The A,B,C's of Home Demolitions in the Holy Land

The Arabyia Home/Peace Center is at the cornerstone of the Anata and the Shuafat refugee camp, in the very area where the prophet Jeremiah in the 6th century B.C.E. critiqued the violent conflicts in the Mid East, which were already old news: "I hear violence and destruction in the city, sickness and wounds are all I see." (Jeremiah 6:7)

"I am a Muslim Palestinian American and when my son asked me who my hero was I took three days to think about it. I told him my hero is Jesus, because he took a stand and he died for it. What really needs to be done is for the churches to be like Jesus; to challenge the Israeli occupation and address the apartheid practices as moral issues. Even if every church divested and boycotted Israel it would not harm Israel. After the USA and Russia, Israel is the third largest arms exporter in the world. It is a moral issue that the churches must address."-Mohammad Alatar, film producer of The Iron Wall at the Beit Arabiya Peace Home, November 2006.

Beit Arabiya is the name of the home of Salim and Arabiya Shawamreh, a family of nine whose home has been demolished four times. Any day now, the Civil Administration, Israel's military government over the Occupied Territories, could order the home demolished for the fifth time.

The Shawamreh home in the village of Anata, in the West Bank but just meters over the Jerusalem municipal boundary, has become the symbol of the Palestinian struggle against Israel's policy of demolishing Palestinian homes -- and of resistance to the Occupation in general. Salim and Arabiya both come from families made refugees in 1948. In the early '90s they bought a small plot of land in the village of Anata, close to the Shuafat refugee camp where Salim grew up. They applied to the Civil Administration three times for a building permit and were denied each time for a different reason -- the basic one being that Israel had zoned virtually the entire West Bank as agricultural land according to a British plan (RJ-5) formulated in 1942 which freezes Palestinian building as it was 65 years ago. Indeed, RJ-5 is used to "legally" deny building permits to Palestinians throughout the Occupied Territories. And like thousands of other families -- ICAHD estimates that the number of demolition orders in the West Bank and East Jerusalem reaches into the tens of thousands -- the Shawamrehs were forced to build their home "illegally," although the right to shelter is a fundamental human right.

Hundreds of volunteers -- Palestinians, Israelis and internationals -- organized by the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) and the Palestinian Land Defense Committee (LDC), have repeatedly come together to rebuild a home made for peace. The Beit Arabyia Peace Home, has become a meeting place for Israelis, Palestinian and International peace activists situated at the cornerstone and intersecting point of Areas A, B, and C.

Under the Oslo Agreements, Israel divided the Occupied West Bank into three areas: Area A - This area consists of approximately 17.2% of the Occupied West Bank, divided into 13 separate, non-contiguous areas and The Palestinian Authority is responsible for security.

Area B - The area consists of 23.8% of the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority has civil control over the area, but overall security control rests with Israel. For all practical purposes, since September 2000, Area B has functionally ceased to exist and has been under full Israeli control.

Area C - This area consists of 59% of the Occupied West Bank. Israel has full security and civil responsibility over these areas. This is the only contiguous area in the Occupied West Bank; it surrounds and divides Areas A and B. This area is primarily situated around the Israeli colonies of the West Bank. The colonies themselves are not subject to the classification of Area A, B or C.

The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids an Occupying Power to extend its law and administration to an occupied territory, rendering the very process of granting or denying permits to Palestinians, not to mention Israel's policy of house demolitions, patently illegal under international humanitarian law.

Resigned to the reality that the Israeli courts do not admit international law, the Shawamrehs' lawyers raised the illegality of applying a plan, RJ-5, that had never been revised over the past 65 years despite significant changes in demography and land use, including the construction of some 300 settlements, themselves illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the Israeli government approved on the very same land that had been designated agricultural and on which the Shawamrehs and thousands of Palestinian families had been denied their fundamental right to housing.

Finally, the illegality of repeatedly demolishing the Shawamreh home under the original "perpetual" demolition order was questioned, especially since such a practice is illegal in Israel itself and is not applied to Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories.

On a hill in front of the Arabyia Home/Peace Center is the newly erected Sheen Bet (similar to USA FBI) prison and interrogation center. A new portion of the Ring Road which will connect the illegal settlements/colonies runs between the two and The Apartheid Wall is in full frontal brutal view.

When this reporter visited in October 2006, the closest neighbor's lived in a soon to be dismantled Bedouin camp. The Israeli government's policy of "Quiet Transfer" is moving, [or already has] the indigenous nomadic Bedouins to a garbage dump which will lead to their extinction, for the Bedouins have been denied the freedom to move about and graze their herds.

Upon the wall of the Arabyia Peace Center home is a mural donated by the North American Workers Against the USA occupation of Iraq and the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The mural depicts Rachel Corrie, the American who was run over by a Caterpillar bulldozer in Gaza when she stood up to defend the home of a pharmacist with five children, the other figure is of the pregnant Palestinian woman of ten who was also killed in Gaza. The angelic images of the two women float above a depiction of a USA made Caterpillar bulldozer tipped to one side and flanked by tanks and weapons of destruction. On both sides of the weapons of destruction are many people. A railroad track reminds the viewer that prior to 1948, Jews and Palestinians once worked together in peaceful solidarity to build a railroad.

The Arabyia Home/Peace Center is also at the cornerstone of the Anata and the Shuafat refugee camp, in the very area where the prophet Jeremiah in the 6th century B.C. critiqued the violent conflicts in the Mid East, which were already old news: "I hear violence and destruction in the city, sickness and wounds are all I see." (Jeremiah 6:7)

Mohammad Alatar, film producer of The Iron Wall spoke to my group of over one hundred internationals who broke bread and ate a typical Palestinian feast prepared by the Arabiya family: "I am a Muslim Palestinian American and when my son asked me who my hero was I took three days to think about it. I told him my hero is Jesus, because he took a stand and he died for it. What really needs to be done is for the churches to be like Jesus; to challenge the Israeli occupation and address the apartheid practices as moral issues. Even if every church divested and boycotted Israel it would not harm Israel. After the USA and Russia, Israel is the third largest arms exporter in the world. It is a moral issue that the churches must address."

-------------

Eileen Fleming has been to the OPT four times since June 2005. She is the reporter and editor of We Are Wide Awake. Her second book, Memoirs of a Nice Irish-American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory, was released in Feb, 2007.

Relevant Links:

http://www.zmag.org/...
http://uspolitics.tribe.net/...

--------------------------

Article published @
http://www.icahd.org/...

•  You forgot the Q of home demolition

  the Qassams.

  Sderot has been under a barrage, once again, from Qassams from Gaza.   Despite occasional claims of truce, this has been a constant feature of  post-disengagement Gaza.

  by Pumpkinlove on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:23:22 AM PDT

  •  What does that have to do with this diary?

    Seriously. This is a boilerplate response that doesn't respond at all to the content of this diary except in the tenuous sense that you are referring to another situation in which homes are being destroyed. Are you arguing that Qassam rocket attacks justify the home demolitions described in this diary? If not, why do you think it is relevant? It seems to me that the ONLY purpose of your comment is to distract attention away from the injustice described in this diary. Why do you do that? Don't you realize how creepy it is?

    by Christopher Day on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:07:02 AM PDT

    •  Actually

      This is about home demolitions in the Holy Land.  She left out those homes under assault from Palestinian Qassams.

      by Pumpkinlove on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:51:44 AM PDT

    •  Do you realize how disturbing it is

      to see diary after diary villifying Israel without any context for the situation?  While at the same time, those who do wish to provide context are accuse of having an "agenda"?

      by Pumpkinlove on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:58:28 AM PDT

•  You forgot to explain something

  For all practical purposes, since September 2000, Area B has functionally ceased to exist and has been under full Israeli control.

  Prior to Sept 2000, parts of the West Bank were patrolled with joint Israeli/Palestinian patrols... I Israeli police officer and I Palestinian police officer made a team.  

  On September 27, 2000 Sgt. David Biri, 19, of Jerusalem, was fatally wounded near Netzarim in the Gaza Strip in the explosion of a roadside bomb. The next day in the West Bank city of Kalkilya, a Palestinian police officer working with Israeli police on a joint patrol opened fire and killed his Israeli counterpart.

  Joint patrols were clearly no longer possible and Israel was left to take over security.  Like so much in this conflict, Palestinian violence led directly to an increase in Israeli oversight.  Sad but true.

  by Pumpkinlove on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:40:55 AM PDT

  •  two traumatized people=irrationality

    On March 11, 2006 in the Little Town of Bethlehem: OCCUPIED TERRITORY,

    Hind Khoury, the Palestinian Ambassador to France and a Representative of the Board of Directors of Sabeel, spoke with fierce urgency:

    "The truth has been hidden, and it has been maneuvered by an oppressive and violent occupation. Sabeel explains the Christian perspective on the occupation and Sabeel calls for nonviolent resistance. This occupation violates every single human right imaginable. Governments today are getting their own way to serve their own interests which are: money and power.

    "It is ethnic cleansing that is happening in Jerusalem. Bethlehem is a ghetto, an island, an open air prison! When the gate in Beit Jala is done, it will completely isolate Bethlehem from her sister city Jerusalem which is only three miles away.

    "Before Hamas won the elections there were 370 checkpoints. There are now 25% more. Because of the moral bankruptcy of the PA, Hamas won the elections and they should not be feared. They have an open mind and open heart and many of them say: ‘Fight them with love.’

    "The International community put conditions on Hamas, but it is not about Israel’s existence we are speaking of, it is the existence of Palestine and Human Rights that must be addressed! The world is unbalanced and the polarization just increases the violence. Civil society must become responsible."

    Reverend Chris Ferguson, Representative for the World Council of Churches received a round of applause when he stated, "I go to Bethlehem because of the Biblical injunction to visit the prisoners. In 2001, the World Council of Churches, the Middle East Council of Churches and others decided that the world ecumenical community was not doing enough about this conflict. Now, we have joined hands and are working together globally to mobilize the international society to demand policy change. The absence of settlers does not mean there is freedom in Gaza."

    He spoke those words seven months after the "Disengagement" in Gaza, but in reality the Israeli government still controlled all access to Gaza by land, sea and air. Only 25 of over 150 settlements were dismantled, and only 8,475 of over 436,000 settlers [less than 2 % of settlers] were evacuated. As of October 2005, 12,800 new settlers had moved into the West Bank, which is 50%, more settlers than were evacuated. Gaza is less than 6% of the Occupied Territories and that leaves 94% of Palestinian territories under the boot of the IDF.

    excerpted from:
    Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl’s'
    Life in Occupied Territory

    http://www.wearewideawake.org/

    by eileen fleming on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:24:28 AM PDT

    •  Great

      More block quotes of text from other people with no real engagement with the Daily Kos community by the poster.

      Please, don't do this.

      by brittain33 on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:45:20 AM PDT

    •  Hamas should not be feared?

      Tell that to Hosni Mubarak

      "With Hamas no way," he reportedly said.

      Advertisement

      Mubarak painted a dark picture of the situation with Hamas and said there was no chance for peace with the organization. "Hamas will never sign a peace agreement with Israel if it stays in power," the Egyptian president said.

      Mubarak also said that Egypt did not accept Hamas in power, especially in light of its growing ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, which leads the opposition in Egypt. Mubarak sees the Brotherhood, which gained considerable power in Egypt's last parliamentary elections, as a threat to secular power

      by Pumpkinlove on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:56:57 AM PDT

•  WAIT! Israel can't destroy my home!

  I have challahs in the oven.

  by dfb1968 on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:45:17 AM PDT

•  Three points.

  First, you may want to show a little sensitivity by using the dating abbreviation "BCE" (before the Common Era) instead of "BC" (before Christ).

  Second, I agree that house demolitions, in general, are an indefensible feature of Israeli policy that ought to be struggled against, especially within Israeli society itself.

  Third,at the same time, we ought never forget to ask ourselves how the occupation of which house demolitions are a part can be brought to an end. The only end-of-conflict settlement that I can imagne being accepted by majorities on both sides is a genuine two-state solution. Accordingly, whether one sympathizes with neither side, but is merely concerned about the international consequences of the conflict, or sympathizes primarily with the Palestinians or the Israelis, it seems to me that attention must be paid to overcoming the obstacles to the only attainable peace settlement.

  Once we have Israel and Palestine living together, side-by-side, over time arrangements may grow up between the two countries that might lead to some more organic connection. But the immediate, pressing, urgent need is to end the occupation, which means ending the conflict, which requires two states for two peoples.

  by another American on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:05:59 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for insight

    I took your advice and added the E to BC.

    You are also correct in comprehending:

    "the immediate, pressing, urgent need is to end the occupation, which means ending the conflict, which requires two states for two peoples."

    Hope to meet some of you in DC on June 10-11, 2007.

    The US Campaign and United for Peace and Justice are sponsoring a two-day mobilization in Washington, DC to protest the 40th anniversary of Israel's illegal military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip.  

    Under the banner, "The World Says No to Israeli Occupation", the US Campaign and UFPJ will hold a massive rally, teach-in, and grassroots lobbying day:

    http://www.endtheoccupation.org/

    by eileen fleming on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:20:18 AM PDT

    •  Why I won't be there . . .

      I don't understand how a supporter of a genuine two-state for two peoples end-of-conflict settlement could participate in the June 10-11 Mobilization.

      Apart from anything else, a deal-breaker for me is the organization's support for a right of Palestinians to emigrate to Israel. Simply put, this is incompatible with Israel's continued existence and only can be achieved, if at all, through war. For a fuller discussion of this point, please see my diary from Monday, Amos Oz: No right of return, but Israel must offer a solution.

      by another American on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:36:40 AM PDT

      •  And, since I can't be there

        I made a point of tossing a couple back last night for Yom Yerushalayim (the same commemoration, but on the Hebrew calendar).

        by dfb1968 on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:39:58 AM PDT

      •  When the Recognition of Basic Human Rights

        threatens the existence of a particular state or regime, then I would suggest the time has come for that state or regime to end. The fact that the existence of Israel is threatened by refugees exercising their internationally recognized human right to return to their lands and homes tells us something important about Israel. A two-state solution may have been viable once. It no longer is. The expansion of the settlements (which DOUBLED in size during Oslo) and the roads that connect them and Israel's increasing dependence on West Bank water make a viable Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories an impossibility. The situation has only been exacerbated by the near total destruction of Palestinian infrastructure and economic productivity  by Israeli military actions and the strangulation of checkpoints. This leaves as the only just solution the creation of a single bi-national democratic secular state. The main (though certainly not the only) obstacle to such a solution is the refusal of Israelis to accept responsibility for the fundamental injustice of the Naqba.

        by Christopher Day on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:20:08 AM PDT

        •  I disagree

          The main (though certainly not the only) obstacle to such a solution is the refusal of Israelis to accept responsibility for the fundamental injustice of the Naqba.

          I would suggest the main obstacle would the unwillingness of the Israelis to eliminate the state of Israel.

          by 1918 on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:31:09 AM PDT

        •  Do you really mean it?

          During the same general period that approximately 750,000 Arabs left, many involuntarily, the territory that became the state of Israel, millions upon millions of (i) Germans were expelled from countries in central and eastern Europe, and (ii) Muslims and Hindus fled, many involuntarily, from what was becoming India to what was becoming Pakistan, and vice versa.

          Somewhat earlier in the century, there were substantial population exchanges between Greece and Turkey.

          Shall we, for example, challenge the Czech Republic's right to continue to exist, if it fails to welcome back the Sudeten German refugees and their descendants? What about Poland?
          
          

          Pragmatically, since you assert that a two-state solution is no longer possible, one must ask: isn't achieving a one-state settlement, which neither Israelis nor Palestinians want, infinitely more difficult? And what would be the nature of relations between the largely first-world Israelis and the largely third-world Palestinians?

          Surely, if there is a will for peace, and public opinion surveys continue to provide grounds for measured optimism, an end-of-conflict settlement along the lines of the Clinton Peace Parameters or the Geneva Accord could be reached, which, among other things, would entail the withdrawal of all settlers and settlements from (what would become) the state of Palestine. And, that state of Palestine would be comprised of all of Gaza, nearly all of the West Bank (with mutually-agreed territorial swaps), with its capital in the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem.

          Perhaps as the two countries and societies gained experience living side-by-side as neighbors, they will develop warmer relations and a desire for some more organic connection. But that is for the future to decide. Just now, that goal (if it is a goal) stands as an obstacle to peace and the improvement of the daily lives of ordinary Palestinians.
          
          

          Legally, I expect that I disagree with your analysis, but since you only presented a conclusion, I've nothing say on this point at this time.

          by another American on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:45:47 AM PDT

    •  Will there also be a banner that says

      "the World Says No to Palestinian Terror"?

      by Pumpkinlove on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:01:30 AM PDT

      •  No?

        Is your group saying Yes to Palestinian Terror then?

        by Pumpkinlove on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:10:17 PM PDT

•  Oh, and an additional point

  Vanunu is still a traitor.

  by dfb1968 on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:08:05 AM PDT

  •  LOL and I offer you so much more...

    Ok, so Vanunu is still a traitor,

    But, there is NO PLACE like home:

    "Israel is a not a democracy but is an Ethnocracy, meaning a country run and controlled by a national group with some democratic elements but set up with Jews in control and structured to keep them in control."-Jeff Halper, Founder and Coordinator of ICAHD/Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions and a Noble Peace Prize Nominee for 2006 to this reporter.

    Jeff’s ICAHD office is on Ben Yehuda  Street, in West Jerusalem next door to the Burger King. Jeff puts me in mind of a cross between Jerry Garcia and Santa Clause, with his lush beard, stocky build and warmth. Jeff grew up in Hibbing, Minnesota and actually knew Dylan when he was still Zimmerman! Bob is five years older than Jeff and he remembers Bob as, "always quiet, reserved and normal. He came to my high school graduation. His dad had wanted Bob to be a Doctor, but later admitted: ‘How was I to know he would become Leonard Bernstein?’"

    Jeff stated that there was something about Israel that spoke to him and so he moved from the USA in 1973 and in 1997 established ICAHD: The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions.

    "It was at the time when the Oslo peace plan collapsed and the occupation reasserted itself. Many Israeli peace activists began asking Palestinians what the best way to engage with each other was and the answer was blowing in the wind: ‘STOP the home demolitions!’

    "Since 1967 the Israeli government has destroyed over 2,000 Palestinian homes. 95% of the cases have nothing to do with security. All these homes are on Palestinian private property. The Israeli government will not grant permits for them to build on their own land, and in reality are quietly transferring the Palestinians administratively from the land. They make conditions so intolerable that the Palestinians give up and leave and this is exactly what they are after. Not only do the Palestinians receive no warning when their homes are to be destroyed they are fined $1,500.00!

    "I’ll get a call at 5 AM from a Palestinian telling me the bulldozers have arrived and we activists go out and engage in civil disobedience by standing up to the bulldozers.

    "We also raise funds to rebuild these homes right where they had been before. The reasons for the demolitions are: for The Wall, to establish illegal settlements, build roads and because the Israeli government wants to keep Palestinians confined to the islands [areas A and B] in the West Bank and so Palestinian land remain under the control of the Israeli government."

    American Methodists have contributed $50,000 to rebuild homes, and USA Presbyterians, Mennonites and Quakers all support the activities of ICAHD.

    Jeff can no longer count how many times he had been arrested and sentenced to community service. His eyes sparkled as he told me, "When I tell the judge I am serving the community they just don’t get it!

    "The Israeli government simply does not want to take responsibility and the USA government ignores the situation. Do you know why Israel does not want to become America’s 51st state? Because then they would only have two senators!

    "Look, Christ was all about justice and love, Jesus was no magician and his message has been lost by Christian Zionists who want Armageddon. They have taken Jesus’ teachings and turned them into a travesty by justifying the occupation."

    -excerpt from Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl’s' Life in Occupied Territory

    http://www.wearewideawake.org/

    by eileen fleming on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:16:31 AM PDT

    •  How national governments are formed

      "Israel is a not a democracy but is an Ethnocracy, meaning a country run and controlled by a national group with some democratic elements but set up with Jews in control and structured to keep them in control."

      Other ethnocracies around the world: Germany, Britain, the Netherlands, Spain, Poland, Russia, Italy, Ireland, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, France, Canada (Anglo and French), Iran, Turkey, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Greece, Belgium. Not to mention the very many countries that make no pretense of being a democracy.

      Nationalism is the basis for the vast majority of countries in the world, the U.S. being a noted exception, and it's an exception many Americans don't accept as you'll see by the move to make English an official language.

      We've discussed this many times on Daily Kos but we always welcome people who are willing to engage in the discussion and speak in their own voice about what they believe and how to move forward to peace. People who are here to post big chunks of text and to avoid discussion, or people who don't have an interest in peace, may have a more difficult time and usually end up self-destructing.

      by brittain33 on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:49:48 AM PDT

      •  Ethnocracy

        It is certainly true that many other countries have ethnocratic features. In some cases these have produced very ugly consequences that are rightly condemned by the world. Israel is distinct because it was established through a process of colonizing the lands of another people who now find themselves living under Israeli sovereignty either as second-class citizens (within the Green Line), as resident aliens in the land of their birth (in Jerusalem), or as stateless refugees subject to continuing displacement and colonization of their lands (the Occupied Territories). It is an ethnocracy in which the ruling ethnic group constitutes about 50% of the population of the actually existing state and would constitute a minority if those dispersed outside its effective borders (since Israel is the only country in the world that doesn't declare its borders) were allowed to exercise their right to return.

        by Christopher Day on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:30:58 AM PDT

        •  Israel vs. the Territories

          I absolutely do not support the idea of Israel governing the territories for the long term, and most Israelis would be happy to be rid of it. I'm comparing Israel as a democracy including its Arab citizens exclusive of the Territories.

          The comparisons I made were quite deliberate. Germany, Britain, Ireland, and Italy all have two-tiered immigration structures that allow for people of certain ethnicities (patrials they were called in U.K. laws) to become citizens ahead of people who are not of the country's main national identity.

          by brittain33 on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:35:25 AM PDT

          •  Distinctions and Differences

            Your distinction between Israel within the Green Line and actually existing Greater Israel is one of convenience. It preserves the illusion of a democracy in much that same way that pretending the bantustans were real countries allowed white South Africans to think of their country as a democracy. You may not personally approve of the settlements, but they are a fact that you can't wish away to make your arguments more coherent. I am consistently struck by how  supporters of Israel think that their personal distaste for the settlements is supposed to cause us to exclude them from our understanding of the fundamental character of the Israeli state (namely that it is engaged in ONGOING colonization).

            The difference between the two-tier immigration structures of the countries you mention and Israel is that Israel gives preference to Jews born outside Israel's borders (however you wish to define them) OVER Palestinians born within them. The right of Palestinian refugees to return is not properly a matter of immigration law in the sense you are talking about.

            by Christopher Day on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:49:53 AM PDT

            •  Not too many Palestinians left

              Who were born within Israel's borders.  It was 60 years ago now, you know.

              by unfounded on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:51:10 AM PDT

            •  Huh

              What you call convenience, I consider reality. I have said on many occasions that the future must bring two states, and the Palestinian state must be viable. I also do not believe the border will follow the Green Line, so in that sense, no I don't wish away some of the settlements I expect to be retained within Israel even when 95% of the West Bank becomes a contiguous and viable state.

              The number of Palestinians born within Israel's border is a small percentage of the several million Palestinians people would like to literally grandfather in. If we can agree that it's all about people actually born there, as you wrote, that would be a starting point.

              by brittain33 on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:00:12 AM PDT

        •  Right of return

          I'd like to know more about this internationally-recognized right of return. My grandfather was driven out of Tsarist Russia by the threat of violence. As his descendent, do I have the right to Lithuanian citizenship, as Lithuania is the successor state in this home region? It would bring me valuable EU worker status in the U.K. Tell me, do I have that right? If not, why not--is it because the U.S. has treated my family better than other Arab countries have treated their refugees?

          by brittain33 on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:43:27 AM PDT

          •  You'll have to take that up with Lithuania.

            Though I appreciate your recognition of the rough equivalence between the Naqba and the Pogroms. It is certainly true that if the Arab countries had absorbed the Palestinian refugees as citizens that Israel's original crime would be less of an open wound than it is. Your complaint, however, is a little like an abusive husband complaining about the conditions at the  battered womens shelter where his wife has fled. He might have a point, but he really doesn't have the best grounds from which to make it and there is reason to doubt the sincerity of his concern.

            Look, some refugee situations resolve themselves and some don't. It is for those who find themselves in the latter situation that the rights of refugees to return to their homes was elaborated. Its Israel's bad luck that the refugees it created didn't disappear as apparently you wish they had. Deal with it.

            by Christopher Day on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:59:46 AM PDT

            •  asdf

              Look, some refugee situations resolve themselves and some don't.

              Love that passive voice. Never mind, I can understand why this is an awkward point, when you find that countries like Jordan and Lebanon fare worse than Israel, Poland, and Germany on the moral scale.

              It is for those who find themselves in the latter situation that the rights of refugees to return to their homes was elaborated.

              Passive voice again. By whom? And according to what system of international law? (That last one is a loaded question, I grant.)

              Its Israel's bad luck that the refugees it created didn't disappear as apparently you wish they had.

              I think it is much, much more the bad luck of the Palestinian refugees who have lived in limbo and been treated as the pawns of Arab states for 60 years than it is Israel's bad luck to have the Occupation.

              Deal with it.

              Why? The alternative to you dealing with it is the status quo. Do you like the status quo? It's not pretty for Israel, but I think it's much worse for the Palestinians.

              If you want to leave this refugee problem to "be resolved" by the next generation, you're setting down the right path for that. However, I will remind you we are talking about real people living and dying in refugee camps, not toys for rhetorical games. I venture that you're not personally suffering any consequences from the fact that Arab countries have chosen to leave this situation "unresolved," with the cooperation of Israel.

              by brittain33 on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:09:16 AM PDT

            •  And another point

              Why do I have to take it up with Lithuania? This right is a point of international law, as you said. Who do I apply to in the International Government to grant me the citizenship?

              by brittain33 on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:12:01 AM PDT

              •  Don't be an ass

                Are the institutions that enforce international law flimsy? You bet. But your sneering contempt for its basic principles is part of the problem. Your casual defense of the results of ethnic cleansing as a fact on the ground is grotesque.

                by Christopher Day on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:07:30 PM PDT

•  Actually...

  ...under international law, an occupying power can and does administer law in the territories.  That's what makes it an occupation.

  Basically, you admit that Israel is just administering the status quo before they arrived, not making any changes.  And the individuals in question are illegally building.

  Israel did, in the past, try to cooperate with village leaders to help develop the areas.  These people were promptly branded as "collaborators."  Nevertheless, after 1967, the Arabs of the West Bank saw an increased standard of living by all objective indicators (school participation, literacy rates, economic growth, access to running water and indoor plumbing).

  I'm guessing that, with Hamas in power, the last thing the Israeli government intends to do is to concentrate on creating a new master plan and zoning scheme for the west bank.   So until then, it will keep it as it is.

  Maybe if the Palestinians want Israel to withdraw and stop controlling land use, they should stop firing rockets into areas from where Israel already withdrew.

  I have a feeling that in a week or so, we'll be hearing all about Israel's "brutal invasion" of Gaza.  I'll simply note that none of the "peace advocates" who parachuted in recently have said a word about the scores of rockets being rained on the hapless residents of Sderot.

  by JPhurst on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:32:58 AM PDT

  •  Disingenuous BS

    The proposoition that Israel just has no choice because it is enforcing Brithis-era land use laws ignores the wholesale disregard for those laws when it comes to settlement construction (which is itself a violation of international law). The truth is that the old land-use laws are being used as a deliberate tool of ethnic cleansing in slow motion to create conditions of life that are simply intolerable for Palestinians in the hopes that they will leave the Occupied Territories. While such efforts have not prevented the growth of the Palestinian population they probably have reduced by out-migration its rate of growth.

    by Christopher Day on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:37:04 AM PDT

    •  And so long as...

      ...the Palestinians are at war with the Israelis, then the Israeli position can best be described as "generous" and "restrained."

      by JPhurst on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:42:50 AM PDT

      •  Colonization IS War

        and there is nothing generous or restrained about stealing peoples land.

        by Christopher Day on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:06:29 AM PDT

        •  Unless...

          there is nothing generous or restrained about stealing peoples land.

          ...you're Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Iran, or any other Muslim country, and stealing people's land and kicking them out is an old problem that has "been resolved."

          by brittain33 on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:10:44 AM PDT

        •  In war...

          ...sides gain land or lose land.  Not a novel concept.

          Remember that, in 1948, each of the Arab nations explicitly refused to delineate the armistice lines as "borders," because that would have implied legitimacy to Israel's existence.

          As part of a peace settlement, Palestinians will get most of the West Bank to be, for the first time ever, an independent Palestinian state.  In some cases, settlements will be evacuated.

          Had the Palestinians wanted the Green Line to be a sacrosanct border, they should have recognized its inviolability on both sides.  Instead, they tried to say "heads I win, tails you lose."

          by JPhurst on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:02:36 AM PDT

          •  Retrograde

            It's amazing to me how many people here pretend to be progressives, but when it comes to Israel you hear lines like the one above:

            In war sides gain land or lose land.  Not a novel concept.

            The world at large, codifying their belief through international law, has rejected this proposition for almost 60 years.  But, the moment Israel is mentioned, people who claim to be progress call for the world to be dragged kicking and screaming into the past when everyone agreed that might equaled right.

            For the life of me, I do not see any difference between these so-called progressives and the religious radicals who constantly attempt to drag this and other countries back into ugly legacies of racial, sexual, and social repression.

            by weasel on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:33:28 AM PDT

            •  If that's the case...

              ...then since the Palestinian state will have been established only via violence and terror, than it's boundaries will be illegitimate.

              It's time to dispense with the special pleading for Palestinians and work out a reasonable settlement.

              by JPhurst on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:43:43 AM PDT

              •  Actually

                You are wrong legally, because the right to resist foreign occupation by military means is generally recognized.  Now, if the Palestinians conquered and occupied Israel, Syria, or any other nation, that would be illegitimate.  

                Separately, though, you do have a point.  A nation founded by brutal violence may well have serious problems.  Israel was founded in that manner, and it has been incredibly brutal toward the Palestinians.  A peaceful negotiated settlement would be far preferable to war.  Apparently even those still living in the 19th Century can see that.

                by weasel on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:52:36 AM PDT

                •  There's a right to resist...

                  ...and also a right of an occupying power to maintain an occupation until the conditions are such that it's security goals are fulfilled.

                  In other words, both sides have a right to beat each other to a bloody pulp if they want.

                  Personally, I would prefer to see a negotiated peace.

                  The key is "negotiated."  Having refused to accept partition and having refused to convert the armistice lines into borders, the Palestinians simply cannot now claim that all of the territories are "Palestinian land."

                  Most of it should go to them, in my opinion, but it's not theirs as of right.  No applicable UN resolution, or general principle of international law, mandates that result.

                  by JPhurst on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:32:14 AM PDT

                  •  Retrograde

                    As I said, entirely retrograde:

                    In other words, both sides have a right to beat each other to a bloody pulp if they want.

                    I won't even bother taking up your analysis of international law since it's so silly.  The Palestinians do have the right to independence under international law, and that includes complete independence, not just the parts you might feel inclined to give them.

                    by weasel on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:43:08 AM PDT

                    •  Your mistake...

                      ...is that you assume all the land is "Palestinian."  It is not.

                      Go check out the analysis of the late Julius Stone, who provided some of the most thorough analysis of international law as it applies to the Israel/Palestine conflict.

                      by JPhurst on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:02:43 PM PDT

•  Home demolitions are hugely on the decline,

  I thought?

  Israel used to have a policy of demolishing the family homes of suicide bombers but suspended it, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

  by unfounded on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:57:01 AM PDT

  •  You are not wrong.

    And the homes which are being demolished currently, many of which were built on land that did not belong to the builder.. even in the WEst Bank.

    by Pumpkinlove on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:06:56 AM PDT

•  I respect this:

  I am a Muslim Palestinian American and when my son asked me who my hero was I took three days to think about it. I told him my hero is Jesus, because he took a stand and he died for it.

  Not because I know or care if it's sincere, but it shows that people recognize the heft behind the U.S.'s Israel policy under Bush is the Evangelical Christian love and support for Israel, and not the sheer power of Jews to manipulate the government. It's good for them to try to build bridges to Christians beyond liberal Episcopalians and others with little political power. I don't know if it will work, not when they're fighting with the Mickey Mouse Hamas program for the attention of disengaged Americans, but at least it's savvier than railing against Jewish supermen.

  by brittain33 on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:01:23 AM PDT

  •  good call nt

    by unfounded on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:03:40 AM PDT

•  last 3 commenter's have a brain and heart!

  My intuition tells me; you are intelligent and open;

  I am grateful to read your insights and questions-

  Wonderful to NOT be attacked on DailyKos for rattling some people's comfort zones.

  PLEASE consult:

  http://www.icahd.org/

  I am interested in what you think.

  all good 2 U,
  e
  

  by eileen fleming on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:06:56 AM PDT

  •  Why thank you!

    The last three commenter's would be JPHurst, unfounded, and me, and we are glad to have you here. We've posted some of our insights above. We welcome your voice to the Daily Kos conversation and look forward to an exchange of ideas and a vibrant discussion.

    by brittain33 on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:18:01 AM PDT

    •  OK!!!

      That is my desire too.

      Let's also have fun, because it is a dead serious subject and nerves are raw.

      Are you aware of:

      http://www.june5thinitiative.org/

      International Support for Israeli-Palestinian Peace

      After 40 years - the time has come!

      PLEASE check us out and if the Great Spirit moves you, endorse as an individual or an organization.

      http://www.june5thinitiative.org/

      Where in the world are you?

      I am Florida by way of New York City,

      e
      http://www.wearewideawake.org/

      by eileen fleming on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:27:47 AM PDT

      •  The June 5th Initiative is an admirable

        effort that I have endorsed. Indeed, I am quite friendly with many of the other endorsers in Israel and the US.

        But supporting it and the June 10-11 Mobilization strike me as incompatible. One cannot dance at two weddings at the same time.

        • The motto of the June 5th Initiative is Two States / Two Peoples / One Peace

        • The June 5th Initiative affirms "the principle that the Palestinian and the Jewish peoples" each has a right to its own state.

        • The June 10-11 Mobilization supports a program that, because it includes a Palestinian right to emigrate to Israel, negates the principle of the Jewish people having a right to its own state.

        by another American on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:18:49 AM PDT

        •  I dance to the beat of END THE OCCUPATION

          One state or two;

          It is NOT my business;

          Equal Human Rights and an end to injustice is my cause.

          Why not leave it up to a democratic vote? Every citizen of the land over the age of consent gets one vote;

          One state or two?

          Justice first;

          END THE OCCUPATION

          Peace will follow.

          e
          http://www.wearewideawake.org/

          by eileen fleming on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:17:49 AM PDT

          •  "Justice first, Peace will Follow"??

            Hell of a tag line for ending conflicts there.  How's that idiom worked out when applied to any conflict in the world?

            by unfounded on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:43:00 AM PDT

            •  Everywhere

              The world is so full of struggles that have fought on through hardship and brutality and only ended when there was finally justice.  The civil rights movement and the labor movement are two obvious examples in this country.  So is the Revolutionary War.

              As my comments above point out, some people on this board go entirely retrograde when they discuss Israel.  Disagreeing with a call for justice.  Yikes.

              by weasel on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:46:26 AM PDT

              •  I don't disagree with the abstract of "Justice"

                Just a lot of people's ideas of what "justice" is in a conflict with as many grievances as this one.  Especially those who are inclined to say "We'll have peace after we have Justice"

                by unfounded on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:02:25 PM PDT

          •  How do you expect to end the occupation in

            the absence of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians?

            How do you expect a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians to be achieved other than on a two states for two peoples basis?
            
            

            

            by another American on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:10:15 AM PDT

•  Nice to see you back, eileen!

  I take it you and the admins got the glitch in your account worked out.

  by Rusty Pipes on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:19:05 AM PDT

  •  They have never never communicated with me

    I still do NOT know their side; they have never communicated with me.

    Who are the powers that be at Daily Kos and how does a little one such as me, reach the high and almighty?

    I am also a babe in the woods on this site, on top of being computerely challenged and an idiot regarding technology.

    I am but a humble soul, a writer, activist and agitator with the desire to change the world as we now know it.

    all good 2 U,

    e
    http://www.wearewideawake.org/

    by eileen fleming on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:23:20 AM PDT