Israel confiscates private Palestinian land to enlarge checkpoint

[Jefferson23]

JENIN (Ma’an) – Israeli forces have notified a Palestinian man from the northern West Bank that his tract of land measuring 3,000 square meters near al-Jalama checkpoint north of Jenin in the far north of the West Bank.

Salih Abu Farha told Ma’an that an Israeli officer approached him Friday and identified himself as a commander in charge of lands in military zones.

The officer handed Abu Farha a warrant reading that the administration of al-Jalam commercial checkpoint decided to posses five small tracts of land in order to enlarge the checkpoint and install a security gate at the main entrance.

“All five tracts are private properties of mine and they measure about 3,000 square meters. They are located right in front of the checkpoint, and I turned them into a parking lot for Palestinian workers who leave their vehicles and pay me a few shekels in return. This is my only source of income.”

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=579310

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

1. Nice. The IDF let's this man do the work then strip him of

what he has made and the only means of support he has.

Sounds like that 60% West Bank deal is getting smaller all the time while the illegals continue to eat up what is left.


Nope. There is definitely no ethnic cleansing going on there.

[Shaktimaan]

4. There's plenty here to criticize.

But ethnic cleansing?

Where? Who was cleansed?

[delrem]

7. Israel cleansed Salih Abu Farha from 3,000 sq. meters of land

that was his, but has now been taken by Israel. That's what the story bloody well *said*.
Is Salih Abu Farha such a non-person to you that you truly don't get it?

But then, you agree with Benny Morris that ethnic cleansing is a good thing, necessary for the existence of Israel, and that Ben Gurion didn't go far enough in pursuing the Nakba. So I don't expect your reasoning to proceed from any morally respectable or acceptable basis.

[Shaktimaan]

8. Actually you've got that wrong.

Neither I nor Benny Morris said those things. What he said was that Ben Gurion made a historical error in not completing the ethnic cleansing once it had been initiated. That it would have been better for Israel in the long term had he not ceased the act once it had been done in some areas. And he acknowledged that the specifics of the war made some amount of ethnic cleansing a necessity. But that engaging in more would have benefitted Israel much more so.

Is Salih Abu Farha such a non-person to you that you truly don't get it?

No it is that what happened to him was not ethnic cleansing. Btw, resorting to accusations of racism does very little for your argument. You know nothing about me and virtually nothing of my political views because it is far easier for you to resort to a cliched black and white understanding of history rather than deal with the far messier reality of ambiguous grays and hard decisions. It is easier to make snap judgements from such a place of ignorance. It doesn't require one to really engage with the actual issues at hand.

But then, you agree with Benny Morris that ethnic cleansing is a good thing, necessary for the existence of Israel, and that Ben Gurion didn't go far enough in pursuing the Nakba.

Yeah, here's the thing. If you refuse to engage with me to really learn about my thoughts (in that earlier thread) then you don't get to bring it up in a later thread as evidence of my ethical failings.

[delrem]

11. You would be innocent if you were totally unable to comprehend the enormity of what you write.

But you know full well what Benny Morris wrote, and what you agree to - and yes, Shaktimaan, that is the very worst of racism in action. And it's fekkin' unforgivable that you'd agree with Morris that Ben Gurion didn't go far enough, that he ought to have ethnically cleansed the lands from the Jordan river to the sea. Totally unforgivable.

[Shaktimaan]

15. I certainly comprehend it.

But I don't see that you do.

Morris is making a presumption from a historical perspective. That Israel would have been more stable politically and avoided a lot of the violence and bloodshed in its recent past had Ben Gurion fully ethnically cleansed the area. His argument is regarding what Ben Gurion should probably have done to best achieve his political objectives. It's not an anti Palestinian argument and its certainly not racist. For instance he goes out if his way to concede that ethnic cleansing today would be entirely immoral. At no point does Morris argue that he would personally have preferred if Ben Gurion had done that. It's not about his personal views.

Regarding the charge of racism. When one is acting within the sphere of a conflict that is split down ethnic lines is it truly an act if racism to take actions according to those same lines? How can it be?

So you charge that Morris's idea is the very worst of racism in action. Ok. So what about the expulsions that occurred during the civil war. These were enacted entirely for tactical, and not ideological reasons. Put yourself in Ben gurions shoes. What do you think the correct action would have been knowing what we do about his situation?

[Shaktimaan]

9. By the way...

...I suspect that this is just the sort of ethical conundrum that makes you "uncomfortable" but the reality of the time when Ben Gurion enacted Plan Dalet was that they were losing the war quite badly, the Jews living in Jerusalem had been cut off from all supplies for quite some time and were running out of food, and the sole way to break that blockade was to capture and empty certain tactically relevant Arab towns. Certainly there had been no considerations made towards the Jewish towns that fell to Arab soldiers up until that point. This was not a civilized war where captured territory was left in the hands of its owners. This was a "total war" and there was no question that the Yishuv was fighting for their right to live there. Losing meant losing their state, their homes and either dying or becoming refugees. Contrast this with the fact that most of the Arab refugees were merely internally displaced to other parts of Palestine. Or, at the very worst, forced into a different state within the larger Arab world, (of which there were nearly two dozen.) No alternate Jewish state existed to welcome any refugees from that war. Nor any of the later refugees who were forced out of the aforementioned Arab states. In these circumstances Ben Gurion had only two real options before him. Ethnic cleansing. Or massacres on a large scale. Losing the war wasn't an "ethical" option. So the question was never, "Is ethnic cleansing a good thing?" but rather "Is ethnic cleansing a preferable thing to mass killing?" It is the easiest thing to fire criticisms at 65 year old decisions when you face none of the consequences for any errors.

[delrem]

12. No, Shaktimaan, a plan of systematic ethnic cleansing isn't an "ethical conundrum" to me. nt

[Shaktimaan]

16. Then you have not really considered the facts.

But then, you agree with Benny Morris that ethnic cleansing is a good thing, necessary for the existence of Israel,

This is hardly a racist opinion. It is a fact that plan d was crucial to Israel's success in that war and hence, critical for its existence. As Morris said, when a population attacks you they force you to choose between expelling it or destroying it. To choose expulsion is the ethical decision in this case. In the real world one must choose between available options. Ethics is not a yardstick whose measure is locked in stone. It is entirely based on context.

[cali]

28. your posts in this thread are horrifying and you appear utterly clueless as to why.

[demosincebirth]

2. MY support of Israel is waning.

[azurnoir]

5. Much like the seperation wall and the Gaza buffer zone Israel uses Palestinian land

to build it's own security bubble

[Jefferson23]

6. Yes, it's the Piece Process.

Now some in Israel want a Peace Later campaign..no joke.

[shira]

10. Cut the shit. You just want an end to occupation....

....which will not result in peace. Also, all the demonization and dehumanization of Israel that you support & are part of will do nothing to bring about peace.

Don't pretend this is about peace to you.

Let's put it this way: I'm for 2 states for 2 peoples. Are you?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

13. " I'm for 2 states for 2 peoples."

One state gets 60% of their land the other state gets 100% of theirs plus 40% of the other.

Well if that isn't fair and equitable then what is?

It's not about peace, Shira. It's about piece, and how much Palestinian land Israel can theft outright.

[Shaktimaan]

21. RRe: Palestinian Land

So, why do you consider all of the land outside of the green line to be Palestinian land anyway?

How do you reconcile the circular logic applied to their national identity as I see it? The thing is, Palestine as a national identity primarily formed in earnest as a reaction to Zionism and the establishment of Israel on land that the Arabs considered to be theirs by right.

So what's a Palestinian? Someone who was living within the area considered Palestine, right? There's not really all that much else to differentiate them from other regional Arabs beyond this. It's more or less a geographical thing that defines the group. And subsequently a shared history and political aspirations and disenfranchisement.

So then, for the land of Palestine to be considered collectively owned by the Palestinian people, then said ownership is derived via its collective possession by the Palestinian people, right? But the Palestinian people are defined as those who were living in Palestine.

See? It's a chicken and egg scenario. Does the land define the people, or do the people define the land?

None of this means that Palestinian nationalism is invalid of course. It just means acknowledging it's creation as a recent event tied directly to the politics and events of the post-ottoman Palestinian region, especially as it was defined by the British Mandate. Had they drawn those borders at half scale there would be half as many Palestinians today. (Assuming equal population density for the example's sake.)

If the identification with the Palestinian nationality hinges upon an arbitrary line drawn by the British following WWI, defining the borders of their Mandate, then both designations are somewhat arbitrary.

So then why consider ALL of the land inside the Mandate to belong to the Palestinians?

CIP, the Bedouins nomadic lifestyle took them all over the Negev. If we drew a border around the Negev, making the Bedouins into a new nationality, Negevis, would you then argue that the whole of the Negev belongs to them and them alone? What if they only live on 1% of it? Maybe they range on another 20% of it. What about that 80% that they don't have much to do with. Does it belong to them based on the drawing of that border?

[delrem]

22. This is, no f'ing shit, babble. nt

[Shaktimaan]

24. Easy then.

If its too confounding for you then just stick with the main question. Why is this arbitrary chunk of land entirely Palestinian land?

Why isn't any other land theirs as well?

[azurnoir]

29. why here's why

Status of Palestine in the United Nations

The General Assembly,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and stressing in this regard the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,

Recalling its resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970,1by which it affirmed, inter alia, the duty of every State to promote through joint and separate action the realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,

Stressing the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights,

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,

Reaffirming the principle, set out in the Charter, of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

Reaffirming also relevant Security Council resolutions, including, inter alia, resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973,
446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002, 1515 (2003) of 19 November 2003 and 1850 (2008) of 16 December 2008,

http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/text-of-the-un-resolution-recognizing-palestine-nov-29-2012

[Shaktimaan]

30. As abba eban said...

If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.

[Jefferson23]

14. You're off the block..way off. You don't speak for me. You can type I'm for 2 states for 2 people

until the cows come home. I go by what threads you post and what you say...and your transparency page is quite telling.


I am glad to know you are not about ending the occupation..the Peace Later campaign is in full swing?

[azurnoir]

18. wow that could be a new slogan for some

Peace Later-Occupation now

[Jefferson23]

19. I don't have to name who posted it as a good idea.

Shared values are the key to true peace. It is true that this is a distant goal that requires tremendous patience. We must give up the fanciful ideas espoused by “Peace Now,” which wouldn’t last a minute, and instead embrace a “Peace Later” approach that would last many years. This is only way to achieve a real peace in the Middle East.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/03/17/peace-later-not-peace-now/

[azurnoir]

20. yep that pretty much sums it up

at least for some folks here

[Israeli]

23. agree 100%

she is what we describe as a trojan horse
a true agent of hasbara

[shira]

25. I thought we agreed we're both support the Olmert, Geneva, Gush-Shalom....

...peace plans.

I have questions for you WRT refugees on the Gush-Shalom plan, but otherwise we agree. I'd be delighted if the Palestinians had accepted the Clinton Initiatives back in 2001 or Olmert's offer in 2008. Peace and 2 states is the objective, right? End of occupation, settlements, etc.

======

Whether you are aware of it or not, you're allying yourself with 1-staters here. Every one of the Israel agitators are for 1-state and support a totalitarian, theocratic Palestine run via sharia law (whether it's Hamas or the PLO doesn't matter).

Maybe you need to choose whether you're for 1- or 2- states. Adopting anti-zionist 1-state positions like you apparently do just exposes you as a poser who pretends to be for 2-states.

[Scootaloo]

26. Shira, there's a remedy for your condition...

For all those times when you're full of shit and angry about it!

[shira]

27. You're a 1-stater. You should be proud of your anti-zionist views....

After all, every single Zionist in your view is a racist, warmongering, illiberal, land-grubbing rightwinger.

[azurnoir]

17. let's take a look at this

Cut the shit. You just want an end to occupation....

well speaking for myself yes I want to end the occupation

....which will not result in peace. Also, all the demonization and dehumanization of Israel that you support & are part of will do nothing to bring about peace.

define peace , what will it take to satisfy you, also what is the demonization and dehumanization of Israel, really about shira ?

Don't pretend this is about peace to you.

then what is it about?

Let's put it this way: I'm for 2 states for 2 peoples. Are you?

what 2 states and what 2 peoples?