Israel's Home Destruction

[Violet_Crumble]

Why does Israel have a policy of destroying Palestinian homes? How is this policy justified both on the international stage and domestically? How has the changing landscape affected Palestinian sense of homeland, attachment and/or loss?


Yesterday I took a tour through the Nablus's Old City - a beautiful, ancient city that is architecturally similar to the Old City of Jerusalem. My tour guide pointed out the usual historical sites such as ancient mosques, the famous Turkish bath house, and the crowded markets. However, the tourguide couldnít help but to include recent history as well - such as blown up buildings and houses. He pointed to specific places where during the last major invasion (April 2002), the Israeli military tore down homes for the sole purpose of providing better transportation routes for tanks into the narrow roadways in the old city. In fact most of the buildings destroyed had been done so for strategic reasons rather than for ìsecurity reasonsî. The destroyed homes were not those of resistance fighters, but civilians. After that particular invasion, it was discovered that entire families were wiped out.


I was also brought to a large empty lot that is now used as a parking lot. It is the site of a huge building that was completely destroyed by a missile. A middle-aged man appeared out of nowhere and told our guide the story of this site. He told us that the missile not only destroyed the targeted building, but many buildings and homes that surrounded it as well. He pointed to the buildings that still stood and the damage still visible on them. He finished the story by saying that his 10-year-old child was playing on the street when the missile struck the building - killing him immediately.


During the April 2002 invasion, the military went house-to-house searching for people who might be a ìmilitantî. They didnít engage in this search by going to the front door of peopleís homes, but by going through peopleís walls into the adjacent building.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=6739

[knowbody0]

1. and these are the"good" guys?

[pelsar]

2. accuracy....seems to be missing

was also brought to a large empty lot that is now used as a parking lot. It is the site of a huge building that was completely destroyed by a missile

except the IDF doesnt use surface to surface missles in this war.....hmm what else is not true in the article?

[newyorican]

7. accuracy is missing from your post...

surface-to-surface missles are not mentioned in the article, are they?

Such a lame attempt is beneath contempt.

Hmmm...what else is not true that you have posted??

[pelsar]

8. newyorican...missles

what was written:

"It is the site of a huge building that was completely destroyed by a missile."

in the israeli arsenal they have no air to ground missles that can destroy a large building.

therefore it must have been a surface to surface missle...except that they have not been used in this conflict

is there something else that isnt clear? Anybody need a lesson in munitions?

This is what one calls a clear fabrication, its simply not true.

I remain impressed, I get the impression that everyone here knows everything about the house destruction, ROE (rules of engagment), the various types of weapons used...and only I dont understand.....this is a very very strange discussion group.

[newyorican]

9. I seem to recall you saying...

precision must be used in when discussing. So I will ask yet a second time:

Surface-to-surface missiles are not mentioned in the article, are they?

[pelsar]

11. newyorican...missles

this is a case of simple "using ones head"

what was written:
It is the site of a huge building that was completely destroyed by a missile.

now there are, air to air missles, air to ground, ground to ground, sea to sea and sea to ground

those are all the missle types: air to air are small missles. Israeli sea to sea are also small and short range, that leaves surface to surface

or do you have another explanation?....cause I am very interested to hear.....

[newyorican]

12. You still haven't answered the question...

So I will try a third time to get a simple answer to a simple question (it's called the "baby-step" approach):

Surface-to-surface missles are not mentioned in the article, are they?

[pelsar]

16. newyorican...missles

surface to surface missles are NOT mentioned.....the single word missle is.

now its your turn...what kind of missle can destroy a building?

[newyorican]

18. "What kind of missile can destroy a building?"

I'd hazard a guess at a missile that blows up.

There is really not enough information in the article to determine the type of missile or missiles that could have destroyed the building. Also missing is, what the old mans idea of a "huge building" is. In addition, the old man interviewed made no claim of being an armament expert, so a missile could have been a tank round or multiple rounds or volleys from combined ground or airborne forces. Maybe even a 500-pound bomb dropped from a jet. It could have been a error in translation wherein "missile attack" is recorded as "missile".

What appears ludicrous on it's face is anyone latching on to the word "missile" and claiming the article to be a misrepresentation of what the author saw and recorded. If a building has been destroyed in the WB or Gaza in the last 3 years, heavy odds are the IDF did it.

[pelsar]

20. newyorican...thank you

at least you finally got to your point......well so far my experience here has been interesting to say the least. You ask why did I latch on to that?...because from what may have been a simple translation error slowly becomes an israeli jet dropping a 500lb bomb, another israeli war crime!

and yes, many interviews have misleading information of what actually has taken place. and I have watched them become "truths" that cannot be removed no matter what the actual facts are......so yes I would have liked the article to be more precise, and yes I believe its reasonable to question an article if some facts are questionable....

[Djinn]

22. A small misile

can easily render a building unhabitable - leading to it's demolition by more traditional means however it is also more than possible to destroy a building completely using the IDF misiles.

"Israel attacks Gaza City workshop

An Israeli helicopter missile strike has destroyed a Palestinian-owned metal workshop in Gaza City.
Palestinian medics said two bystanders were injured when at least one missile hit the building on Friday evening, creating a fireball.

The Israeli military said the workshop, which was reportedly empty at the time of the strike, was used to build bombs for the Hamas militant organisation."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3941361.stm

"An Israeli Apache helicopter fired a missile that destroyed the home in a blast that could be heard throughout much of the city, Palestinian security sources said.

Shortly after the blast, militants and other people took to the streets and gathered at Shifa Hospital, where the wounded were taken."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/08/18/mideast.gaza/


I find it very bizarre to say the least that a self identified IDF member would claim that the IDF does not possess/use missiles capable of destroying buildings.

[pelsar]

26. Djinn.....more info

perhaps this is where the "experience comes in: palestenian workshops in Gaza are usually no more than metal shacks, where a small missle easily destroys them, even a hand grenade will destroy some of them.

the article talked about a "huge building".....there is a difference. A air to ground missle will simply not destroy a huge building.

yes the IDF has surface to surface missles that could flatten it, but they are not used in this conflict. But if someone who doesnt know that, reads the article, believes every word and then what we have here is another "war crime."

to me this is a simple case of misinformation be in intentional or not....

[Djinn]

29. Any missile is capable of rendering a building

uninhabitable, it doesn't need to completely turn it to ash to do so.

As for what the IDF does and doesn't use/do - we're not going to ever agree on that (deliberately targeting children/civilians) you stated the IDF does not possess missiles capable of destroying buildings (btw one of the quotes above is a home not a workshop) THAT was a misrepresentation - intentional or not.

Anyway - you're late for you "active duty"

[Violet_Crumble]

13. So where did the article mention surface to surface missiles?

You claimed it did, and attempted to write off the credibility of the author of the article because of it...

What's yr point here anyway? That the building actually wasn't destroyed, and it's all a nasty slur on the IDF? Or that somehow being destroyed in some other manner is just so much better than being destroyed by a missile?

Violet...

[newyorican]

15. Perhaps...

Pelsar intends to hold the author of the article to a standard of "precision" that he does not adhere to himself.

Or, the implication is there is a stealth, Palestinian, heavy equipment, demolition crew skulking about the WB and Gaza destroying buildings and blaming it on the IDF.

Or, perhaps if the serial and part number of the armament used is not included in the article then the building obviously destroyed itself in sympathy with its surroundings.

Perhaps is a wonderful word used to preface statements of conjecture. The lack of "perhaps" in front of what is clearly conjecture, rightfully results in the poster getting accused of making shit up.

[pelsar]

17. the point of an article that is wrong

I am confused....an article was written that claimed something that didnt happen.

it claimed an IDF missle destroy a building.......I have no idea how the building was destroyed, perhaps a bulldozer did it, perhaps it was poorly built and collapsed, perhaps it was blown up and the author though it was a missle.

the simple point being that no israeli missle blew up the bulding....what is so difficult to understand?

or lets reverse it....how could an israeli missle blow up a large building? anybody know anything about munitions?

[Djinn]

23. time to get some training yourself pelsar

I honestly can not beleive that you're claiming it would be impossible for the IDF to destroy a building with a missile, well done though for sticking to this in teh face of history and fact.

[Forkboy]

31. I,for one,am glad you joined DU

This kind of comedy has been seriously lacking since Gimel and Jem Note have been banished.

[QueerJustice]

35. Semantics

Me thinks the man has more military knowledge than us...

He is after all in the IDF....hence an expert (in my eyes )...a Hero too but thats besides the point...

[QueerJustice]

33. Yep they are all experts...

Except for you...who lives there......:o

[no_hypocrisy]

3. A couple of reasons behind the policy:

First, the Israeli destroyed the homes of suicide bombers who lived in the West Bank and Gaza as punishment for their deeds. The fact that their families were made homeless was irrelevent. Plus, Israeli did not recognize the Palestinians' inherent rights to own the property in that territory. Sort of like eviction overkill.

Second, this program became utilitarian as destruction of Palestitian homes made it easier to clear that land for future development for Jewish settlements. It would have had to be done eventually, this just gave them a chance to speed up the process with no guilt.

Third, it's a political mind-fuck by driving Palestinians off land they've invested in, cultivated and possessed for years. Think of how Washington systematically drove Native Americans off their land incrementally over decades in order to claim possession and ownership without compensation. I figure that Israeli (populated by a lot of American expatriots) is taking a page from American history and refined it.

[pelsar]

4. excuse the amazement.....

there is so much wrong info here...i could spend days just attempting to straighten out your wrong info...hasnt anybody actually been to the westbank? or gaza?

the homes are destroyed for the most part as punishment, since usually that who carried out the deed is usually dead and no longer cares. It has proven to work as many a sucide bomber has had second thoughts. (the brits started it)

the homes that are destroyed are usually within the PA territory/villages/cities and settlers dont go there to build homes. The lots remain within palestenian hands until they rebuild.

Jewish settlements for the most part are built on hill tops for strategic reasons while arab villages are on the hillsides for economic reasons

the amount of wrong info here is incredible....why dont some of you go out to the westbank and see for yourselves...sheeesh

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Yr excused...

No, haven't been to the West Bank and Gaza and have no intention to do so. What I find amazing is that anyone would attempt to negate the views of others based on whether they've been somewhere or not. I've encountered both on the internet and here in real life, people who have been to the West Bank and Gaza who don't share yr views. But thanks for the regular hints that only people who've been there *know* what's going on. Kind of weird how they all don't agree with how you see things...

Destroying homes of suicide bombers is collective punishment. The Brits started it? So what? That doesn't make it acceptable. Besides that, a great many destroyed homes are not those of the families of suicide bombers...

Over the past four years, the Israeli military has demolished over 2,500 Palestinian houses in the occupied Gaza Strip.3 Nearly two-thirds of these homes were in Rafah, a densely populated refugee camp and city at the southern end of the Gaza Strip on the border with Egypt. Sixteen thousand people — more than ten percent of Rafah’s population — have lost their homes, most of them refugees, many of whom were dispossessed for a second or third time.4

As satellite images in this report show, most of the destruction in Rafah occurred along the Israeli-controlled border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt. During regular nighttime raids and with little or no warning, Israeli forces used armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozers to raze blocks of homes at the edge of the camp, incrementally expanding a “buffer zone” that is currently up to three hundred meters wide. The pattern of destruction strongly suggests that Israeli forces demolished homes wholesale, regardless of whether they posed a specific threat, in violation of international law. In most of the cases Human Rights Watch found the destruction was carried out in the absence of military necessity.

In May 2004, the Israeli government approved a plan to further expand the buffer zone, and it is currently deliberating the details of its execution. The Israeli military has recommended demolishing all homes within three hundred meters of its positions, or about four hundred meters from the border. Such destruction would leave thousands more Palestinians homeless in one of the most densely populated places on earth. Perhaps in recognition of the plan’s legal deficiencies, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are not waiting for the government to approve the plan. Ongoing incursions continue to eat away at Rafah’s edge, gradually attaining the desired goal.

This report documents these and other illegal demolitions. Based on extensive research in Rafah, Israel, and Egypt, it places many of the IDF’s justifications for the destruction, including smugglers’ tunnels and threats to its forces on the border, in serious doubt. The pattern of destruction, it concludes, is consistent with the goal of having a wide and empty border area to facilitate long-term control over the Gaza Strip. Such a goal would entail the wholesale destruction of neighborhoods, regardless of whether the homes in them pose a specific threat to the IDF, and would greatly exceed the IDF’s security needs. It is based on the assumption that every Palestinian is a potential suicide bomber and every home a potential base for attack. Such a mindset is incompatible with two of the most fundamental principles of international humanitarian law (IHL): the duty to distinguish combatants from civilians and the responsibility of an Occupying Power to protect the civilian population under its control.

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/gaza/

I totally agree that the illegal settlements are built for strategic reasons. You forgot to also mention that one of the reasons for building the illegal settlements on the tops of hills is a power thing as well, where the settlers look down on the Palestinians...

Violet...

[pelsar]

19. home destroyed....

and for military corridors as well...yes I did not put that in as the discussion was pertainingto the "land grab" for settlers. When the homes are destroyed in rafah its along the egyptian/israeli border when most of the smuggling is going on..... its also done for "fields of fire" where snipers are plentyful.

btw neither hrw org, nor amnesty etc have "all knowing" powers. Just because they write something about a military operation or a strategic miltary move, hardly makes it true. In fact I would not trust my life nor those of my friends to their defintion of " IDF securty needs"...as if amnesty intl know what they are!


outside of that particular are, I am not aware of a general corridors being widened etc for the miltary needs.

and yes I know many who have been with me as well and disagree with me...my encounter here so far however has seem to be with people who have little idea of what is actually taking place out there, hence my emphises on actually visiting. Perhaps I have met the more extreme elements here in the meantime

[Djinn]

21. you've made that claim

"my encounter here so far however has seem to be with people who have little idea of what is actually taking place out there"

purely on the basis that they do not agree with you, get 50 different people to visit the West Bank and guess what you'll end up with 50 different opinions.

Your opinion is no more valid than the many people who have likewise spent time in the OT (plenty in the IDF) or those that live there, if you can't come up with a better argument than "I've been there" you seriously lack credibility.

BTW - aren't you supposed to be on active duty now? or is that call up a little flexible?

[pelsar]

25. djinn.....no problem

my initial encounter here was a bit extreme, being called propagandist, etc...and little black marks on pieces of white paper do not make something so. Meaning just because one reads something does not make it reality....no matter how "reputable the site/newspaper is, and photographs depending upon their angle, etc can tell very different stories, which is why actual experience has a large value

and my experiences is, that for those who have never been, there is a lot that they dont know about.

Everytime I get called up, I end up being surprised about something that simply doesnt get in the papers yet is a daily occurence for the army. (I only went in for a week this time, so I'm back at work)

as far as the 50 opinions go for 50 people, no, I would suggest that I, who am considered middle of the road/moderate has the vast majority on "my side". I am familiar with both right and whats left of the "left" here in israel...(but they can be counted on "one hand".)

For those who actually have been in westbank, etc I've only met one here, and that was a short visit, but even those two posts started off interesting.....But my experience is that the discussions many times have a different tone for those who have been vs for those who havent....but then this is just those with whom i have spoken with and doesnt include the extremists.

as far a "validation" of opinion.....its not a matter of one opinion having an intrinsic value higher than someone elses, but what if someones opinion is based on wrong information?

I would like to put however some emphises on actual experience. Would you let someone tell you how to drive a car, who has never driven, but just read about it, or play a computer game?...or pick anything, would you let anybody tell you how to do something that you've been doing for a couple of years and they have never done it?

just a thought on reading vs actual experiences

[Englander]

27. Cool...I guess that I am that extremist to which you refer...

It's a new experience to be labelled as such!
And the phrase "malicious propaganda" refers to this,as it does seem very appropriate,given your previous deleted posted photo...

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3177.shtml

Again,it does not matter where I or you or other posters have been to; you posts your opinion,and then other people decide whether to agree with you or not.

[pelsar]

28. englander....opinions

opinions are based on something, information. Wrong information leads to a wrong opinion....personal experience many times tends to changes ones opinion.

The classic is that from afar you didnt like somebody, and then when you get to know them (personal experience) you change your mind.

__________________________

and just for the record the image I had was of reuters (not an israeli recon plane) of armed palestenians jumping into an UN ambulance....I dont know how that can be described as "malicious propaganda"....its just a photo from a video showing what actually happens.

http://www.orlandojewishfed.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=116847

(and to skip your reaction-this is from a jewish site, though the picture was from reuters)

but how does that make it "malicious propaganda".?

[Djinn]

30. and your opinion is either based on error

or you're deliberately misrepresenting - see "Israel doesn't posess weapons capable..."

then there's the "about to be called up for active duty" thing which has somehow not prevented you from continued posting.

How is YOUR view of the West Bank and Gaza more "informed" than the refuseniks?

BTW - you have no idea where I've been or havn't been - you have no idea where other people posting here have been otr havn't been and your opinion (like everyones) is coming from a personal bias.

[QueerJustice]

34. Israel is one of the most INTERNET connected places on earth....

Even on active duty...
If you had been there you would know this...

I just spent 2 glorious weeks there mingling with some very cute gay soldiers...On active duty....

[Violet_Crumble]

32. I see...

btw neither hrw org, nor amnesty etc have "all knowing" powers.

I don't recall saying they do. No-one does. But when it comes to trusting the expertise, impartiality and on-the-ground experience of those groups, I'd take them any day over what may be biased and unconfirmable anecdotal stories from other folk who may have an agenda to peddle that's got nothing to do with the protection of human rights...

and yes I know many who have been with me as well and disagree with me...my encounter here so far however has seem to be with people who have little idea of what is actually taking place out there, hence my emphises on actually visiting. Perhaps I have met the more extreme elements here in the meantime

How on earth do you know who does and doesn't know what's going on? You don't and I'd suggest you stop calling other posters here 'extreme elements' and continually saying we have 'little idea of what is actually taking place out there'. Do you also hold us all to the same strange standard when it comes to Iraq? Very few of us have been there, after all, but I've not yet seen anyone at DU insinuate that unless we go we have no idea what we're talking about when we criticise the US for what's happening there...

Violet...

[number6]

24. BINGO !!!

"First, the Israeli destroyed the homes of suicide bombers who lived in the West Bank and Gaza as punishment for their deeds. The fact that their families were made homeless was irrelevent. Plus, Israeli did not recognize the Palestinians' inherent rights to own the property in that territory. Sort of like eviction overkill.

Second, this program became utilitarian as destruction of Palestitian homes made it easier to clear that land for future development for Jewish settlements. It would have had to be done eventually, this just gave them a chance to speed up the process with no guilt.

Third, it's a political mind-fuck by driving Palestinians off land they've invested in" .....exactly

oh yea and the destruction of infastructure too !!
water, sewer, electricity