ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

"Land Grab: Israel's Settlement Policy in the West Bank"Published in May 2002.

B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, endeavors to document and educate the Israeli public and policymakers about human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, combat the phenomenon of denial prevalent among the Israeli public, and help create a human rights culture in Israel.
Historical Background
Since 1967, each Israeli government has invested significant resources in establishing and expanding settlements in the Occupied Territories. As a result of this policy, approximately 380,000 Israeli citizens now live on the settlements on the West Bank, including those established in East Jerusalem.

The [peace] process between Israel and the Palestinians did not impede settlement activities, which continued under the Labor government of Yitzhak Rabin (1992-1996) and all subsequent governments. These governments built thousands of new housing units, claiming that this was necessary to meet the "natural growth” of the existing population. As a result, between 1993 and 2000 the number of settlers on the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) increased by almost 100 percent.

International Law
International humanitarian law prohibits [an] occupying power [from transferring] citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit the occupying power [from undertaking] permanent changes in the occupied area, unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.

The establishment of the settlements leads to the violation of the rights of the Palestinians as enshrined in international human rights law. Among other violations, the settlements infringe on the rights to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement.

Taking Control of the Land
Israel has used a complex legal and bureaucratic mechanism to take control of more than fifty percent of the land in the West Bank. This land has been used mainly to establish settlements and create reserves of land for the future expansion of the settlements.

Israel uses the seized lands to benefit the settlements, while prohibiting the Palestinian public from using them in any way. This use is forbidden and illegal in itself. As the occupier in the Occupied Territories, Israel is not permitted to ignore the needs of an entire population and to use land intended for public needs solely to benefit the settlers.

The Policy of Annexation and Local Government
The Israeli administration has applied most aspects of Israeli law to the settlers and the settlements, thus effectively annexing them to the State of Israel…This annexation has resulted in a regime of legalized separation and discrimination. This regime is based on the existence of two separate legal systems in the same territory, with the rights of individuals being determined by their nationality.

The areas of jurisdiction of the Jewish local authorities, most of which extend far beyond the built-up area, are defined as "closed military zones” in the military orders. Palestinians are forbidden to enter these areas without authorization from the Israeli military commander. Israeli citizens, Jews from throughout the world and tourists are all permitted to enter these areas without the need for special permits.

Encouragement of Migration to Settlements
The Israeli governments have implemented a consistent and systematic policy intended to encourage Jewish citizens to migrate to the West Bank…settlers and other Israeli citizens working or investing in the settlements are entitled to significant financial benefits.

The Planning System
The planning system on the West Bank, implemented by the Civil Administration, is one of the most powerful mechanisms of the Israeli occupation. As with the other bureaucratic systems, the planning system operates on two distinct tracks: one for Jews and the other for Palestinians.

This system is responsible for transforming the map of the West Bank because it is the planning system that approves the outline plans for the settlements and issues building permits for the establishment and expansion of settlements and for the construction of by-pass roads. Israel changed the composition of the planning institutions on the West Bank and transferred numerous planning powers to the Jewish local authorities, while expropriating these powers from Palestinian planning institutions.

While facilitating Jewish settlement, the planning system works vigorously to restrict the development of Palestinian communities. The main tool used to this end is to reject requests for building permits filed by Palestinians. In most cases, the requests are rejected on the grounds that the regional outline plans - approved in the 1940s during the British Mandate - prohibit construction in the relevant area of land. These plans do not reflect the development needs of the Palestinian population, and the planning system deliberately refrains from preparing revised plans. Houses built by Palestinians without building permits are demolished by the Civil Administration, even in cases when the construction took place on private land.

CI, I guess you are not awake yet. Revel said israel planned building in Gaza. The last time I looked, E. jerusalem was not in Gaza.

Actually the land grab I was referring to in this post you replied to and the subject of UN censure was the West Bank. I thought the West Bank was in Gaza but I admit now I am little confused. I just always hear the two together.

Did some further checking and it is both in the west bank and E. Jerusalem. Either one is Israel arbitrarily staking its own borders.



source

I 100% agree that Israel should withdraw from every square foot of land it has taken in battle.

But, I also say they should practice the "scorched policy" when they do.
They should totally destroy EVERY single improvement they might have made, from homes to hospitals to roads to water plants to stores to schools to sewage plants, etc.
If the Israeli's built it, they should totally destroy iy before they leave the area.

If the Palestinians want it back, let them rebuild it the way thtey want.

Nothing could be more fair then that.

Not taking sides on the debate but I find it a simplistic reasoning.

There's more fair than that:

- When you live in a rented house, you usually pay the rent.

Why wouldn't Israel leave it to the Palestinians as a compensation for the time they lived there without paying a rent?

Because when you take the land in war, you arent "renting" it.
And when you rent a house, the landlord will usually (but not always) deduct from your rent the cost of any improvements or repairs you made to the property.


If they are being forced to give it back, they should practice the scorched earth policy when they do.
OR, they could give the Palestinians a choice.
They could offer the Pals a chance to actually PAY for all of the improvemets made by the Israeli's.
If they dont pay cash, they dont get to keep the improvements.

MM, your arguments are made to fit your beliefs.

History says otherwise. Many countries paid war compensations.

Invading someone else property is stealing...

Again, I'm not taking sides. I'm just pointing out biaised reasoning.

When the French forces, as part of the allies in WWII, invaded Germany, were they stealing?

Sadly, the Pals had many, many, opportunities to sit down with Israel and negotiate borders. Almost certainly, had this been done, the Pals would have gotten E. Jerusalem. But the Pals have forfeited certain property by their constant attacks on Israel, culminating in the attacks in 1967.

Poor argument, MM.

Did you stay there for forty years?

Even in places where the US kept bases, they pay rent.

Some of the anti-Israel posters proclaimed Lebanon as a democracy. Well, this is not exactly true.


The Big Loser After Lebanon: Democracy


By Amr Hamzawy
The Daily Star, August 22, 2006

The war in Lebanon deeply altered the concerns of elites and citizens in Arab societies. Following three years of unprecedented political dynamism and debates regarding the prospects for democratic transformation in the Arab world, the Arab-Israeli conflict returned to the forefront, turning attention away from the question of democracy.

To be sure, political life in the Middle East during recent years has not all been about ballot boxes and peaceful demonstrations in favor of civil liberties and human rights. It has been marred by terrorism, sectarian violence and oppressive measures by authoritarian regimes. Nor was the Arab-Israeli conflict entirely out of view. Violence in the Palestinian territories continued and sometimes even surpassed the dramatic levels seen at the beginning of the second intifada. However, the fighting in Palestine had somehow become part of the ordinary landscape of Arab citizens. And a growing majority of Arabs had begun to realize that a meaningful democratic transformation, one that included alternation of power and popular participation in decision-making, was the only way to overcome terrorism, sectarianism and repression.

Most political forces in the Arab world, be they ruling elites or opposition movements, shifted their attention away from regional concerns that had bogged them down for decades and turned to domestic challenges. Although tapes of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi made occasional splashes, the hard-edged slogans of jihad and resistance were outweighed by discussion over government promises of constitutional and political reform and opposition demands for their implementation. Arab societies did not become democratic oases, thanks to regime manipulation, the weakness of oppositions, and continued violence here and there. Nevertheless, democratic transformation was on the way to becoming the regional yardstick and frame of reference.

Now, in the wake of the attacks by Israel on Lebanon, the death of hundreds of civilians, and the complicity of major powers, the horror of a regional war with Israel is resurfacing, pushing Arab citizens back into the polarizing dichotomy of resistance versus surrender. Arabs feel they have to choose between resisting American and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East or giving up the right of the Arab and Muslim umma, or community, to exist. Domestic political alignments are shifting away from commitment to democratization. They are being replaced by a singular spectrum with two poles at either end and little in the middle: moderate ruling elites who struggle to evade the current conflict; and Islamist and pan-Arab opposition groups that denounce the softness of the moderate elites and call for jihad and resistance.

This widening ideological divide between ruling elites and oppositions will make it more difficult to adopt political reform measures, which require at least some consensus and flexibility on both sides. More troubling is that the positions of putatively democratic Arab opposition movements on the war in Lebanon have exposed their totalitarian and populist tendencies. There is a great difference between adopting a rational discourse that rightly condemns the Israeli military for its crimes against civilians and criticizes unconditional American acceptance of the war, and cheering the death of Israeli civilians as a step toward the destruction of the "Zionist entity." This goes beyond the tendency of Islamist and pan-Arab opposition movements to opportunistically capitalize on popular feelings to rally support. It shows that these movements lack a key characteristic of reformist political forces: a willingness to combat ideologies of hatred and extremism rather than using them for political advantage.

Furthermore, although they call for democratic reform in Arab countries, Islamist and pan-Arab movements have failed to acknowledge the fundamentally non-democratic nature of the actions of Lebanon's Hizbullah. By unilaterally making a decision of war and peace on July 12, Hizbullah confiscated the right of Lebanon's government, of which it is part, to determine the country's fate. Israel's response, by targeting infrastructure and the civilian population, was surely extreme, legitimizing resistance; however, Hizbullah acted like a state within a state, taking advantage of the weakness of Lebanon's formal institutions and transgressing the principle of consensual decision-making.

The regional shadows of the war in Lebanon will persist for many years. They may well be a long and painful reminder that the hope for any near-term democratic transformation of the Arab world was perhaps the greatest loser in a war that produced tremendous damage on all sides.


Amr Hamzawy is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

Lebanon's democracy is way ahead of Israel; they do not practice apartheid.

Advocate, did you read the article before you posted it? And if so, do you think you understood the author's point?

Here, Advo - what do you think Amr Hamzawy is trying to say in this paragraph:

And the Jews continue to increase their settlements in the West Bank.


Israel OKs New Homes in West Bank
By MARK LAVIE,AP
Posted: 2008-03-09 18:48:53
Filed Under: World News
JERUSALEM (March 9) - Israel announced plans Sunday to build hundreds of homes in the West Bank and disputed east Jerusalem, setting off another crisis in the embattled peace process ahead of the arrival of a key U.S. mediator.

Israel doesn't practice apartheid.

The piece makes it pretty clear that Lebanon is not much of a democracy, as CI and others claimed. For instance, Hez and other militias reject any government control. Until recently, Syria called the shots in Lebanon.

Lebanon and Hez have persecuted Jews in Lebanon. That is apartheid.

Yeah? To me, it seemed like the author made the argument that, after Israel's extensive military intervention that left hundreds of civilians in Lebanon dead, the progress of democracy in the Middle East has been severely set back.

A good article, by the way.

Are you big enough to admit that Israel's invasion was fully justified? Hez had been attacking Israel for about 10 years with rockets and invasions. Finally, Israel had enough when Hez invaded and killed seven and kidnapped two soldiers.

you are talking nonsense. who or what is hez? and which territory did they invade and occupy?

In Israel/Palestine no such territorial structure of segregation was created, though from 1948-66 the military governments controlled Israeli Arabs' movements, curfewed them, controlled where they lived and confiscated their land to favour Jewish occupation. South African apartheid wanted the land and the people, albeit with segregation; the Israeli leadership tried to take the land without the people, a policy seriously challenged by the 1967 war, which altered the demographic reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nearly a million Palestinians remained in the occupied territories in 1967, equal to a third of the Jewish population on the total land controlled by Israel. Although Israel continued to pursue a transfer policy, more voluntary than forced (7), most of the Palestinian population remained. Examining Israel's response to this, we begin to understand the similarities that have emerged between Israel and apartheid South Africa, despite their initial historical differences.


http://mondediplo.com/2003/11/04apartheid