this site is really just a board to bash Israel, not a forum for discussion at all.

          get it? we do not debate whether the holocaust took place here, neither the nakba. now here is you again, no words switched:

          I know that the Palestinians committed war crimes, but what did Israel do that meets that standard? Or rather, what do you THINK Israel did?

          you are skirting on the edge..and then trying to set it up as if we’re framing you. you’re not being framed, you’re being informed by members of the community you’re breaking site rules. we didn’t set the rules. if you want to debate them write phil and adam.

        • Blake says:

          pfp: I have had posts rejected on here. It’s their site so it’s up to them what they put in their comments sections. Goes without saying.

          P.S. Ynet have yet to publish 1 comment of mine, as have supposedly liberal Haaretz, yet vile racist xenophobic islamophobia rants and posts denying Palestine/Palestinians have ever existed are all over their comments sections.

        • Hostage says:

          Please. Even in this post you can’t address what I actually said, preferring to accuse me of genocide denial.

          I provided you with a link to Fredblog’s comment which justified the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. You came to his defense and supported what he said.

          Top genocide scholars and UN expert panels on international law have concluded that what Israel did was either genocide or ethnic cleansing – and that the use of the term “ethnic cleansing” has been a tactic to avoid responsibility for genocide:

          The recent tendency to define as “ethnic cleansing” policies that could prove to be genocidal under the definition of “genocide” established in international law has been a way of escaping responsibility, and even of fostering impunity. “Ethnic cleansing” may the ideal term for journalistic and even scientific purposes because of its emotional content, but its ineffectiveness makes it a poor choice in the field of law. The same may be said of “ethnocide” and “cultural genocide” as fully separate terms distinct from “genocide” as defined in criminal law. Use of one or both of these expressions is frequently a way of circumventing the legal effects of use of the word “genocide” even in the face of the evidence.

          link to un.org
          link to forward.com

          The European Court of Human Rights has upheld convictions for the crime of genocide in cases involving as few as 8 murders. Many more than that were deliberately massacred according to the Haganah’s own accounting of the events of 1948.

        • “the proposition that Israel didn’t participate in the UN or Rome Conference of the ICC is completely wrong.”

          Israel only has observer status in Rome. How exactly did they “participate fully” in committees that they lacked authority to join?

        • pfp, why did you use those quotemarks? whom are you quoting? yourself? here is what you said

          I take offense that an organization like the UN should expect any state they have barred from participating in the creation of a treaty to be equally bound by it. Every other member state is allowed to participate in UN functions like that, or the security council or to serve on committees, and so on. Why would we expect an organization that discriminates against Israel to consider its interests when drawing up legislation?

          nothing about “participate fully”, at all. or are you now trying to move the goalposts after your #hasbarafail?

        • Hostage says:

          Israel only has observer status in Rome. How exactly did they “participate fully” in committees that they lacked authority to join?

          What nonsense. A state that has signed but not ratified a treaty is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Israel was one of the original signatories of the Rome Statute, but it subsequently advised the Court that it had no intention of ratifying the treaty.

          The General Assembly invited all UN member states, state members of UN specialized agencies, parties to the ICJ statute, and members of the IAEA to send their plenipotentiaries to the Rome Conference. Israel was one of the 120 states that attended. They in turn, drafted and adopted Article 125 of the Rome Statute which says that the Statute is open for signature or accession by all states, including Israel. The Court invites all non-member states to participate in its business as observers.

          There were no ICC observer states at the original Rome Conference, since there was no Rome Statute or ICC. That’s when Israel sent it’s delegation to the Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court held in Rome, 15 June – 17 July 1998. The UN hosted the Conference which functioned as a Constituent Assembly. Its various subcommittees drafted the articles of the constitutional instrument of the proposed court. Then the Committee of the Whole voted to adopt the final Statute. Each country still had the option of becoming a signatory and ratifying the treaty. link to untreaty.un.org

          The Rome Statute entered into force when 30 states had ratified the agreement in July of 2002. The United Nations Secretariat ceased to serve as the Secretariat of the Assembly of State Parties on 31 December 2003 when the Court’s own staff assumed responsibility.
          link to untreaty.un.org

        • Annie,

          Why is accusing Fred of nakba denial acceptable while disagreeing with that assessment “trolling?”

          I have no problem with the rules here. I do have a problem with using those rules in a manner beyond their obvious meaning in order to bar anyone who disagrees with you from posting. For example, Fred offers a different perspective which is then taken to mean that he is “grossly trivializing crimes against humanity and war crimes” which then means he is “denying the nakba.”

          “you are skirting on the edge..and then trying to set it up as if we’re framing you. you’re not being framed, you’re being informed by members of the community you’re breaking site rules.”

          How is discussing events that happened in 2006 in Gaza “skirting the edge” of nakba denial? What rule am I breaking?

          RE: word switching… The holocaust is not the opposite of I/P. You were asble to swap words out to make my quote look racist, big deal. You swapped critical words that altered the meaning completely. Are you of the mind that debating I/P is the same as debating the holocaust?

          No one mentioned the nakba or denial of it except you guys. I certainly didn’t.

        • Shingo says:

          Why is accusing Fred of nakba denial acceptable while disagreeing with that assessment “trolling?”

          If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and looks like one….

          I have no problem with the rules here.

          You must be the other “playforpalestine”, not the one who complained bitterly about them a few days ago.

          For example, Fred offers a different perspective which is then taken to mean that he is “grossly trivializing crimes against humanity and war crimes” which then means he is “denying the nakba.”

          Fred ofers Nakba denial, which I agree is his perspective, but it is against the rules. Fred should have been banned a long time ago.

          No one mentioned the nakba or denial of it except you guys. I certainly didn’t.

          You just complained about being denied the right to deny the Nakba here. Or was that the other “playforpalestine” too?

        • Settle down over there.
          No need to get all riled up.
          I quoted Hostage. Is that alright with you?

        • “You just complained about being denied the right to deny the Nakba here. Or was that the other “playforpalestine” too?”

          Really? Care to show me where?

          No comment on the fact that Annie purposely distorted my comment to make it appear far more controversial than it was. What I wrote was basically what was listed as the purpose for the site. What Annie wrote was a comment that violated the content restrictions on posting.

          Just another example of your need to dishonestly alter criticism you have no answer to. It must be easier to refute my statements once you’ve changed them to arguments that you are better prepared for.

          Just for the record though, there is a difference between debating different narratives of I/P and those of the Holocaust. Obviously. Otherwise you wouldn’t have felt the need to make that edit, would you?

        • Hostage,

          So do you believe that Israel is guilty of genocide regarding the Palestinians?

        • Shingo says:

          Really? Care to show me where?

          Since you joined this forum, you’ve done exactly what Annie predicted, wased everyone’s time recycling the tactics Team Shalom used to shut down criticism of the IP conflict. Your stupidity stems from the fact that you mistook this for a blog dedicated to political partisanship.

          No comment on the fact that Annie purposely distorted my comment to make it appear far more controversial than it was.

          No she didn’t, she’s simply onto you. You have no idea how predictable and trasparent you are. Do you think for a momet we don’t see slime balls like you come by this forum every few weeks, pretending to be reasonable, open minded, informed and impartial? People like you are a dime a dozen.

          What I wrote was basically what was listed as the purpose for the site. What Annie wrote was a comment that violated the content restrictions on posting.

          So you seriously think anyone gives a dan what your interpretation of the comments policy is? All you’re doing is confirming precisely what Annie predicted you were here to do. Waste everyone’s time with off topic BS in an effort to derail the debate.

          It must be easier to refute my statements once you’ve changed them to arguments that you are better prepared for.

          I’m sure that in you’re steritypical Zionist narcisism, you probably believe that, but the fact is that your arguments are so sophomoric and juvenile that they couldn’t be any easier to refute. You’ve been on the receiving end of one pasting after another on any topic you actually tackled.

          Just for the record though, there is a difference between debating different narratives of I/P and those of the Holocaust.

          The IP conflict yes, the Nakba no. Phil’s blog, Phil’s rules. Don’t like it, then get lost.

      • Chaos4700 says:

        Actually, the character of Mr. Garrison from South Park is transgender, not gay. Can’t you even get pop culture references right, or must all of your posts be thoroughly wrong in every way?

  7. Ramzi Jaber says:

    It’s time for President Abbas to:

    1. Call for a UNSC vote on Palestinian statehood to unmask those who doublespeak

    2. (after UNSC resolution is vetoed by US and rejected by others) Order the PLO to submit Palestinian non-state member request to UNGA

    3. (after being admitted as non-member state) File claims against the criminal zionist regime in the ICJ and ICC.

    4. Shut down the PA.

    5. Resign.

    • dahoit says:

      Sorry,Obomba just gave millions to the PA to shut up and countdemoney,expect nothing from them.
      When they start refusing our dough is when they will find justice,as we only bribe and divide for Israel.

  8. NickJOCW says:

    They regard the farmers as squatters and are treating them as such. The US has emasculated all supra-national organisations that were supposed to prevent this sort of thing and suborned those nations that might have been inclined to intervene. We are experiencing the Descent of Man and will soon revert to Neanderthal values.

    • Fredblogs says:

      Oh, please. We have no idea what Neanderthal values were. They have been extinct too long. All we know is that we have found their bones with our ancestors (homo sapiens) teeth marks on them, but not the other way around.

      • alec says:

        Their bones with your teeth on them, more likely. Your Darwinist winks are touching. I wonder if young Adolf was as clever as you. When will you ever fully catch up with his population shaping projects?

  9. chocopie says:

    This is sickening. Such cruelty.

  10. Kate says:

    I can’t help commenting on this post because I stayed in this beautiful village for a few days back in 2002 and still communicate with the family who opened their home to me. We picked olives on the hill across the settler road, keeping a sharp eye out for Israeli helicopters and jeeps. One day after some large helicopters went over the olive grove toward the village, Israeli soldiers in several vehicles closed the entrance to the village, leaving many Palestinians in their cars waiting to get in. When I went over to find out why, an obviously American-Israeli soldier said to me, “We just wanted to talk – you wouldn’t want us to talk in the middle of the road, would you?” In fact the soldiers, including those from the helicopters, were preparing to hold some kind of practice maneuver on the far side of the village, as witnessed by some mortar fire a short time later. So what if the people couldn’t get into or out of their village?
    Aside from the great economic value of olive trees, picking olives is an almost idyllic experience, except when the army is around. The setting is beautiful, the food brought from the village or cooked on the spot is delicious, the company is great. Everyone looks forward to olive-picking season, the anticipation tempered only by fear of attacks by settlers. I can’t express my anger at the way what should be a peaceful experience is so often ruined by these invaders. And as for stealing, burning, and uprooting olive trees, this is unspeakable.
    Look at the entry for Deir Istiya on Palestine Remembered to see a photo I took of ‘my’ family returning to the village after a day of picking. The village on its hill in the golden light of late afternoon is truly lovely.
    link to palestineremembered.com

  11. Avi_G. says:

    1. This is further proof — as if any were needed — of the full coordination between the terrorist settlers and Israeli authorities.

    Whenever settlers attack Palestinian farmers, uproot trees or burn entire groves, the Israeli military does absolutely nothing.

    2. Delusional liberal Zionists ought to be reminded again and again of such criminal actions lest they forget that the settlers are on occupied land with the full approval and support of the Israeli government.

    So when someone like prof. Finkelstein claims that the 2 state solution is still viable because the Israeli government can easily remove these settlers, remind him of this article.

    And, those like Beinart who call for the boycott of the settlements, claiming — falsely — that a limited boycott can be effective in ending the occupation, should keep policies such as this in mind.

    3. Olive trees are not only a significant source of income for Palestinians, they are a source of life and a symbol of their undying connection to the land. Uprooting 1400 trees would deliver a financial blow, and a significant psychological blow to many Palestinians, especially the residents of the village.

    • “2. Delusional liberal Zionists ought to be reminded again and again of such criminal actions lest they forget that the settlers are on occupied land with the full approval and support of the Israeli government.

      So when someone like prof. Finkelstein claims that the 2 state solution is still viable because the Israeli government can easily remove these settlers, remind him of this article. ”

      How does this article refute the 2 state solution? Why can’t one support Zionism while opposing settler activities or anti-Palestinian actions by the IDF in the OPT?

      • Taxi says:

        “Why can’t one support Zionism while opposing settler activities or anti-Palestinian actions by the IDF in the OPT?”

        Cuz zionism is a stinking racist supremist 19th century political movement.

        So yeah wear your ‘zionist’ badge with pride mister – but don’t be surprised at the hostility you’ll be receiving.

      • Hostage says:

        So when someone like prof. Finkelstein claims that the 2 state solution is still viable because the Israeli government can easily remove these settlers, remind him of this article. ”

        Prof. Finkelstein says that the 2ss is in-line with the applicable international laws, UN resolutions, and international consensus which all hold that the presence of the settlers in the OPT and Israel’s expropriations, and destruction of property there are illegal. You really don’t understand what he said on the subject.

  12. American says:

    “The purpose is ethnic cleansing though slow economic strangulation which is less noticeable in MSM than outright expulsion/genocide.”

    “This isn’t savagery,barbarism?”

    “If Israel wants to breed hatred of itself then consider the job done. No-one can possible continue making excuses for this ethnic cleansing and barbarism. They haven’t got hearts, just blackened evil souls.”
    ______________________________________________

    All true.
    It is a deliberate and planned slow motion genocide.
    The savagery of these people is made 1000 times more evil by the holocaust and victimhood ‘excuses’ they claim for what they do.
    When the zionists time comes show them no more mercy than the world showed the nazis.
    And don’t even think about telling me not to make that comparison, ..if 63 years of zionist Israel doesn’t epitomize of the true ‘banality of evil’ I don’t know what does.

    • “It is a deliberate and planned slow motion genocide.”

      Wow! The great thing about such an accusation is that if there is any truth at all to what you are saying then finding corroborating evidence should be a snap for you. But just to be sure, we ARE talking about the same thing… an order Israel issued instructing the Palestinians to cut back their orchard size by uprooting some trees, right? To you, THAT’S the example of deliberate and slow-motion genocide which epitomizes the true ‘banality of evil’, moreso than anything else

      “When the zionists time comes show them no more mercy than the world showed the nazis.”

      Weren’t all the Nazis but the very top ones pretty much forgiven instantly, once the war ended?

      “And don’t even think about telling me not to make that comparison”

      Feel free to make as many offensive and ignorant statements as you desire.

      “if 63 years of zionist Israel doesn’t epitomize of the true ‘banality of evil’ I don’t know what does.”

      Really? Huh, ok… well, the Nazis are generally considered a good place to start (and finish, for that matter.)

      • Woody Tanaka says:

        “Really? Huh, ok… well, the Nazis are generally considered a good place to start (and finish, for that matter.)”

        Yeah, because everyone knows that the Jews are the only people in the history of the world who were ever oppressed.

        Piss off, Werdine.

        • “Yeah, because everyone knows that the Jews are the only people in the history of the world who were ever oppressed.”

          What does that even have to do with my comment? The phrase ‘banality of evil’ WAS coined in reference to the Holocaust you know. And the Holocaust IS a fairly perfect example of the meaning behind the phrase. (We’re not talking about oppression after all. We are talking about the psychology of “evil.”)

          That said, what is it about my comment that elicited such a strong reaction from you?

          “Piss off, Werdine.”

          You really hate this werdine character. I imagine he must have really thrashed you in your debates. I’m going to look him up.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          Yes, the phrase was coined in relation to the Holocaust, but that does not suggest or even require that it relate solely to that even and no other, as you seem to suggest. That’s what it has to do with your comment.

          “I imagine he must have really thrashed you in your debates”

          LOL! No. He was a long-winded blowhard who mouthed massive amounts of hasbara mixed in with lies. You would love him (yourself… whatever.)

  13. HarryLaw says:

    Ramzi Jaber, if a two state solution is what the Quartet wants then the bid at the UNGA should be supported by everyone since the recognition of the state of Palestine as a non member state does not preclude negotiations about what a future Palestinian Government free from occupation might do, what the PA cannot do within International Law is to agree to give away parts of its own territory whilst still under occupation a quite unreasonable and oppressive demand under any circumstances. The reason Israel/US and the Quartet are so hysterical about the bid is they do not want to see a two state solution based on 67 lines, they want a solution that Israel wants which of course is outside International Law. The PA needs to get on with the UNGA bid, go to the ICC again and don’t collapse at the first whiff of grapeshot because that will come in spades from you know who.

    • Hostage says:

      if a two state solution is what the Quartet wants then the bid at the UNGA should be supported by everyone since the recognition of the state of Palestine as a non member state does not preclude negotiations

      The other members don’t have to explain their negative votes, but the members of the Quartet most certainly would have to do so. They each have an unfulfilled obligation under the terms of the Road Map to promote international recognition of the Palestinian state and UN membership. If there are no mutually agreed upon territorial changes, the armistice lines still remain the “interim borders” mentioned in the Road Map and earlier agreements.

      Hamas should refuse to accept recognition of Israel under the terms of the Road Map until the Quartet and Israel both admit that recognition of the State of Palestine was a requirement. Full UN membership (within the interim 67 boundaries) was also a possibility that had already been spelled-out under Phase II of their own Road Map. If Israel and the US claim that full membership is not possible, then the Road Map is already dead as a door nail.

  14. Denis says:

    Chas. Schumer: “. . . to strangle them economically until they see that’s not the way to go, makes sense.”

    link to mondoweiss.net

    The voters need to strangle Schumer and his Israel-firster colleagues economically.

    • Kathleen says:

      Right wing radical zionist in liberal cover

    • piotr says:

      Schumer is a gutless moderate, well behind the curve. He was talking about strangling of Gaza because the contumely population there voted for Hamas. Here the strangling is done in West Bank, something that good Senator does not promote. Perhaps State Department will make another “it is not helpful” declaration.

      Real men (with guts) want to strangle Palestinians everywhere, defund UNRWA etc. and then to move on the rest of Muslims that should be pounded until they admit that they are untermensch.

  15. Blake says:

    Stories like this make me weep.

    • RoHa says:

      I never read them. Too depressing. I just wait for nice stories like “Peter Possum and Katie Koala have fun in Hebron.”

  16. Talkback says:

    Are this signs of a culture of death, too?

  17. chuckcarlos says:

    like most Americans, probably, had realized that Arabs had been given a bum deal and Leon Uris was full of shit…

    but like most Americans didn’t realize the full depth of depravity of Israel and their American supporters until started reading this stuff and others like Electronic Intifada…

    kind of makes you sick…

    “Those who deprive freedom of others deserve it not for themselves.” A Lincoln…

    Might take a while but it will come to fruition…the wheels of justice turn slowly…

  18. Kathleen says:

    Solidarity march with Deir Istiya, 27.04.2012
    link to flickr.com

  19. HarryLaw says:

    Quite right Hostage, also Phase 1 of the road map 2003; Consistent with the Mitchell report GOI freezes all settlement activity [including natural growth of settlements]. and GOI takes no actions undermining trust, including deportations, attacks on civilians; confiscation and/or demolition of Palestinian homes and property, as a punitive measure or to facilitate Israeli construction; destruction of Palestinian institutions and infrastructure; and other measures specified in the Tenet work plan. Still waiting, The Quartet is as dead as the dodo.

  20. radii says:

    once the peace deal finally is brokered it will be 14,000 zionist families a month that must vacate Palestinian land to go back to israel – there will be just desserts for this wrong against Palestinian farmers

    • Chaos4700 says:

      How is “back to Israel” even fair? Most of these clowns are European or Russian in descent.

      • Fredblogs says:

        @Chaos4700
        And ultimately, everyone is descended from central Africa, that doesn’t mean we should all be forced to move there.

        • everyone is descended from central Africa, that doesn’t mean we should all be forced to move there.

          maybe not but we should have every right to move back to our ancestral homeland, kick out the people who stuck around for centuries, and claim it for our own because everyone knows everybody has deep yearnings to live on their ancestors land. (snark)

  21. riyadh says:

    Reuters: Former head of Shin Bet domestic intelligence service, Yuval Diskin, warns against “messianic” war on Iran

    link to reuters.com

    • radii says:

      this story is getting big play everywhere (that I read) – it is a big deal – a direct challenge to the credibility of the Netanyahu-Barak coalition and their incessant histrionics about the non-threat of a currently contained Iran – in my view it is an ugly replay of the Balkans: greedy, self-important power-hungry leaders stoking war to save and expand their personal power … it is not about zionism, some threat to jews or israel’s security … the settlers and israel’s racism and militarism are the biggest threat to israel’s security

  22. yourstruly says:

    when jfk went to the berlin wall and did his ich bin ein berliner number, he electrified the world (or so msm told us). if one person could accomplish this with just a few words, what would be the effect of entire populations standing up at the same time (say, sundown, the first friday in may) and shouting in both arabic and their own native languages, “I am a palestinian, I am a Palestinian, I am a Palestinian”?
    the chanting could be turned into a weekly event. what’s more aerial and even satellite photograph could show the process moving from east to west, giving the world a glimpse of just how powerful the movement really is, and of its potential for bringing about meaningful change.

  23. Basilio says:

    This is so that Israel could ethnic cleanse those Palestinians from that area and try to push them out. It’s rather clear. Israel is not Jewish since the TORAH says one should not cut even trees in war, and it’s in a war against the Palestinians as a whole and using the cutting of trees as a kind of rape of the people. Israel is not quite like Nazi Germany, obviously, since it’s not committing mass genocide in terms of killing people, but unlike the Germans, the Israelis have access to modern media, the internet, and it’s harder to claim they didn’t know anything, and they have a democracy. Germany had a dictatorship most of the time. Israelis are responsible for their government.

    • Antidote says:

      “Israel is not quite like Nazi Germany, obviously, since it’s not committing mass genocide in terms of killing people”

      Just as obviously, Israel never fought a war even remotely comparable to WW II during which Jews were not the only people subjected to a genocidal attack, and the Nazis not the sole perpetrators of genocide either.

      “but unlike the Germans, the Israelis have access to modern media, the internet, and it’s harder to claim they didn’t know anything, and they have a democracy. Germany had a dictatorship most of the time.”

      Modern media in democratic countries are just as prone to spreading biased information and propaganda than are totalitarian regimes. One could argue that people living in dictatorships, now and then, have the advantage of knowing that what they are being served is highly filtered. The Weimar Republic lasted longer than the Third Reich and there is no question that Hitler (but not Churchill) was democratically elected. Racism, anti-semitism, not to mention genocide, was not the main reason, or even a main reason, why Germans, including German Jews, voted for Hitler in 1933.

  24. Daniel Rich says:

    The peak production years of an olive tree are between 30 and 70 years old. Uprooting one now ensures a whole generation have to do without. That’s the most evil of ideas behind the uprooting of every single olive tree. And then to think its branches were used to symbolize peace. How sick can reality get?

  25. yescolleen says:

    No one who genuinely loves that land would ever uproot a single healthy olive tree. This action speaks volumes about the hearts of those who make these decisions.

    • eljay says:

      >> No one who genuinely loves that land would ever uproot a single healthy olive tree.

      Unless they’re anti-Semitic and/or terrorist olive trees, in which case the Jewish state must uproot them in order to survive. (They don’t say “Israel is just a tiny blue dot in a sea of (olive-)green” for nothing!)

      Anyway, the uprooting will stop when olive trees love their saplings more than they hate Israel.

  26. One of the characteristics of fascist and apartheid systems we have seen in the past is the construction of a bureaucracy in which the state ideology is invested. Laws and regulations are implemented, behind which the vast cruelty and sadism of the state towards those it deems unwanted are hidden. It enables the army of bureaucrats, officials and state police to claim that they are merely implementing ‘orders’ from the courts, as if they have nothing to do with the decisions, and shrug off any responsibility for the calculated dispossession, the casual sadistic treatment of people now classified as non-people. It takes some ingenuity to construct such a coldhearted, inhuman regime, and a great diligence to implement it. It also requires the participants to deny any shred of empathy or common humanity, projecting a hostile, racist contempt on to the people they are encouraged to sadisticallty victimise
    Israel, well done, you are a hybrid of apartheid S Africa, China in Tibet and the old Soviet system. Where cold, calculated inhuman cruelty is not random, but built into every action and statute of the state.

  27. asherpat says:

    Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

    “1,400 trees by the end of this month. By comparison, this order is 400 more trees than the total number uprooted in all of 2011”.

    Is it 1,400 out of 2,000 or 1,400 out of 140,000? Why is there no reference point to judge whether 1,400 is a lot or a little?

    • Shmuel says:

      Where are the “lies” and the “damn lies” here, asher?

      I assume you read Hebrew. The IWPS link has an image of one of the nine orders, which cites “about 150 young trees”, in inspector Amnon’s very own hand (said inspector apparently has no surname). Multiply “about 150″ by 9, and the number 1,400 sounds about right. Do you have any reason to doubt any of this information? Any specific information to the contrary?

      Oh, and 1,400 trees are a lot.

      • asherpat says:

        “about 150 young trees”? what about “Amal described them as ancient growth, “1,000 years old,” stemming from the Roman period”?

        • Shmuel says:

          what about “Amal described them as ancient growth, “1,000 years old,” stemming from the Roman period”?

          No, those were her uncle’s trees that have already been uprooted.

          In Amal’s family, Israeli authorities uprooted 300 trees of her 83-year old uncle’s land. Amal described them as ancient growth, “1,000 years old,” stemming from the Roman period.

          The subject of the article – the trees that the villagers have been ordered to uproot by the end of the month are described as follows:

          Most of the trees were planted approximately 5 years ago on privately owned Palestinian property.

          You could at least have read the article properly before casting baseless aspersions. On second thought, why bother?

        • Chaos4700 says:

          I guess Zionists are about as capable of sixth-grade reading comprehension as they are at restraining themselves from racism and ethnic cleansing.

        • asherpat says:

          @Shmuel: “…why bother?”

          Because the article does not mention the reason for the order, does not explain the relative size of the order – is it really a big one or a small one relative to what the relevant parties already own and whether there was a legal callenge in courts.

          I cant conduct my own research, but I’d guess that if the facts above will be presented, the “order” will look rather less monstrous. But why bother, the “crowd” on this blog isnt interested in facts that do not comply with the “Israel is evil” narrative.

        • Shmuel says:

          Asher,

          You are right that the article should have provided more information, such as the specific reason given by the Civil Administration for the order to uproot trees on privately-owned Palestinian agricultural land, and how it fits into ongoing efforts to reduce the Palestinian presence in Area C and expand the land reserves available for illegal Jewish settlement.

          You are also right that you can (I presume your typo means “can” and not “can’t”) conduct your own research. I did, when I felt the story was incomplete – going to the IWPS site, looking at the original order posted there, and finding the Hebrew Ha’aretz article I linked to above, the B’tselem report that explains the use of “nature reserves” to keep Palestinians off their land, and a lot of other things I didn’t link to. I did all of this before commenting. You could and should have done the same – especially since you wished to challenge the story and call the author of the article and her sources liars. You could also simply have read my links.

          The question of “relative” damage that you find so crucial to the story (despite the fact that an easy search will tell you that 1,400 trees can produce thousands of litres of oil – a significant amount by any but the very largest agribusiness standards), requires a little bit more effort, but can also be worked out based on the information provided in the article regarding cultivated areas, etc. But you didn’t need to do any of that, because you were not interested “in the other side of the story”, seeking only to cast aspersions on this “side of the story”, talking about “lies” and “damn lies” when you had no idea of the truth of the matter, and couldn’t even be bothered to click a link to find out.

          I know that propagandists will tell you that it is enough merely to cast aspersions and sow doubt, without any consideration for the truth, but that’s not the kind of reputation you want to develop here, is it?

        • tree says:

          Because the article does not mention the reason for the order, does not explain the relative size of the order – is it really a big one or a small one relative to what the relevant parties already own and whether there was a legal callenge in courts.

          You didn’t even read the article, at least not so as to understand what it said, so why complain about what it “didn’t say”. Shmuel filled you in and gave you a link to a report from B’Tselem which would allow you to do the “research” you needed and you ignored that as well. So, really, why does everyone here need to spoonfeed you people. This information is easily found if you want to find it. Start with ICAHD, B’Tselem, Rabbis for Human Rights and others. They are all Israeli sources. Read. Learn.

          And, seriously, 1400 trees is a lot of trees. Period. Your insistence that maybe it really isn’t a lot is ludicrous. Give it up. It only makes you look silly clutching at straws.

        • Shmuel says:

          On the subject of “legal” mechanisms employed by Israel to dispossess Palestinians in the OPT, you might also want to have a look at B’tselem’s recent report, “Under the Guise of Legality” (March 2012):
          link to btselem.org

          Or not.

        • asherpat says:

          @Shmuel: “order to uproot trees on privately-owned Palestinian agricultural land, and how it fits into ongoing efforts to reduce the Palestinian presence in Area C ” – is that what was on the order? Or that is what yoy just state cos it fits your narrative. Answering to all those who are trying to ingnore the facts (tree, Chaos), I keep asking questions abut facts:

          1. What was the official reason for the order?
          2. Is the uprooting a big one, or a small one? I mean, those who had to uproot the trees, how many trees they’ve got letf? When have they planted the trees? Who invested in the planting, ie is it really a private enterprise, or, it is “helped” by this organisaion or other?
          3. Was there a legal challenge to the order? Hey, just think about, what a field-day you guys can have here on the blog if you can show that there was no due process or that the process was tainted – it shud be easy, shudnt it, after all, it is the IOF and the Zionists we are talking about!

          So come-on, humiliate me with facts, show me how the Zionists are unfair – answers the above questions.

        • tree says:

          Asherpat, you are the one ignoring the facts.

          Hey, just think about, what a field-day you guys can have here on the blog if you can show that there was no due process or that the process was tainted.

          Read the links that Shmuel gave you. The links prove the process is tainted. If you won’t even do that, why should we take you seriously?

          So come-on, humiliate me with facts…

          We’ve already provided you with facts that you continue to ignore or deny. You humiliate yourself, you don’t need any help with it.

        • Shmuel says:

          So come-on, humiliate me with facts, show me how the Zionists are unfair – answers the above questions.

          No thanks, I’m good. But feel free to present any substantial arguments you may have against the facts presented in Allison’s report.

        • How many straws can a drowning zionist clutch at, in order to save their guilty consciences and maintain their total denial?

        • Sumud says:

          asherpat needs context eh?

          Here you go, from 2002:

          ICE (Inventory of Conflict and Environment) Report: Uprooting Olive Trees in Palestine

          From 2004:

          IPS: Israel’s War On Palestinian Olive Trees

          From 2007:

          EI: Heritage uprooted

          From 2010:

          Palestine Pundit: From 1967 to 2006, Israel uprooted an estimated 2.5 million trees in the occupied territories

          When I hear about more olive trees being destroyed by Israelis I can’t help think of those photos of jewish traders in Germany in the 30s having their shop windows smashed and stores damaged by nazis and anti-semites. The intention is identical; to destroy people ability to support themselves and terrorise them into fleeing.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          And what does that make Asherpat, then, you think? The 21st century equivalent of Charles Lindbergh?

        • alec says:

          Asherpat, your “questions” are just noise making. There’s enough information here to indicate land is being stolen and people are being divorced from their livelihoods.

          Go on banging your pans if it makes you feel better.

          Always looking for a little bit more wiggle room. Merchant of Venice level self-parody.

        • that’s exactly what their job is alec, providing noise to drown out the screaming sound of ethnic cleansing.

    • Chaos4700 says:

      Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

      Can we assume that’s your reply to historical statistics about the Holocaust, too, asherpat?

  28. This is evil. David or Solomon surely would kick the jews out of Palestine again.

    • Chaos4700 says:

      How about the image of David with his slingshot against Goliath in an armored bulldozer? Or occupying Roman soldiers manning flying checkpoints?

  29. Edwina says:

    Fredblogs: we get the Israeli side of the story 24/7. If someone tells the Palestinian side of the story, there are always “Israel firsters” who insist on “balance”. If this were the first time olive trees had been uprooted on Palestinian land, there would need to be some discussion. Unfortunately, it’s a well used tactic for displacing Palestinians by “settlers” (Jewish foreigners) and Israeli governments. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

  30. sardelapasti says:

    A religious perspective on olive trees, as an aside:
    Uprooting an olive tree was a major crime against the Gods in Greece: it takes up to 60 years to have a new tree bear good fruit. Olive trees belonged to the city, and each one was equivalent to a Temple of Athena. Whoever uprooted an olive tree without prior approval was an “elaiokopon”. One of the very few major crimes punished with death.
    Curses have been heaped on uprooters of olive trees, “true barbarians”, during more recent history too (in the 20th Century, the Turkish settlers and the Nazi occupiers). The New Barbarians, the Zionists, have surpassed anyone in history.

    • Sumud says:

      Another religious perspective on trees sardelpasti, this time from the Electronic Intifada article I linked to a half dozen comments above this. Sonja Karkar of Australian for Palestine quotes from the Torah [my emphasis]:

      The irony of it all is that Israel’s uprooting of olive trees is contrary to the Jewish halakhic principle whose origin is found in the Torah: “Even if you are at war with a city … you must not destroy its trees” (Deut 20:19). Under the pretext of “redeeming” the land the Jews claim God gave them and the trees they are supposed to preserve, Israel continues to violently expropriate Palestinian land.

      Another critical issue is the flooding of Palestinian village land with sewage from the settlements. It shows just how much zionists love the land Palestine when they flood quality agricultural land with piss and shit.

      • sardelapasti says:

        Thanks, Sumud. Am familiar with the quote, but it comes from the same book that recommends the restless genocide of the conquered, and it is a recommendation about how to do genocide.

        Quoting the essentials od Deuteronomy 20 below: It says to practice pitiless, total genocide, but not cut any of those trees that you may later use yourself! A summary of uncamouflaged Zionist doctrine. This is what the religious Zionists are reading.

        16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

        17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

        19 When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man’s life) to employ them in the siege:

        20 Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued.

        • Hostage says:

          Thanks, Sumud. Am familiar with the quote, but it comes from the same book that recommends the restless genocide of the conquered, and it is a recommendation about how to do genocide.

          Chapter 17:2-5 also required that idolators be put to death, but in actual practice we are told to support idol worshipers (regardless of their financial status) for the sake of peaceful relations. See footnote 3 on Chapter 87:19 of the Shulchan Aruch here: link to yonanewman.org

          So the people running the entry control points to Gaza could always take that doctrine to heart:

          It is permissible to provide food on Shabbos for a Gentile, even though he is not dependent on you for his food supply; since the halacha mandates that one provide food for Gentiles [literally idol worshippers] (regardless of their financial status), in order to maintain peaceful relations (“darchei shalom”), it is considered as if one is responsible to feed him (“mezonosav olecha”)

          link to torah.org

        • sardelapasti says:

          “people running the entry control points to Gaza could always take that doctrine to heart:
          It is permissible to provide food on Shabbos for a Gentile…”

          Yeah, depends what you consider food. We know for sure now that olives are not edible for Zionist invaders. Plastic toys, recently authorized for entry into Gaza, are perhaps food after all…

  31. Eva Smagacz says:

    As I understand ALL tree planting (by Palestinians, not Jewish settlers) in Area C is expressly forbidden. Full Stop.

  32. The IDF “enforcers” reminds me of the goons from “Battelfield Earth.”