The war on the Palestinian olive harvest

[azurnoir]

Dry shrubs and a mishmash of makeshift tarpaulin shelters cover parts of this parched valley in the South Hebron Hills. The carcass of a car rests in the bottom of a cistern. According to Breaking the Silence, an organization of veteran combatants that works to expose to the Israeli public to the realities of the occupation, it had been placed there by local settlers in order to contaminate collected rainwater with rust. This is the village of Susya al-Qadima. There is an absence here of local infrastructure, as Israeli civil authorities repeatedly deny building permits, and the entire village has been issued pending demolition orders. Unlike the much younger neighboring Jewish settlement of Susya, it doesn’t get much more arid and inaccessible in the West Bank than here.

Last Saturday, Israeli Border Police declared an area belonging to Susya al-Qadima a closed military zone, effective immediately. An officer waved papers at us and stated that he was legally warranted to force everyone out of the valley. We noticed that the orders were outdated, unsigned, and dictated that only Israelis were prohibited from entering the specified site. This did not stop the temporary expulsion of Palestinian locals.

An activist beside me from Taayush, the Israeli and Palestinian organization which uses non-violent direct action to try and end the occupation, was detained as he argued against the authority’s actions. He was handcuffed and marched to the army pillbox overlooking the valley. The Border Police prohibited locals from farming their own land, manhandled us, and threatened anyone who remained in the area with arrest. Instead of harvesting, the families gathered outside the closed military zone, overlooking their unpicked olive grove from a distance. Just another day in the South Hebron Hills.

Year after year, West Bank farmers experience multiple types of restrictions and physical attacks. In the first week of this year’s olive harvest, more than 870 olive trees were vandalized or destroyed by settlers, according to the United Nations. Hundreds more are reported to have since been damaged or destroyed across the West Bank.

http://972mag.com/the-war-on-the-palestinian-olive-harvest/58726/

[oberliner]

1. Are you going to post all of 972mag's articles individually?

Might be easier to just group them together into one big post.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

2. Silence to the present acts of brutality.

Apologists love to ignore the apartheid state.

[King_David]

3. 'apartheid state '?

Anyone using that terminology shows more about themselves than fact.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. Anybody hiding from that term shows more about themselves than fact.

Last edited Tue Oct 30, 2012, 10:24 PM - Edit history (1)

And the apologists danced into the early morning light...

[Shaktimaan]

19. Maybe...

Or perhaps many people recognize that using a term like that does more to defer the discussion of any real issues, shunting any discussion off into the realm of arguing over whether the term is accurate or not. At it's very best, the use of that term is intellectually dishonest, seeking to negatively associate the current I/P issue with a different historical concept. It simplifies the similarities and ignores the differences, and there are far more differences than there are similarities.

Even if the term WAS accurate, which it isn't, do you see how quickly this conversation devolved into simplistic name calling? You say apartheid. They say that's dumb. You say apologist. And nothing meaningful gets discussed at all. So for once I'd like to ignore the debate as to whether or not the term is accurate and focus on the fact that it is unhelpful at best and counterproductive at worst. By the latter I refer to those whom the term alienates within Israel and amongst US Zionists... people who you will ultimately need if you have any real desire to effect change in the I/P crisis.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

26. Actually your hypothesis is off.

The term apartheid is not intellectually dishonest, as you say, but real and accurate to a great many Palestinians that live within Israel's policies towards Palestine: blockades, military incursions and attacks of farms/farmers crops. As to negatively associating the current I/P issue with a different historical concept all I would say is that it is spot on, and that is what really annoys the critics of such language.

If Israel doesn't like the situation being called what it is then they are free to ignore such criticism just like they ignore their own citizens growing illegal outposts on Palestinian land.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/31/us-palestinians-israel-settlements-idUSBRE89U0QC20121031

http://www.timesofisrael.com/government-approves-three-illegal-settlements/

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/04/201242484751503415.html

And how their leader says that "America is something that can easily be moved. Moved in the right direction." Sounds like he believes he can say/do whatever he wants and America will be swayed. Netanyahu: the George W. Bush of Israel.

#!

So don't worry about what I write. It may be ignored, but I will write it. It may be laughed at, but I will not waver. It may be fought, but in the end I hope the Palestinians win a homeland of their own: living at peace alongside Israel.

It may be a long time in the coming, but I hope one day that it happens.

[Shaktimaan]

27. The obvious problem...

The term apartheid is not intellectually dishonest, as you say, but real and accurate to a great many Palestinians that live within Israel's policies towards Palestine: blockades, military incursions and attacks of farms/farmers crops.

Is that none of the issues detailed above have much of anything to do with apartheid. If we are to look at Israeli policy and identify it as apartheid, it requires fundamentally altering the original definition of the word. Beyond that, if we then look at the policies imposed by other states, many of which are similar but many more of which are far worse regarding discrimination based on race, religion or nationality, then we are forced to admit that most states in the world are apartheid.

In short, if Israel is apartheid, then most states are apartheid as well, so the word loses its stigma.

As to negatively associating the current I/P issue with a different historical concept all I would say is that it is spot on, and that is what really annoys the critics of such language.

That's funny because after reading your other posts I really am not sure you know what apartheid even is.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

29. So I see that you are on to number two already.

It may be ignored, but I will write it.

It may be laughed at, but I will not waver.

So I punt it back into your hands. After reading your posts I am really sure that you know what apartheid is and try poorly to deflect that Israel is an apartheid state.

[Shaktimaan]

30. a more sensible approach...

would be to not exclude changing your mind when you learn new information about a subject. Insisting that you will never waver no matter what happens is the sign of a zealot, and a viewpoint that negates intellectual debate.

So you think that Israel is an apartheid state... why? What policies of theirs are apartheid in your opinion? What's the criteria being used?

What other states do you consider apartheid?

I actually have no problem critiquing Israel and there is plenty to criticize there. That does not mean I am interested in making baseless accusations as they tend to detract from debating the important issues at hand.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

32. Let's try again since you ignored this.

If Israel doesn't like the situation being called what it is then they are free to ignore such criticism just like they ignore their own citizens growing illegal outposts on Palestinian land.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/31/us-palestinians-israel-settlements-idUSBRE89U0QC20121031

http://www.timesofisrael.com/government-approves-three-illegal-settlements/

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/04/201242484751503415.html

And how their leader says that "America is something that can easily be moved. Moved in the right direction." Sounds like he believes he can say/do whatever he wants and America will be swayed. Netanyahu: the George W. Bush of Israel.

Care to comment on these before you try to move the narrative?

Also.


The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

Interestingly, Israel hasn't signed this statute. I wonder why.

Now before you try and move the narrative I just want to explain that I can go further and dig up a lot of factual information on why I believe that Israel is what it is today. They have had two George Bush's in a row as PM (both Ariel and BiBi), and we all know that righties will do whatever it takes to remain in power. If Israel wanted to remove all the illegal settlements outside of their borders they would do it, but they don't. If Israel wanted to cede all the accumulated land outside of their borders they would do it, but they don't. They're going to hold on to whatever land that they can and keep it for as long as possible.

The Palestinians will fight this for as long as they can.

That's the only war they can fight, and I see this as disastrous for both sides.

You can call them terrorists. Many do. I don't condone their acts of violence just as I don't condone Israel's either. For that matter I didn't condone the IRA, Tamil tigers or whomever uses violence to solve a dispute.

All I would like to see it peace between both sides, and them both respecting each other 's people and borders.

[Shaktimaan]

34. Sure.

I did not comment on those links because I did not see how they were related to the subject. Link one describes illegal outposts set up by wildcat extremists, which the Israeli government subsequently scheduled for demolition. The last two links are about the same thing, the three outposts that were previously considered illegal were suddenly granted official status, making them the first new settlements in the west bank that Israel has granted official status to in decades.

Their reason is pretty obvious though... before this year all of the new settlements were technically illegal, but since Israel didn't usually demolish most of them too frequently, they remained standing and continued to grow, even if it was unofficial in Israel's eyes. But PeaceNow has been successfully petitioning the courts to enforce the laws regarding building on privately owned Palestinian land, resulting in the forced demolition of several wildcat settlements. Thus, if Israel has any of those settlements that it would like to keep, it has to officially legitimize them quickly before they are ordered destroyed.

So, while some are trying to use it as evidence of changing Israeli policy, the reality is more mundane. It is an effort at keeping the status quo in the face of PeaceNow's recent legal successes. The benefit is that it forces Israel's hand, making them acknowledge their support of these settlements and thus, responsible for the subsequent criticisms. Before Israel was happy to just ignore them officially while granting their tacid support behind the scenes.

That said, I fail to see how it has anything to do with Apartheid. One can oppose Israel's settlement policies while still rejecting this misuse of the apartheid label.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

37. Officially legitimize them quickly? An illegal settlement outside of Israel proper?

Yes, you do fail to see.

How many of these illegal Israeli settlements allow Palestinians to live in them? How many Palestinians are allowed access to their former lands or farms near these illegal settlements?

Easy question. How many illegal Palestinian settlements pop up inside Israel? None.

On 30 November 1973, the United Nations General Assembly opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.[1] It defined the crime of apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them."

Apartheid is segregation; whether or not Israel wants to try and legitimize it into its own territory.

I wonder why you fail to see the obvious.

[Shaktimaan]

39. you are confused...

I imagine because you failed to read all of the pertinent information.

Parsing the definition out we see some important signifiers. First off, the act has to be "inhuman." The Rome Statute's definition clarified this to mean "a crime against humanity." So right off the bat these examples fail to meet the criteria. Crimes against humanity are things like genocide, systematic rape, murder and so on. Not allowing Palestinians to live in settlements? Not on the list.

Now comes the thing that really kills your argument...

To qualify as apartheid these inhuman acts MUST be "committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them." In other words, were the settlements built for the sole purpose of systematically oppressing Palestinians? Of course not. Those settlements were built because the settlers want the land and believe they have a legitimate claim to it. At any rate, settlement construction is about the land, NOT about wanting to dominate the Palestinians. If the settlers had their way, all of the Palestinians would not even be there. If the Palestinians do get oppressed it is out of a desire to claim the land.

Lastly... establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.

Neither Israelis nor Palestinians are racial groups. In fact, every type of racial group that make up the Palestinian nation is also represented in Israel, where they face no oppression whatsoever and in fact ARE allowed to go live on a settlement if they so choose. This is kind of the key thing about apartheid. I'm surprised to see you ignoring it without even attempting to justify this flaw in your argument.

Apartheid is segregation.

Is it? Since when? Because none of your definitions support that belief.

I wonder why you fail to see the obvious.

Because I understand that specific words have specific meanings. You claim is only obvious if you disregard the meaning of the definition you posted.

[shira]

81. Proof of Palestinians living in settlements...

Also...

In 2007, the latest year with available statistics, about 1,300 of Pisgat Zeev's 42,000 residents were Arabs. In nearby French Hill, population 7,000, nearly one-sixth are Arabs, among them students at the neighboring Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Neve Yaakov, with 20,000 people, had 600 Arabs, according to the Israel Center for Jerusalem Studies, a respected think tank.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32702595/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa#.UJUoMjlAtvc

Apartheid?

[Shaktimaan]

35. Now then...

Regarding your definition of apartheid and whether or not it applies to Israeli policies, I think I will let Richard Goldstone, (a former justice of the South African Constitutional Court, who led the United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict of 2008-9), make my case for me. I recommend you read the entire article at the link provided.

THE Palestinian Authority’s request for full United Nations membership has put hope for any two-state solution under increasing pressure. The need for reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians has never been greater. So it is important to separate legitimate criticism of Israel from assaults that aim to isolate, demonize and delegitimize it.

One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues “apartheid” policies. In Cape Town starting on Saturday, a London-based nongovernmental organization called the Russell Tribunal on Palestine will hold a “hearing” on whether Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid. It is not a “tribunal.” The “evidence” is going to be one-sided and the members of the “jury” are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known.

While “apartheid” can have broader meaning, its use is meant to evoke the situation in pre-1994 South Africa. It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/israel-and-the-apartheid-slander.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Does this objection to words only apply when they're aimed at Israel?

It's just I've noticed some 'supporters' of Israel are free and fast with flinging the word 'apartheid' around when it's aimed at Arab states or countries they don't approve of (usually most other countries apart from Israel and the US), which makes me think they're totally ignorant of what the term means, and are the types who'd object to any negative word or term being used to criticise Israel's policies in the West Bank....

btw, been a while, Shakti. Hope all's well with you. I have a vague memory that yr somewhere in or round New York City, and if so I hope you came through unscathed...

[Shaktimaan]

58. Regarding use of the term "apartheid?" Yes. More or less.

That is not to say I freely use the term to describe Arab states or any other nations who engage in acts I abhor, either. According to the given definitions, actual crimes of apartheid are thankfully rare in the world. The standard of proof that a institutional crime must meet to qualify as a crime of apartheid is just too high for it to be a common occurrence. But yeah, I only object when it is used against Israel because Israel is the subject I discuss most often. My subject of interest is not the misuse of the term apartheid around the globe. It is Israel. So of course I only address these issues when they affect Israel, but it's not hypocritical to do so.

Now I have no problem with the critique of Israeli actions, especially when it comes to their west bank settlement policies. What I do take issue with is the use of a term like apartheid when it is clearly being used dishonestly. It's used specifically to try and tap into the existing negative feelings the world has regarding the South African policy that ended in the 90s. In the ad biz we call this "borrowed equity" and it's considered dirty pool. It lends itself to being used in ways that leverage the bad feelings towards the term without really connecting the reasons people hated SA's apartheid with anything that Israel is doing today. It requires significantly altering the meaning of the word from what it meant in SA, so it can be applied to anything that Israel is doing today. But that meaningful point is purposefully lost because as soon as Israel's policies are labeled as "apartheid" the discussion is effectively over.

The motive behind using this term is not to foster meaningful discussion regarding Israeli politics. It is to force their opponents to defend "apartheid policies", a debate that is obviously lost before it begins. (Not on any merit of the arguments but by virtue of apartheid being indefensible.) Lost in the shuffle is the fact that the apartheid we remember is not anything like Israel's policies that now bear the same name. That name becomes their only common trait.

Other examples of this tactic being used against Israel are when parallels are drawn between Gaza and the Warsaw Ghetto. In reality they share no common traits at all. But that doesn't matter. To even force your opponent to explain how the two are different is to have forced him to vocalize a comparison between the two. Another would be to compare the Zionists with Nazis. Using these types of arguments diverts the discussion away from meaningful debates over the nature of certain policies or human rights and instead bogs us all down in the minutiae of defining the exact meaning of a certain term. Instead of explaining why Zionism is bad we see debates over why Zionism is JUST like Nazism. But since Zionism isn't REALLY anything like Nazism it requires a lot of weird historical voodoo to make the argument, which is then refuted and the next thing you know we are debating whether Zionism and Nazism are similar; an argument which ultimately contributes NOTHING to anyone's understanding of the I/P conflict whatsoever.

But it is never enough to simply state why Zionism is wrong... no, it can't merely be "bad", it has to be "worse than the Nazis." Bibi isn't merely "wicked", he must be Hitler multiplied by Pol Pot and then given rabies. And Israel's settlement policies can't just be unethical and counterproductive, they must be apartheid.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. Singling Israel out...

When I was reading yr post about how you only object when it's about Israel because Israel is what yr interested in made me think of the many accusations from 'supporters' of Israel I've seen that people who criticise Israel are singling Israel out because they don't complain more about <insert name of other issue here>. We're not talking about the use of the term around the world. I was talking about it being aimed at ME states and the Palestinians...

I've always said that Israel's policies in the West Bank are reminiscent of apartheid, and nothing I've seen since has changed my view on that. When there's two different legal systems where Israelis are under Israeli law and Palestinians under military law, where roads are segregated, where moving Palestinians from their homes and land to make way for Israelis, that's ugly stuff, and is reminiscent of apartheid. While Israel/Palestine and South Africa differ in some ways (eg Israel is occupying territory that isn't part of Israel and the apartheid style practices don't happen in Israel itself, while South Africa was internal to SA), the segregation, the laws and rules that discriminate against one group of people, and other things like that make what Israel does in the Occupied Territories carry a very negative feeling, and I'm not sure why anyone would expect people to have warm fuzzy feelings about what is a very ugly practice towards the Palestinians in the West Bank...

[shira]

80. Violet, if Israeli policies vs. Palestinians are reminiscent of apartheid...

.....then in order to be fair and honest, you should also voice concern and call out Syria and Jordan for their policies WRT Palestinians. Their policies aren't just reminiscent, but are the very definition of apartheid.

In Syria, Palestinian refugees & their offspring cannot vote or become citizens.

In Jordan, they cannot own property or work in many professions.

At least in Israel, Palestinians can sit in the Knesset and on the Supreme court. Outside of the green line, Palestinians in East Jerusalem (considered West Bank by outspoken leftist critics) can become citizens and do whatever they wish.

The fact Syria and Jordan are rarely, if ever, condemned for genuine apartheid policy by Israel's fiercest critics goes to show that the charge is purely a political tool used to single out and bash Israel (and nearly always the Jews).

But it's worse than that. Far worse.

Israel's fiercest critics crying apartheid are doing their best to ensure Palestinians suffer under genuine apartheid conditions throughout the rest of the mideast. They deny, ignore, or deflect when confronted with irrefutable evidence that it's happening; essentially running interference for Arab regimes intentionally oppressing Palestinians.

I've asked you and your colleagues here many times about apartheid conditions in Lebanon, for example. I never get a straight answer. I can only assume you cannot be bothered by Palestinians suffering under apartheid unless Israel can be blamed for it. If you'd like some straight discussion and debate about Israeli apartheid, it would help if all this were discussed more honestly and within context (relative to other situations).

[azurnoir]

7. you mean like Desmond Tutu?

or Israeli's who when polled did not seem to have all too much problem with it?

[King_David]

13. Tutu has his own issues recently

Like his support for an extremely antisemitic Free Gaza Movement .
You remember the whole Greta Berlin scandal / revelation don't you?

[azurnoir]

28. of course I do and it really doesn't seem much of a problem except for those who wish very very very

hard for it to be a problem but then again as I pointed out on that thread the only ones 'impressed' were the ones who antiTutu prior to that, by the way how's that change.org petition doing ? Last I checked about 30 seconds ago it's at a smoking 34 signatures after only a mere 4 weeks.

[King_David]

31. Umm , so ? nt

[oberliner]

4. Silence is not speaking out

I apologize for nothing.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

6. I would expect no less.

[oberliner]

11. That's great

I love your username btw.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

33. Thanks.

BTW: I only want the best for Israel and Palestine.

I would criticize the USA, and have, for their crappy dealings around the world.

[King_David]

36. You want the best for Israel by demonizing it as

An "apartheid state" even though Shaktimaan has proved above beyond any doubt that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever what the meaning of the word is ?????

Ha , that's funny ...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

38. If you are so incline you may keep on drinking the kool-aid then, King D.

Shaktimaan has done nothing of the sort.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=20287

You know what's not funny?

It's not funny to turn a blind eye to Israeli aggression towards Palestinians.

It's not funny to make excuses for Israel while demonizing Palestinians.

[King_David]

41. Try stick to the topic and not

Veer off on a tangent...

The topic was that Shsktimaan proved above... Without any shadow of a doubt ... That you are calling Israel an "Apartheid State" without even understanding what the word apartheid means.

That's clear to anyone reading this thread.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

44. I have kept to the topic even when Shsktimaan tried to dance away from it.

Nice try, King D. Your Kool-Aid awaits.

[King_David]

47. Israel the Apartheid State :

In Tel Aviv They put French Fries in their Shwarma...gross..Israel the Apartheid State

In the Knesset they have Coca Cola Machines not Pepsi ....Israel the Apartheid State

They have in supermarkets Milky and Milky afooch....Israel the Apartheid State

Pesach time the Bakeries sell Kosher Lepesach Bread Cakes and Bagels...Israel the Apartheid State

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

48. Keep on laughing, King D.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
-Mahatma Gandhi

[azurnoir]

49. about your quote

I've read in these here parts (DU2) that he was an antisemite too

[King_David]

51. Not Apartheid ?

Apartheid is the new Black, its in vogue , doncha know Daaarlingggg ....

[King_David]

50. Aint gonna happen

The Jewish State is strong...Jews have not been this strong for 2000 minus 64 years.

And nobody will 'win'

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

52. I'm glad you can feel confident to double down on the language of "Jewish state."

That wouldn't be my take. My criticism is not with "The Jewish State" as you call it but instead with the state of Israel.

Aint gonna happen? History has heard that cocksure retort before only to see the quotee eat crow.

[King_David]

55. You really are clueless aren't you ?

The Jewish State and The State of Israel are one and the same .

Am Yisrael Chai ( google that Apartheid )

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

60. No, you're just willfully blind.

To imply a Jewish State when Israel is only about 76% Jewish is remarkable in how one just ignores the other 24%. What do you consider the rest: transients, extras, servants?

Is this your 47% remark, King D?

That's why I refer to Israel as Israel. I guess that some can ignore the rest of the population to live out their fantasies.

[King_David]

69. You do not know much Jewish or Hebrew do you?

`That's why I refer to Israel as Israel`

Thats really funny.



That is the reason the Nutjob in Tehran refers to the Jewish State as

'The Zionist Entity' and not The State of Israel (or bnei Yisrael).

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

72. Take your fake outrage somplace else, King D. Alright?

Once you start trying to link me with the Nutjob in Tehran he conversation is over.

Waste the time of somebody else.

[King_David]

73. Well you denied The Jewish State

Right here :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=20333

and here :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=20310



I apologize if I was wrong, but it seemed that way to me?

Was I wrong?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

84. Yes, you are wrong, again.

I called Israel Israel and acknowledged that as a nation is not 100% Jewish. 24% are listed as other.

You can play with your dog whistle all you like, but it makes you appear more foolish with each post.

[King_David]

85. "foolish" ?

That's your debating strategy ?

If you can't beat them factually ... Call them foolish?

Oki Doki smokie .. Hope that works for you... Good luck with this.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

86. Thanks. It just worked wonders, KD.

Now back to the apartheid state.

[Shaktimaan]

74. It implies no such thing.

Is referring to Italy as Italy a remark that ignores any Italian citizen who is not also of Italian heritage?

BTW, the term Israel is the same thing as saying "the Jewish State." That is what Israel means. Saying that you use the term "Israel" and not "the Jewish State" because the latter ignores non-Jewish citizens is the same thing as differentiating between a Kleenex and a tissue. There is no difference. One is the thing itself while the other is merely the given name of that same thing.

[Violet_Crumble]

75. The problem with yr Italy and Italian thing...

If someone were to refer to Italy as an Italian state, it's not excluding any Italian citizen, as they're all Italians. The equivalent of that would be referring to Israel as the Israeli state. Doing that wouldn't exclude any Israeli citizens...

[oberliner]

76. What about Macedonia?

About 65 percent of the citizens are ethnic Macdeonians. There is a significant minority population (around 25 percent) of ethnic Albanians. While these self-identified Albanians are Macdeonian citizens (as non-Jewish Israelis are Israeli citizens) they have a separate ethnic and, in some cases, national identity from the majority of the population.

[Shaktimaan]

82. No problem. It's just semantics.

V, obviously since "nationality" can refer to either citizenship or one's ethnicity, whether or not someone of Chinese heritage holding Italian citizenship qualifies as "Italian" depends entirely on which definition is being referred to. Just because this single word can have either meaning doesn't make my example any less relevant. The term "Italian" is only ever used to refer to one definition at a time. That our Chinese-Italian CAN refer to himself as Italian does not change the fact that he is still ethnically Chinese in an Italian State. ("Italian state" meaning a state based on the Italian ethic group exercising its national self-determination.)

Which is fine. Acknowledging that Italy is a state that was formed specifically for the Italian ethnicity in no way makes him any less of an Italian citizen.

The name "Israel" actually means "Jewish state." Yes, this means that certain aspects of Jewish culture and heritage will take precedence there. If we go to Japan we do not expect to see both Japanese and Chinese cultures given equal status, do we?

[Shaktimaan]

62. Of course, you do realize that...

the very same policies that Gandhi fought so hard for were the ones that ultimately lead to the deaths of over a million innocent people during the Partition that immediately followed the end of the Raj. Compare that to the casualties from the two wars that accompanied Israel gaining its independence which topped out at 15,000-20,000 deaths, (total, from all sides.)

Compared to Israel I doubt whether we can say that Gandhi actually "won" anything at all once we consider the price that was paid.

[azurnoir]

8. well yes you've certainly spoken out I'll give you that

however what about Desmond Tutu who also says that Israel practices apartheid in the West Bank any thoughts there?

[oberliner]

12. Have you considered walking the walk as well as talking the talk?

That brings the respect and credibility level up several notches.

If you've been there and you've seen it, then I withdraw my statement.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. People can criticise Israel without having been to the West Bank...

Just like they can criticise the Palestinian leadership without having been there. And just like people didn't need to go to Iraq to be able to criticise the US govt for what they did there....

[oberliner]

56. It was just a question

There are things both large and small one can do to help alleviate this situation.

Like, for instance, where does your olive oil come from?

[Violet_Crumble]

70. Sure, it was just an innocent conversational travel question n/t

[oberliner]

77. No it wasn't

It has to do with different ways to address the issue in the OP.

One way is to post articles about it.

Another way is to work with people on the ground.

There are a myriad of other actions in between.

[azurnoir]

17. you did not answer the question I asked about Desmond Tutu he's been there

and walked the walk

[oberliner]

78. He definitely acts on his convictions

A lot more impressive than squawking on a message board.

[Ken Burch]

87. Does it matter that this is from 972mag?

Why should that source automatically discredit the story?

There have been concerted(and usually unprovoked)Israeli attacks on Palestinian olive groves. Are we to assume that EVERY Palestinian olive farmer is a terrorist?

[Violet_Crumble]

9. There was a time when the Israeli govt condemned these attacks...

Clearly that wasn't Nutty or his fellow extremists. At one point the Israeli govt was making noises about the extremist settlers attacking Palestinians trying to harvest their crops, though I'm not sure they took any real steps to put a stop to the violence...

[oberliner]

10. No there wasn't

This has been going on with impunity for a very long time.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Yes there was. Olmert condemned the attacks...

Of course the attacks have continued for a long time without impunity, coz the settlers ignore piddly little things like condemnation...

Olmert condemns olive tree uprooting

Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in his first public statement on security matters since Prime Minister Ariel Sharon fell ill last Wednesday, called the cutting down of Palestinian olive trees a "criminal act" that needed to be treated with "full force." "This is a terrible thing being perpetrated by a group whose roots and agenda we can identify; we cannot countenance such a thing," Olmert said in reference to right-wing extremists suspected of cutting down the trees. "This must be prevented; the perpetrators must be apprehended."

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=9575

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Five attacks on olive harvesters and damaged olive groves in four days

Events raise suspicion that Security forces not prepared to protect Palestinian olive harvesters and their property from settler violence

Between October 7th and 10th, 2012, with the start of the West Bank's annual olive harvest, B'Tselem has documented five cases of injury to Palestinian farmers and their olive trees in the Ramallah and Nablus regions. In two incidents, settlers attacked farmers picking olives and damaged their yields. In three other cases, olive trees were discovered damaged or with the olives stolen, apparently by settlers. The direct attacks documented by B'Tselem occurred while members of the security forces were present. All the locations where damage to trees was discovered are familiar to the security forces as areas where Palestinians are subject to repeated harassment by settlers.

The accumulation of incidents since the start of the olive harvest suggests that security forces were not adequately deployed to fulfill their duty to protect Palestinian olive harvesters and their property from settler violence. In the two settler attacks on olive pickers, forces in the field apparently did not abide by clear instructions from the army and the High Court of Justice, which prohibit closing off areas to Palestinian farmers and removing Palestinian farmers attacked by settlers. The police and the army must investigate each of these incidents and examine complaints that soldiers stood idly by during the attacks by settlers.

http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20121011_settler_attacks

[azurnoir]

18. seeing as how this happens virtually every olive harvest

one would think that if security forces would be doing their job, not prepared is an understatement

[Violet_Crumble]

23. They prepared very well for standing idly by and doing nothing to stop it...

They've had years of experience in doing that so they've probably got it down to a fine art by now

[shira]

20. New Video Shows Palestinians, Left Wing Activists Cutting Down Olive Trees

http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/10/15/new-video-shows-palestinians-left-wing-activists-cutting-down-olive-trees-video/

&feature=player_embedded

[King_David]

21. black op Zionist Jews,

Clearly.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

45. Keep on laughing if you will. Too bad the video

wasn't run over by a bulldozer. We could all have a merry laugh then.

[King_David]

46. I think we have different sense of humours ,

Come again ?

[azurnoir]

22. so that's what the algeminer calls clearing brush

thanks seems a popular meme every olive harvest last year it was Ynet guess they're taking turns with this all important scoop

[Violet_Crumble]

24. I wonder if ones like that can't see the difference between settlers and the landowners...

I'm not sure why anyone would think that Palstinians clearing brush and removing a tree mitigates what the settlers do. Maybe I missed something and it's the settlers who own the olive trees and they're just carrying out their right to dispose of their property as they wish? Nah, it's the Palestinian farmers who own those trees, and last time I checked they don't want Israeli settlers destroying their property and livelihoods...

What next? Someone's going to claim that those extremist settlers are really just Palestinian farmers dressed up to look like settlers?

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Video: Hebron settlers and the olive harvest

Urgh. There's so much revolting in this...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

40. How long until the legitimacy of this video is called into question?

"The olive tree belongs to this neighborhood."

"They're (Palestinians) are stealing olives" say the illegal settlers.

"They're (Palestinians) all murderers" say the illegal settlers.

Palestinians apparently have little to no rights unless they have an armed presence to protect them.

And even then when the IDF is there the settlers are allowed to antagonize the Palestinian farmer.

Oh there were arrests.

http://972mag.com/photos-three-arrested-as-settlers-soldiers-disrupt-hebron-olive-harvest/58224/


The thing that nobody brings up is that how many of these settlements are fundamentalist in nature? How do you argue with a fundamentalist?

By God’s promise this land is ours!’ Settlers attack Palestinian oliver-pickers

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/10/by-gods-promise-this-land-is-ours-settlers-attack-palestinian-oliver-pickers.html


Sad, that this is defended or ignored by so called liberals and progressives anywhere.
Yeah, apartheid because god says so.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. It wouldn't surprise me if it already has been...

Though the 'supporters' of Israel who are prone to doing that would have swiftly stopped watching the second the settlers started screaming at people that they were Nazis. If they got through that, they wouldn't have gotten past that woman who was giving a great demonstration of being a really bad mother by getting right in the middle of the angry settlers and screaming at the top of her lungs while ignoring that it was scaring the poor kid. Those settlers don't make the most sympathetic material in the world to work with, though I guess with a bit of blindness and sheer stubborness, some zealot somewhere might try to insist it's a *Pallywood* production, coz Israelis would never behave like that...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

43. I'm not sure why 1+1 doesn't add up to the desired 2 for some.

Sad that it has to happen on a progressive board.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. I think that some people get so wrapped up in their 'cause' that they get blind to a lot...

Everything becomes a one-dimensional battlefield, where the aim isn't to wish for a fair and just resolution to the conflict for both Israelis and Palestinians, but an absolute fixation on showing how utterly evil the other 'side' is, and argue against any criticism of their 'side'. It results in some idiotic 'arguments', as in the ones concocted by the settlers where they pretend it's actually Palestinians destroying the olive trees and attacking Palestinian non-combatants, even though there's mountains of video evidence to show the opposite. Even Israeli govts haven't sunk to that level of sheer stupidity and blindness, and haven't denied that the settlers do attack the farmers...

[oberliner]

57. If it's Friday, it must be Mondoweiss!

It's a wonder links to that cesspool are still posted with impunity.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

59. Or It's friday, and another denier laughs at the truth.

If you can't deny the truth then ignore it and ridicule the source.

How FOX News...

[Shaktimaan]

64. have you noticed...

just HOW anti-semitic Mondoweiss is a lot of the time? There's a very good reason that it doesn't garner much respect around here. They are not a reliable place to go if you care about "the truth" in any way, shape or form. At their most tame they are rabidly anti-zionist. At their worst they are openly anti-semitic. In fact, the abti-semitic comments have gotten so bad lately that mondoweiss recently revamped their posting policies completely to try and reign some of the obvious examples in somewhat.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

66. Can you refute the story? Do you care about the truth?

Tell you what. I'll work to get the photos from a different site with story. Get ready to try and dispute that as well.

I'm sure there will be another round of doubt about my intentions.

[Shaktimaan]

67. Of course I care about the truth.

More than that, I also care about YOU having access to honest sources of information, which is why I was warning you away from Mondoweiss. Now I wasn't disputing this particular story and I think you know that. I WAS warning you that MW will very often portray stories that lack certain key facts or even highlight untrue or unconfirmed "facts" that no reputable news outfit would ever touch. They are a great place to find the most inaccurate narratives about the history of the region and the cause of any given event involving Israel or the Palestinians.

I am not sure why you would choose to get ANY of your news from anti-semitic souces, or why you would then defend them. Mondoweiss has a clearly stated agenda and it is NOT to disseminate the unbiased truth about the Middle East. It is to turn public opinion against Israel (in general) and Zionism (in particular.)

[Shaktimaan]

61. Seriously?

The thing that nobody brings up is that how many of these settlements are fundamentalist in nature?

Are you kidding? You think that nobody talks about the fundamentalist streak present in many of the settler's ideology? If that's true then you really have not spent much time on these kinds of boards or reading news about the I/P conflict. Because that's a consistent theme that's constantly being rehashed and brought up.

The reality is that most of the settlers are NOT fundamentalists. Those people are the minority in the settlement community, itself a minority within the Israeli community, let alone world Jewry. And out of the fundamentalist settlers, these ones on the tape are from Hebron, which has got to be the most volatile hotspot in the entire I/P conflict. It is where the very worst settlers live. It is where some of the worst atrocities were committed against the indigenous Jews by Arabs. And it is literally one of the places where the entire conflict actually began.

So yeah, those guys suck. No one denies it. They are hated throughout Israel as much as they are in the Arab world. No one's going to question the video's legitimacy, I'm very sure it's all true. Those assholes do shit like that all the time. It's hardly uncommon. But bear in mind that those are the worst of the worst among Israelis. It's the equivalent of showing Hamas bomb-makers talking about how much they hate the Jews as they wire together explosives. We always knew that these people existed. Showing that they exist and really ARE mean isn't exactly shocking news.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

63. I find your tapdance increasingly irrelevant.

I have hardly heard from the MSM about the percent of settlers being fundamentalist or otherwise.

But thank you for this.

"It is where the very worst settlers live. It is where some of the worst atrocities were committed against the indigenous Jews by Arabs."

You can't even call them what they are: Palestinians. You're just as much a part of the problem, and I'm supposed to kidding? You let a little of that racism slip through where Palestinians can't even be given the name that they should be called.

So you're right. Those settlers suck. They were caught on video so what is said about them can't be refuted.

"But bear in mind that those are the worst of the worst among Israelis."

And you think that I am going to take your word for it?

Go join them if you want. You'll be in good company.

[Shaktimaan]

65. That's funny.

You show your ignorance at every turn.

You can't even call them what they are: Palestinians. You're just as much a part of the problem, and I'm supposed to kidding? You let a little of that racism slip through where Palestinians can't even be given the name that they should be called.

I did not call them Palestinians because the event I am referring to occurred in 1929, far before the term Palestinian was used in a collective, national sense by the Arabs in question. The people I am talking about did not refer to themselves as Palestinians, and far be it from me to affix any labels or identities on anyone who did not freely choose it for themselves. At the time in question, the term "Palestinian" was generally accepted to refer to the native Jewish population of Palestine, not the Arabs.

That said, I fail to see how my use of the term "Arabs" is itself in any way racist. It is certainly an accurate use of the word. But I am curious as to your thought process here. Why do you consider my using the term to be racist?

And you think that I am going to take your word for it?

You don't have to take my word for anything. It's pretty widely known. I'm not sure where you think you would go to find MORE volatile settlers than Hebron. But then, it's pretty obvious that neither do you.

Go join them if you want. You'll be in good company.

Why would I want to join them? They're horrible people. I've given you no indication that I share any ideological common ground with the likes of them. And, I'll be in good company? Huh? What is that even supposed to mean?

[Shaktimaan]

68. No... it's not that...

I find your tapdance increasingly irrelevant.

No, no, no.That's not true at all. What you really mean to say is that you find my constant refuting of inaccurate information in your posts to be increasingly frustrating and annoying. You appear to be new to the I/P conflict as a subject of study and are thus a little confused about some of the basic facts. What you lack in knowledge you attempt to make up for in enthusiasm and single minded resolve, but that is probably difficult to keep up when I keep pointing out the factual inaccuracies in your arguments.

[Violet_Crumble]

83. Disgusting child abuse nt

[Violet_Crumble]

79. WATCH: Israelis lend a hand in the West Bank olive harvest

Since the start of this year’s olive harvest, Israeli activists have been consistently responding to requests for additional hands from Palestinian farmers from the West Bank. In some of the orchards, the harvest takes place without incident. In others, friction with the army is constant. Instead of protecting the farmers, in accordance with a High Court order to do so, the army often fires tear gas on farmers and orders them out of their fields. Watch for more information on the most challenging harvest season yet, thanks to settler vandalism and army obstruction.

http://972mag.com/watch-israelis-lend-a-hand-in-the-west-bank-olive-harvest/58787/