Contact
Lifestream
UN: Jewish Settlers Harass Palestinians
March 10th, 2006 at 16:41 Björn Hallberg
Nothing that we don’t already know, but it is nevertheless worth noting, especially when coming from an investigator of the United Nations’ human rights watchdog.
John Dugard noted that “settlers are able to terrorize Palestinians and destroy their trees and crops with impunity” in the West Bank and that even though Israel had formally left the Gaza strip, the “Jewish state effectively controls Gaza through targeted killings and sonic booms from warplanes flying over the region.” The vast majority of dead and wounded were civilians of course and so called militants, even by Israel’s frivolous standards, constituted only a fraction of the total. Needless to say, the harassment, abuse and outright killing of civilians is clearly illegal under the Geneva Conventions.
Given that cooperation from the Israeli government in the ongoing investigation was nonexistent, even though they were granted every opportunity to explain their side of the story, it is quite baffling that they have the audacity to question its findings. But what else can they do when they lack both facts and morality. It is also symptomatic for Israel to question everyone else’s record, or the lack thereof in the report, when this investigation is only about them and they knew this from the very beginning. It is quite infantile to scream “Hamas” and confuse a perfectly simple issue, when the report covers violations specifically within three months of disengaging from Gaza. For a people who are so fixated with history, it is ironic how quickly one develops selective amnesia or wants to focus on the present.
Entry 477 filed under: Middle East. This entry was posted 2 years, 10 months ago. RSS feed for comments on this post.
Can you give me an explenation for what you call a militant (or so called in your Case), and if we are on the Subject - can you tell me what a terrorist is??
Or maybe it’s only when Israelis get blown up in the street do you wake up!
A terrorist is a militant, using violent means, who happens to oppose your ideals, hence play for the other team. Western and pro-western terrorists are thus usually billed founding fathers, liberators, freedom fighters, patriots and heroes by the powers that be as long as they are integral parts of their geopolitics.
It’s too bad when people get killed, but what can one do. Being an occupier and a purveyor of a modern colonial, apartheid system at the very least, Israeli lives are inconsequential. Until Israel smartens up and joins the civilized world, Israelis will continue to die, and no one can really blame the Palestinians for lashing out. They have every right to do so. For a highly expansionistic and militaristic Israel this is even preferred since it will “legitimize” the continued ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people, sites and culture not to mention continue to feed the military.
If you don’t like this, well, tough shit. Change starts at home.
ok, for starters I can see that you don’t really know what a terrorist is - in the real world a terrorist is one who goes after civilians (as opposed to a soldier) for the pupose of killing those civilians (once again as opposed to civilians being killed in a battle zone).
I would like to ask you in this case what you see the solution to be. Should Israel withdraw form all the land in took in war?? should us Jews go back to Europe (will you take us in open arms Like you have done so well in the past 1500 year??).
As much as I don’t like seeing pals. Suffer (and trust me I have - after 4 years in the IDF), When it comes to choosing between my life and thier living under occupation I choose my life.
Finally, as much as I would like to have a conversation with you (I really would - I think it is really intersting), I would like it if we could keep the silly slogans (I.E. a modern colonial, apartheid system) to a min. I am willing to discuss every point with you if you would like (and of course listen to yours) but the slogans are nice for the masses not for those who know better.
If you would like - I would be more than happy to have this conversation with you over Email.
And who defines what a “battle zone” is? Or indeed, what constitutes a “soldier?” There is nothing simply right or wrong, or the international community would have agreed on a definition centuries ago. I was just trying to uncover the hypocrisy … if you’ve been studying history you know that the term “terrorist” has been used quite frivolously by those that end up writing history.
Anyone who claims to have the definitive definition of “terrorism” must clearly be pulling a “slogan” out of their hat.
A couple of points:
It’s difficult not to resort to slogans when describing what Israel does on a daily basis. But I stand by that definition, though it was far too brief to do the situation justice. Israel is “colonial” since it settles on foreign land and employs more or less clever tactics to annex that land and subjugate its people. Israel is “apartheid” or simply “racist” since it treats those subjugated not as full fledged members of Israel. Since you believe that the claim over the land Israel took in its so called defensive wars is legitimate, shouldn’t also the people on that land have become citizens of Israel a long time ago? If that notion bothers you, is that not in fact racism at work?
The idea of constant persecution of Jews in Europe during the last couple of millennia is largely exaggerated by everyone involved, as I believe most credible Jewish historians will tell you as well. I would reference political philosopher Hannah Arendt, but I don’t have her Origins of Totalitarianism on hand. Suffice it to say, the idea has been perpetrated by Jewish community leaders and those that really dislike Jews for pretty much the same reason, i.e. group cohesion.
Going “back” to Europe (far from all Israeli Jews are from Europe right?) is obviously a non-issue so there is no point bringing that into the debate. There are more options than either evacuating Israel or keep invading other people’s lands. Likewise, there are other options than one of two people being killed.
Discussing it here is fine by me. Opinions should not be kept behind closed door. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of and I stand by my opinion … and so do you I hope. Having said that, I don’t see what else there is to discuss. A retreat to 1967 borders is a minimum requirement, and a gesture of good-will towards the Palestinians.
I should point out that if you’ve been following my line of reasoning in response to recent comments (that have by and large been from military affiliates as well) you might have noticed that I detest any and all things military. I wouldn’t go so far as to say your opinion is forfeit for having been in the IDF, but my distrust of militarized societies, like the U.S. and Israel, and the sorrows they bring to civil life tells me to take this with a big grain of salt.
I will actually Start with the last point about all things military. Without getting into a huge debate on it (these are life philosophies and I accept your for what it is), I can tell you for a fact that the Military service has made me a much better person. Not that I agree with all military things and not that I think the answer is always Military, on the contrary, Having to use the army is a sign of weakness, it means all other means have failed. Having said that you should know that my ideas come mostly from the Academic world, and from classes that I take here at Hebrew U.
You fail to give me a solution, as for what do we do with all us Jews living in this land, I am open to Ideas.
but being realistic for a sec. Israel as a fact is something the world has to accept. Jews have the right for Self determanation (as do many other Factions - Palistinians Included), and the U.n. has approved this Area (Israel) to be that place.
The Slogans you use are very nice, but putting a little explanation next to them: A. doesn’t make them Correct and B. does show relavence to Israel.
We are not colonial Simply because we are the sovrieng state here, a colony by defenition is an area controlled by another country (usually with a distance from it borders). The Slogan is used to comapre Israel to 19th Cent. Europe - who’s sole purpus was to exploit the land, oh and for power struggles. Not the case In Israel. Ther are very few Casses of settling the land by the colonial state - and those were looked down apon by ppl from thier own country.
“apartheid” (one of my favorate Slogans) - simpply does not apply here - Race is not the Issue - it’s not even Ethnic, if that were true I would not site in class with Arabs, sit next to them on the bus, or even go and vote in the same voting booths as them in a couple of weeks (ya Arabs vote in this country - hard to believe). The issue has nothing to do with Race or ethnicaty but rather as an attempt to keep ourselves alive. Not that I am saying that we don’t have disscrimination - We are far from being a perfect country - but then again we are only Human. The important thing is that it is not disscrimination by law.
As for the west bank - it is an occupied people. It’s a big issue that has to be solved - prefubly peacfully - but seeing that we are coming out of a 5 year long struggle with them - at which point they ellected a Terror group to represent them I don’t see how peace can play a factor here.
As for the 1967 lines, What makes them so important?? After all they were lines drawn up as a result of a war (1948). And if that is a starting point where do we go from there? should we clear out every place that the Pals. claim belongs to them?? should we allow right of return and creat so many issues in this country that we will never see the end to it? should we allow the Pals to control the old city and see how long they keep the Jewish and christen holy sites in tact?? I am open to Ideas.
Finally the Ideas of moving to Email was for conviniance - but I am more than appy to talk here, I enjoy hearing what other people have to say and what they think, and love being able to talk about it.
Shalom,
-Dov
Obviously I don’t have the ability to refute whether military service made you a better person. But I will say this about militarized societies: Israel should have kept its military on a shorter leash. As it stands now with widespread, compulsory, military service and with military leaders like Sharon and Barak being elected to public office, I do not believe that Israel can get out of the trap it has set for itself. Though you may believe that you have gained security and extol the Orwellian virtues of the IDF and military life.
I’m well aware of the diverse ethnic make-up of Israel. I’m also well aware that Israeli officials and pundits have made “slogans” into a special talking point. Which in itself is funny considering the heavy polemics used by the same people throughout history. I’m also aware of the grandiose claims by the IDF regarding all the joys it brings, including “social levelling.” Plus the more general claim that non-Jews in Israel are treated equal. As for the last opinion, which you also voiced, hidden discrimination is hard to reveal. I would simply point to the more overt forms like the sentencing of Jewish and non-Jewish members of the IDF. (“Tom Hurndall Verdict”)
Plus there is the Law of return of course which presents a very real reason not to believe that everyone is equal. Apparently some are more equal than others.
Nationalism is no excuse. No nation has an unalienable right to exist. Not Israel and not Palestine. Especially not if the former flouts human rights every day of the week, effectively making the 1947 partition goal impossible and is in fact an artificial construct born out of British colonialism. Not to mention the human cost of effectively colonizing Palestine. The British presented a gift that weren’t theirs to give. It is no wonder that the same basic colonial injustice is still carried and amplified via superpatriotic Zionist ideals. It plays into a racist Jewish history that apart from acutely recognizing the boundaries between Jews and non-Jews also by and large enforces prejudice between different Jewish groupings.
If the U.N. recognition of Israel is to be valid, it would need to apply to a Palestinian state as well. But since Israel chose to break that generous deal, not to mention the underhand tactics employed to gain this position in the first place, and is in act denying the other half of the partition, Israel should not count on support. Also, Israel’s / Zionist reliance on “immemorial” history and the U.N. when it suits your needs is intermittent at best.
Hamas is far more than just a “terror group” or a militant organization and the very simplification shows that you and the IDF obviously, despite claims to the contrary, only see one side of the story.
There is nothing special about 1967 per se, as you point out the borders have been moving constantly since 1947. It is just a stop on the roadmap towards some sort of equity. If Israel can’t even commit to such a basic concession then I believe we have nothing to discuss, nor do Israel’s neighbours and the international community. And if the U.S. were ever, for its own selfish geopolitical reasons, to decide that Israel no longer represents its interests, you would be done for.
As for keeping holy sites and infrastructure intact, I recall just a couple of weeks ago Israel razing an ancient cometary despite very vocal objections. Not to mention house demolitions. Or the more general razing and removing of evidence of previous settlement that has been going on since the 40s. Or indeed the nuclear waste that was as I recall it just dumped in the desert. So don’t pretend Israel is some great curator of the land because it rings very hollow.
I’ll leave you some Arendt wisdom which is very pertinent to the discussion …
On statelessness and Arab refugees:
I am not sure How Giving up our most holy site (one that we were banned from between 48-67) is called “a basic concession”. But that is also not really true, Isreal was willing to make many concessions Stating at 1967 when we said we will return it all for a peace agreenmant with Each Country. In response we got the Chartum Confrence - and the Infoumes 3 Nos: no to recognition of Israel, no to Negotiation with Israel and No peace with Israel.
As a Further Response the same arab countires decided to try an Destroy Israel again in oct. 1973. they failed once again. It was only after that, When Israel relized there is no one to talk to, that the decision was made to start moving people into the Terrotories.
The Reality has changed today. and just like the 1947 borders are not relavent niether are the 1967. it would be like asking Europe to go back to the 1915 borders - After all every single one of the borders in europe were drawn up as a result of wither WWI or WWII.
U.n. And the world, recognition of Israel is not dependent on recognition of An arab country next to it. Israel cannot be held responsible to the fact that the arabs in the Former mandate did not declare Independance. Btw - Had they done it at any time from 1948 untill today (including this very day) the sittuation would be very different. But it seems that the Pals. don’t want to really have a country, it’s a lot of work and anyways tey wouldn’t have any time left to kill jews. Bottom line Israel is a country in it’s own right and not dependent on anyone. BTW - Israel had no problem accepting a pal. State in 1948, no any time after that, but there was no leadership in the Occupied (by jordan and Egypt) terrotories to create such a state.
As for Hamas, I agree they are a lot more than a terror group, they are also a political party and a religious group. I have no issue with that. That makes no difference to me whatsoever. The line that interests me is the one that says that they will not negotiate with Israel and that the only way to “liberate” “Palestine” is with a violent struggle. My question is why do you support a party that encorouges bloodshed? My other problem is that there are people that insist they are not Terrorist and not involved in any terrorist activaty, or even worse: that what they are doing is a legitamite thing. How do you explain the fact that these are the Sole reppresentative of the PA today?
As for the human rights, How many people are willing to see die in order to make sure that human rights are kept?? We in Israel learned the hard way (with blood in our streets), that when you give the pals a little break and try to make thier life easier, the next day you see a bomb go off in a major city in Israel. Are willing to sacrefice some of you people in order to insure Human rights?? How much blood are human rights worth?? This is not to say that I like the sittuation. Trust me we were all much better off without all these roadblocks - I don’t like them either, and I have to go through them and my trunk is checked whenever I go into a mall, and I go through metal detectors every morning when I get to University. None of this, on either side, exsisted prior to the Outbreak of the 2000 intifadah.
As for your first comment. I agree that The over use of Military figures as heads of state is bad. On the other hand there is a move towards moving away from that approach (I.E. - Olmert). Also I would have to add that Barak was the worst PM we ever had. As for Sharon, he was a knesset member and a minister for MANY MANY years before becoming a Prime minister. The truth is that the Active affect of the army on life in Israel is much lower today than it was on the past, and it seems to be declining.
The equality Issue in Israel is a serious issue that goes on here. I will not say it’s perfect (I have never claimed that Israel is Perfect and that we do not make mistakes). But, the fact that it is something that is beeing discoused in the agenda today means it is important enough to us. The truth is that this subject is alot more complicated than it seems, and involves a lot of internal issues, some of which have to do with the fact thay they have to decide who/what they are (I.E. - Israeli arabs or Pals. Living in Israel - with a hope to move into a pal. State one day. I can tell you the answer but I think you know it already)
final note - it is every countries right to decide who they want to make citizens and who not to. The test is how the citizens them selves are treated, (going back to the Israeli Arabs).
A few points:
Whining about holy sites is of no concern. I deal only with the secular. It will not impress me and serves only to obfuscate the perfectly obvious (which I might add is something Israel has been doing since day one). Overall I’m tired of your whining and parroting of recent history but failing to grasp simple historic facts. Also, I wouldn’t mind if you took you own advise and quit using “slogans” and crude analogies like asking “Europe to go back to the 1915 borders” or “it’s a lot of work and anyways tey wouldn’t have any time left to kill jews”. Is that your professional opinion professor? That the Palestinians do what they do because of some timeless anti-semitism, is that what you suggest? As for the borders of Europe, that is about as relevant to this discourse as Ahmadinejad wanting to move Israel to Antarctica or whatever. Nation-states still remain artificial constructs and their “right” to exist is heavily dependant on the cost of their creation, their moral character and their behaviour towards others.
From the very beginning, Jewish immigration and later Israel itself has made sure that no viable Palestinian state could prosper. Starting with the haphazard expulsion and before that Jewish terror networks and massacres that no one seems to want to recognize today. Even though at least two prime ministers came from such organizations. And to still have the audacity to blame the victim for not setting up a proper state after having herded them like cattle, slaughtered and terrorized them.
Israel was never happy with the partition and saw any sign of Arab aggression as a chance to expand. As you know, Ben Gurion noted in 1948 that his envisioned “Jewish state of ten million souls” wouldn’t fit within the current borders. Add to the Zionists the religious extremists who incessantly strive to reclaim the fantasy borders of an alleged long lost Jewish nation and holy sites. Both groups have been given ample room to live out their fantasies in Israel despite being fringe occurrences before the immigration.
The disaster we now see is no coincidence but rather by design. Every Palestinian that can be provoked is another one that can be killed with impunity and another square meter than can be settled. Like when America speaks of its foreign policy, you’re good at feigning reluctance.
Your problem is that you seem to think that Palestinians just appeared out of thin air and that their hatred of Israel is somehow irrational or endemic to their “race.” For decades they toiled until they could take it no longer. I’m impressed with their tolerance. I wouldn’t have taken that crap for a week. You had all that time to make things right, long before there were any intifadas, but instead you expanded and pushed them down, humiliated and killed them. And for the last couple of years you have been reaping what you have sown. The first suicide bombing inside Israel happened in 1994 as I recall it, only after 25 years of occupation and humiliation. As I said, the only mystery is why they didn’t start earlier.
Don’t spout the party line of giving the “pals a little break.” The only break I’ve seen is the breaking of their backs for the last half century. I’m sick of the apologetics, like pointing a finger at Hamas and their election victory as if that justifies anything. Like I said in the original article above, the Israeli government does just that to brush off criticism. It’s quite a mind-bending experience to listen to the propaganda. According to Israel, it was perfectly reasonable to shoot Palestinian children in the head last August, because Hamas won the election this January. How about taking some real responsibility for the things Israel and Jews have done and not just lament that you are far from “a perfect country.”
Hamas and other organizations are indeed legitimized to use violence and their choice of tactics is justified against an overwhelming enemy force. I believe we have been over this already. As I recall, that is also the exact method employed by Jewish terrorists to make Britain leave. As a rule of thumb, violence is perfectly alright, although a failure of imagination. Israel wouldn’t flinch at slaughtering civilians and hasn’t in the past. My only concern is that this legitimate response provides Israel with the perfect cover story for further atrocities. As for the other roles of Hamas, I was actually referring to their humanitarian work which has made them quite popular and probably more so than their diatribe against Israel. As for the previous administration, it was inefficient and corrupt. Israel has had worse governments, that like I said before, were made up of bona fide terrorists.
ok I am confused, I few comments ago you stated “you might have noticed that I detest any and all things military.” but now you claim “Hamas and other organizations are indeed legitimized to use violence”. So just to be sure I get this correctly: It is ok for hamas to Kill Israeli citizens but it’s not ok for Israel to go after Hamas??
I have no issue if Hamas wants to declare full out war on Israel. But killing Civilions on Busses and In malls/cafes is not war it’s terrorism. Had they stuck to only going after the army, the sittuation would be different. What I am trying to figure out is why you would justify the killing of inocent people including babies (but only if they are Jewish)?
as for the start of terror attacks against Jews well if you want to go back, please explain why the 1929 Massecure in Hebron accured? was it also because of the years of occupation? How about the Aattack on the school in Maalot 1974? How do you explain that Arafat’s PLO was created in 1964? and that the “Palestine” he was reffering to was the entire area from the sea to the river.
I gave the Europe 1915 Analogy to counter your argument that we should not talk about changes that accored in this area since 1947. I don’t see why the analogy is bad. I agree it is a rediculous concept just like I think that talking about the 1947 or 1967 borders is crazy, it’s just not relivant today.
“The disaster we now see is no coincidence but rather by design.”
Huh? design by who?? are you claiming that we designed all of this so that we can kill as many pals. as we can and so we can control as much land as we can?? wow I don’t think any one really thought of that before that is brilliant. It was all preplanned - that’s why we pulled out of Gaza so that we can take it over even more.
The palestinians did not apear from Thin air, most of them were born from thier parents. but so what?? I already said that there is nothing wrong with them as a people. What I do say if they wanted to have a country they would have had one a long time ago, Instead they decided to go and Attack Israel while negotiating a peace proccess (even if it wasn’t what they wanted yet.) Things were moving their way in the late 1990’s, the palestinians were in better shape by then than they have EVER been. and had they decided to move in that direction they most likely would have been in an even better sittuation than they were. But they decided to see if war is a better option. Legitamite as you point out. but then they also have to pay the price of loosing. and not expect to be better after loosing.
That side of Hamas is by all accounts an irregular force formed out of desperation and necessity, even coached to do so by Israel to have a bogeyman to play against and blame when someone is liquidated. They do not have compulsory military service unlike the IDF. My interest is on a system wide level where the IDF has corrupted, militarized, an entire society. I suppose it’s poetic justice that Hamas swayed a people just like the IDF since they both are of the same cloth as it were.
I’m also maintaining that whatever the Palestinians do can be considered legitimate. Even proportionate given that Israel too is governed by bona fide terrorists from time to time and that Israel also kills civilians indiscriminately (although with more “gentlemanlike” weapons). As for system wide changes in the Palestinian camp, the intifadas clearly indicate that they too have become more militant and tired of their lot. But that is rather a reaction to Israel’s continued abuse and illegalities. But enough about Hamas, they are inconsequential in every way and your ceaseless return to them is suspicious. I guess history is too unpleasant. Start owning up to what Israel really is, what it has done, and why. This victim role isn’t becoming, nor convincing.
The past terrorist attacks against Jews are not the point since I precisely stated suicide attacks “within Israel.” By Israel of course I mean “Israel Proper” which by no stretch of the term can be Hebron which is in the West Bank. Needless to say, there are massacres of Arabs during the immigration of Jews that will match those events and more.
As for the “by design” argument I don’t know why you act so surprised. Your own government has indicated they would never settle for what was awarded in 1947 or indeed in subsequent “defensive wars.” If by killing Palestinians you mean acquiring more land of the fabled Israel of times past, then yes, that is exactly what I mean.
As for the bad Zionist seed theory, historians like Raul Hilberg have pointed to the perplexing cooperation between elite Jewish Councils in Eastern Europe during WW2 and the German occupation forces. Many have noted the glee that many Zionists expressed when the U.S. closed its borders and developments in Germany forced Jews to leave, essentially having nowhere to go but Palestine. Some authors have even pointed to a real connection between the elite of the Nazi party and leading Zionists that goes far beyond just the Haavara agreement for instance. Even if one cannot prove a conspiracy it is clear that some would do pretty much anything to establish an outpost in Palestine, even over other options had they been given (unfortunately the same Zionist organizations didn’t elaborate on the other options as they weren’t on the table as far as they were concerned). As much as one can shout foul and claim this was an aberration, it remains a fact that the framework of Israel was built by the same people who made that and other agreements. Given those looming questions and given that many Israeli leaders have in fact been terrorists, according to your own definition, that have done everything to form a nation according to an idea of Eretz, the far likeliest explanation is that the expansion was very much planned from the start. Not only do you think too highly of your leaders and the ideal behind your nation, you also underestimate power in general and those that wield it.
As for Gaza, you should perhaps read the article that I commented on for this post. Apparently, the IDF is never far off and still terrorizes and kills the civilian population. It is a disengagement in name only and indeed yes, perhaps Israel hopes to be able to drive the people there across to the Sinai or just re-occupy the area after having provoked a big enough incident. I’ll applaud you when both the West Bank and Gaza are truly free, that will be the real test of commitment. Most see right through this gambit as they do the so called “peace process.” I must say it is predictable to hear the argument of how great the Palestinians were doing and how promising the “peace process” was. In reality, like someone wittily pointed out, it was neither “peace” nor a “process” … except in the U.S. controlled corporate media. Say what you will of Arafat and his ineffective rule but it was not reasonable for their side to accept the agreement. Like with so many other arguments involving Palestinians and their alleged stubbornness, the deals are always rotten and basically would confirm the status quo in a legal way that would make future claims and resistance truly illegitimate. Just like the idea of Palestinians leaving en masse for neighbouring countries (if they’d accept millions of refugees) would void their claim to what little they have left (according to Israel’s imposed laws). It’s funny that Israel has a law of return for Jews on the one hand but on the other makes it as easy as possible, using the Absentee Property Law for instance, to send Palestinians packing from what little land they still own. Another pertinent rule is of course the recent marriage law.