Regional Arms Control: Regional Stability Unbalanced by New Deal

Top 3. Feb 7, 1997 9:39 PM

» Lawhawk - Mr. Hulays, I applaud your dedication to this topic, but there a

Mr. Hulays, I applaud your dedication to this topic, but there are a few things that should be cleared up. There are as many, if not more scholars who will say that the 1967 war was one of pre-emptive attack. I suggest reading Steven Spiegel's The Other Arab-Israeli War. It contains information about the war that aren't found elsewhere. You may also want to read William Quandt's Peace Process. These two books look at the entire history of the conflict and the interaction between the United States and the Middle East as well as the interplay of all countries in the region.

Dr. Smith's book Palestine and the Arab-Israeli War is in fact only a cursory examination of the conflict and glosses over many areas, especially the US/Israel connection. It is also worth noting that Dr. Smith was not privy to the information found in Spiegel's and Quandt's book.

As to your second point, please read my articles carefully. I believe I stated that any arms deals in the region, from the reported 800 million Syrian deal - this is only a report that I haven't confirmed, is inherently destabilizing on the region.

Israel's wars have never been a one on one affair other than the constant border skirmishes between Israel and Egypt. I have addressed the issue of Lebanon elsewhere, but it still remains that Israel is considered the mortal enemy of Iraq (who has weapons of mass destruction), Iran (who keeps trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction), Syria - who used the Golan Heights as a launching point for numerous missile attacks prior to 1967. Any military strategist will say that having the high point on any battlefield is the key to success.

My opinion regarding the status of the Golan Heights does not stand for anything other than an honest rendering of peace in the region between Syria and Israel. Syria hasn't proven that it can be an honest broker in the peace process. I'm sorry, but using proxy armies in Lebanon to force Israel to the bargaining table doesn't cut it for me.

Israel has committed some human rights violations as you suggest, but not nearly on the scale that you portray. Israel is the most scrutinized country in the world. Its actions are watched by more people than any other, potentially including the United States. This distorts the reality of the situation. Yes, Israel has a stronger military, a stronger economy, and has committed offensive actions. Is it wrong to protect your country from aggressors? I think not.

Your claims of Israel's treatment of people living within the country are also misstated. Israel extended citizenship to all peoples living within the physical boundaries of Israel (excluding Gaza and West Bank). Most Muslim Arabs chose not to become citizens, thereby relegating themselves to second class citizens by choice. Druze Christians - ARABS largely became citizens. They weren't forced to become citizens; they accepted the new reality.

The idea that Israel is an imperialist state is also misleading. Israel had the opportunity to preempt the attack in 1973, but was warned by Henry Kissinger not to do so, or risk appearing the aggressor once again. In doing so, Kissinger utilized realpolitik and balanced the parties against each other so that it would work out in the United States' interest.

Michael Siegel Mid-East Politics and Culture

-- posted by Lawhawk

Top 4. Feb 9, 1997 11:07 AM

» Lawhawk - There are several other inconsistencies within Mr. Hulays last p

There are several other inconsistencies within Mr. Hulays last posting, one being that Syria does have balistic missiles at its disposal. You can find a run down of them at Missile Listings. It is a rather complete listing of missiles that are currently in world service. As you will note, Syria currently employs numerous Russian (post Soviet Union) SAM systems and Scud A and B varients of ballistic missiles with ranges up to several hundred miles.

You may also want to examine the CIA Factbook 95 to see that the current military strength of Syria, based upon population estimates and conscription still leaves Syria with a larger military. Techonological differences between Israel and Syria give Israel the edge militarily. I am also working on getting hard data on the physical makeup of the Middle Eastern military forces, so that will be forthcoming shortly.

Michael Siegel Mid-East Politics and Culture

-- posted by Lawhawk

Top 5. Feb 10, 1997 6:26 PM

» Rafehh - Mr. Siegel, I am indeed dedicated to the Palestinians and the ca

Mr. Siegel, I am indeed dedicated to the Palestinians and the cause of justice in the Middle East. In fact it is very hard for me to understand why others are not! The Palestinian cause is a JUST one and is indeed a noble endeavor to pursue. As a Lebanese, I also witnessed first hand what Israel and its apologists call "purity of arm" that Israel’s army practice.

Mr. Siegel claim there are "several other inconsistencies" in my posting. This is strange because his first posting does not show one. Indeed while my posting dealt with his argument, Mr. Siegel continued to avoid answering any of my points.

Contrary to Mr Siegel posting, Dr. Smith is one of the most informative books about the Middle East and the Arab Israeli conflict and is used in many universities as a text book. If Mr. Siegel would like an exhaustive examination of the 1967 war he should read Donald Neff’s book "Warrior’s for Jerusalem" among others. Dr. Smith point about the military disparity between Egypt and Israel is attested to by people such as General Peled, member of the chief of staff of the Israeli army and Israeli General Ezer Weizmann.

His objectivity in his objection to any arm deals does not hold water. He dwells on Arab military purchases (especially Egypt and Syria) while ignoring those of Israel. In the same breath, is he ready to call US military aid to Israel a destabilizing force and would he be ready to call for its suspension.

Mr. Siegel avoids dealing with the fact that the Palestinians, driven from their land, denied the right to return home, had their land and homes expropriated, and tries to shift the issue toward the Palestinian minority inside Israel who succeeded in remaining there. Ironically, I have not even examined Israel’s treatment of its Arab citizenry. But since he opened the door, I shall be more than happy to enter it.

His article is disappointing and misleading. Firstly, the Arabs who are citizens of Israel do not have the same rights as those who are Jewish. They are discriminated against in society and by law.

After the 1947/48 war, a manageable minority of Palestinians in the order of 125,000 was all that was left in Palestine. The rest either fled for their lives or were driven out of their homes, never allowed to return again. This minority has and continues to suffer significant discrimination at the hand of Israeli government and the Israeli society in general. This can be seen from the pitiful allocations of funds to Palestinian municipalities compared to those of Israelis (in the order of 25%) and educational institutions. Also, the land base of this population has been largely expropriated for the EXCLUSIVE use of Jews. Palestinians were turned from farmers to workers, ironically many working for JEWS on the same expropriated land they previously owned. The Palestinians are denied the right to live or own land in 92% of Israel. This is only the tip of the iceberg and these are the NON-JEWISH citizens of Israel. Halahmi (Professor of History at Haifa University), in his book original sins, deals with some of the discriminatory policies that Israel subjects the Palestinians (THE ISRAELI CITIZENS that is) to. The Arabs that were left are a small minority of those who were driven out by Zionist forces. These are still denied the right to return home. This is known today as "ethnic cleansing", the same crime for which the international community wants to try the Serb leadership of.

It is indeed sad that Mr. Siegel blames the Palestinians for the discrimination they endure: a classic case of blaming the victim. The biggest crime of the Palestinians is that they EXIST.

Shelling by Syrians did indeed occur prior to the 1967 war but it was sporadic, relatively inconsequential and caused by Israel’s repeated and increasingly serious violations of the 1949 armistice agreement with Syria. These included continuous armed encroachments on the demilitarized zones and the destruction of three Palestinian villages as well as the forced eviction of their 2000 inhabitants. Israel also violated the armistice by diverting the Jordan river in the DMZ (which led to a temporary suspension in US aid by the Eisenhower administration), commenced the draining the marches of Lake Huleh, and attempting to prevent Palestinians and Syrians from fishing in lake Taberius. During the harassment, casualties occurred on both sides, but those of Syrians far exceeded those of Israelis. Indeed General Von Horn (who served with the United Nations at the time) wrote in his memoirs that "it was unlikely [that the Syrian shelling would have occurred] had it not been for Israeli provocation" and he also documented Israel’s deliberate encroachments on the DMZ. His views were also upheld by other UN observers at the time.

Israel’s reluctance to return the Golan heights which Syria rightfully insists on for a full peace has nothing to do with Syrian shelling prior to the 1967 war or present security concerns, it has everything to do with Zionist expansionism and retention of the rich farmlands and water resources of the area. Returning the heights to Syria will not jeopardize Israel’s security. The heights return will result in a formal peace treaty.

While it is true that the military high ground provide an army with an advantage, it is also true that it is far important to have the superior armed forces. Israel has supremacy over the air which is effectively the highest ground possible. Also, as Israel proved in 1967, it can easily defeat and conquer the heights. Again, while controlling the heights has strategic value, it is far more important to Syria than it is to Israel. A study of the map and terrain of the region points to the absolute vulnerability of Damascus. Nonetheless, this is totally immaterial since the Golan is Syrian land and should by INTERNATIONAL LAW be returned to Syria. NO PEACE can last without it. Also whatever areas of understanding between the former labor government and Israel leaked out pointed to security arrangement between the two countries.

And contrary to Siegel claim, Israel committed offensive actions, not to protect itself but to expand and to realize the Zionist vision of greater Israel. This include the conquest of Jerusalem which was and still seen by many Zionists as the ultimate prize. Again, if Israel committed offensive actions to protect itself, then why the expropriations, the expulsions, the annexations and the settlements.

Mr. Siegel claim that Israel is the most scrutinized country in the World may well be correct but it is also true that despite countless resolutions and reports condemning it for massive (yes MASSIVE. I call massacres, expulsions, expropriations, settlements, massive arrests without trials, court-sanctioned and non-sanctioned torture MASSIVE!!!!) human rights violations, Israel has not been brought to task. The expulsions of Millions of Palestinians stands, the expropriation of huge tracts of their lands stands, the occupation stands, the settlements stands, the conquest stands. For a very long time the media in North America have been silent to the suffering of Palestinians. This started to considerably change during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

Mr. Siegel presentation of the situation in Lebanon is also misleading. The resistance in Lebanon to Israeli occupation is there, not because the Golan is occupied, it is because Southern Lebanon is occupied. The resistance is formed by the courageous sons and daughters of Lebanon who are struggling to save their country from a brutal occupation. It is also true that Syria supports this struggle. But this struggle will continue with or without the support of Syria, the same way that the French resistance fought the Nazis in second World war.

His claim that Syria has not been an honest broker is correct. Syria is not a broker. It is a party to the negotiation. Syria has respected all of its commitment and history points that it will continue to do so. This, unfortunately, cannot be said of Israel. Syria has negotiated with Israel in good faith. Their line has always been clear to anyone that cares to listen: Total peace for total withdrawal. The Golan is Syrian, it will remain Syrian, it will return to Syria. It is the choice of Israel to decide how: by peace with security arrangement or by war!!! This is a right that any country in the world exercise to protect its territorial integrity and is well within international law. The Labor government understood that!! One can only hope that Likud will come to understand it too.

One of the inconsistency (indeed the only one) he claim to have found is that I stated that Syria does not have ballistic missiles. Indeed, I have said ADVANCED ballistic missiles (The scuds are missiles with primitive delivery systems). Nonetheless, I checked the site you supplied. The only information I found is listed below and does not classify the Scuds as a ballistic missiles. (SAMs are on the other hand anti-aircraft missiles and are purely defensive and yes any weapon can be deployed in an offensive manner, even a sling):

Scud-B ----- Russia. 8K14, R-17, R-300, SS-1c. Soviet-developed 300 km range tactical SSM that first entered service in 1955.386 The Scud-B was produced by the Makeyev design bureau.387 See also Scud-B (DPRK). [Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Egypt, Georgia, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, North Korea, Libya, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Syria, Ukraine, Vietnam, Yemen]388

Scud-C ----- Scud Mod C. DPRK improved Scud-B missile. The Scud C is liquid-fueled.389 (Note: the Soviet Union also had a missile called the Scud-C, but it was never deployed). [Iran, North Korea, Syria]

On the other hand the Jericho 2 is advanced ballistic missile capable of delivering a 1000 Kg (including a nuclear bomb) 1,500 km.

-- posted by Rafehh

Top 6. Feb 10, 1997 6:35 PM

» Rafehh - Apartheid Laws in Israel - The Art of The Obfuscatory Formulatio

Apartheid Laws in Israel - The Art of The Obfuscatory Formulation

Excerpts from an article by Uzi Ornan, published the Israeli daily Ha'aretz 17 May 1991 ( Hebrew )

It is impossible to turn one's back on reality and deny that the State of Israel is not, likewise, an Apartheid state, and that as a result of this, Israeli democracy - which all its leaders and political pundits swear by - is being perverted, if not destroyed. This Apartheid has been entrenched in a system of laws, regulations and practices which govern the operation of state institutions. What characterizes most of those discriminatory laws that have been legislated in various Knesset is that on the surface, they do not appear to be discriminatory. However, a more in-depth analysis of some of the basic ones quickly reveals the extent to which they discriminate between "Jews" and "non-Jews". By studying them one cannot fail to reach a conclusion, which cannot but be embarrassing to many of us: namely, that Israel is an Apartheid state, and the Apartheid not only manifests itself socially, but that it is also embedded in the legal system. The following is devoted to a few of these laws.

The 1952 Law of Entry into Israel was apparently legislated simply to regulate entry into the country. However, all its clauses, save the one making it obligatory to enter by way of an official border control point, are intended to make a clear distinction between foreign citizens who are Jewish and those who are not. Yet the words "Jew" and "non-Jew" do not appear. So it is, for instance, that the law stipulates that whoever "does not hold an immigration visa or immigration certificate" can be immediately deported by the minister of the Interior, or, can be denied a visa at any time. As for the explanation and definition of who qualifies for an immigration visa, one must seek the answer in another law, the Law of Return. The answer is: Jews.

However, the authority vested in the minister of the Interior to deny entry to foreign citizens if there is reason to suspect they may harm the public is only applicable to non-Jews. The minister of the Interior does not have the authority to deny any Jew - even if he's a scoundrel of the first order who can be counted on to do harm - the right to settle in Israel. The reason: Jews do not need permits to settle in Israel....Jews arriving in Israel from abroad are almost immediately given all the rights and privileges that Israeli Jews enjoy....Furthermore, they immediately acquire the right to vote in elections and to be elected to the Knesset - even if they do not speak a word of Hebrew.

While the minister of the Interior has the authority - albeit, authority which cannot be exercised without great difficulties - to deny "immigration visas" to Jews, once a Jew enters the country, the minister of Interior cannot do anything about it, and does not even have the authority to withdraw residence permits from undesirables. In regard to non-Jews, the situation is quite different: the minister of the Interior can withdraw their permits even if they have been living here for years. We have witnessed how swindlers and common criminals have succeeded in receiving Israeli citizenship, not to mention those who even managed to get themselves elected to the Knesset. It wasn't the Law of Return that allowed them to do so, it was the law governing entry to Israel, which in turn is based on the Citizenship laws of 1952.

The Citizenship Laws of 1952 are a pinnacle in the annals of the art of obfuscation. Even though the word "Jew" is not mentioned at all in these laws, it is, in its entirety, based on the distinction between "Jews" and "non-Jews". This is one of the pillars of the Israel Apartheid regime, alongside a plethora of other laws, regulations and practices, for "Jews" and "non-Jews". They include: the educational system; the regulations of the Israel Lands Authority (which sees to maintaining segregation on the ground); and the religious marriage laws, which do not exist in conjunction with civil marriage laws.

(...)

Like in every state, a foreign citizen who wishes to become a citizen of Israel can do so, and the regulations governing his acquisition of citizenship are similar to those which exist in many other countries. The basic condition is that candidates must have resided in Israel for a number of years. Likewise, before citizenship is granted, the candidate must pledge his allegiance to the State of Israel. In contrast, Jews are not required to swear a pledge of allegiance to the State of Israel. So it is that a Satmar Hassid, who has the utmost contempt for the existence of the state, and perhaps even translates this into action, can immediately become a citizen, with the right to vote in Knesset elections.... Moreover, only ["Jews"]have the right to retain their former citizenship even after becoming Israeli citizens, while "non-Jews" are obliged to renounce it before becoming Israeli citizens.

The obfuscation does not end here. Take for instance the regulations governing the "joint authority of the Israel government and the Jewish Agency". These regulations are discussed as though they were applicable to all Israeli citizens. But when one reads them through, it quickly becomes apparent that rights granted to "returning residents" are meant solely for Jews: those who are not Jews have to pay full duty on all the articles they transport from the place of residence abroad, and are not granted any housing or education benefits upon returning to the country, after, perhaps, a few years of study abroad....

Blatant discrimination against non-Jews can also be found in other laws dealing with the acquisition of property, government support for young couples, educational curricula, and government expenditure for schools, to cite just a few examples. The routine means for enforcing discrimination is the ID card, which everyone is obliged to carry at all times. ID cards list "nationality", which can be Jewish, Arab, Druze, Circassian, Samaritan, Kara'ite, or foreign. When a person presents his ID card to a policeman, a security official, or to a clerk at a government office whose services he requires, they can know which "sector" he belongs to and treat him accordingly, or, refer him to those who are responsible for dealing with his "sector". Up to now all the attempts to force the minister of the Interior to also accept the entry of "Israeli" nationality have failed. Those who have attempted to do so have received a letter from the ministry of the Interior. While the letterhead is one of the "State of Israel", the letter states that "it was decided not to recognize an Israeli nationality". By the way, every person has the right to demand that the nationality entry in their ID remain blank, and the ministry of the Interior must honor this demand.

Another law, the 1986 Military Service Law, which superficially does not appear to be discriminatory in any way, is, by dint of the wily formula used in conjunction with the "nationality" entry in the census, a destructive tool of discrimination and oppression. The term "draftee" which appears therein applies to every Israeli citizen or permanent resident, as does the term "candidate for military conscription". In other words, a "draftee" - i.e. , someone who has not yet reported to the draft board - is a universal term and equally applicable to all citizens. How is it then, that this law has become a major tool for implementing discriminatory policies ? The answer is: by the way of a simple and at first glance innocent ploy. It appears in section three, which deals with how citizens are to be called to report for military service: a special person is appointed to be "the enumerator"; his job is to call draftees to register with the draft board and he "is authorized to order draftees and candidates for conscription to report [to the draft board]". The law uses the term "authorized", and in so doing leaves open the possibility for the enumerator to abstain from calling on "draftees" to report. And it is clear that those who the enumerator does not call do not have to report, and are therefore exempt from army service. In practice it is much simpler: those whose IDs list them as belonging to the "Arab sector" are not called by the enumerator.

Why are Arab teenagers not called to serve in the army ? The two reasons usually given are nothing more than a pretext. The "moral" reasons runs as follows: How can an Arab be asked to fight against his brother ? This ignores something we have witnessed more than once, namely, that Arabs kill other Arabs - whether in terrorist attacks or on the battlefield...The same could apply to Israeli citizens, be they Arab of other non-Jews, if they were to feel that their induction into the Israeli Army was justified. But this will only come about when they feel themselves equal citizens, and that the state of Israel is protecting them, and respecting their rights, treating them no differently than other citizens....It would be pointless to waste much time on the second reason - "for reasons or security". Both Jews and non-Jews have been exposed as spies and traitors. Indeed, there is ample reason to believe that the ones who were the most dangerous were Jews. In the same way that being a "Jew" does not vouchsafe automatic loyalty to Israel, the label "Arab" is, likewise, not a means of identifying those ready to commit treason or engage in espionage.

Once a citizen has not been called on to report by the enumerator, discrimination and persecution follow. Such is the lot of those [of non-Jews] who do not serve in the army. Many places of employment and residence become off limits, as the demands of employment and regulations governing the leasing of homes or lands in the hands of various public and governmental bodies stipulate that candidates must be "draftees". So it is, for instance, that Mohammed Borkan did not succeed in remaining in his flat in the Old City of Jerusalem. One of the basic conditions for being allowed to lease the flats (which were expropriated for the "public good") is that the leasee must be a "draftee". Take note: the term "draftee" also applies to yeshiva students [students of Jewish theology] who have not served in the army. The enumerator does call on them to report, and that is enough for them to be included in the category of those who have privileges, even if their contact with the army ends at this point.

One can list many more Apartheid laws, but we will stop at this point....The Apartheid mindset has always been part and parcel of Judaism. Take for example the age of Ezra and Nehemia (ca. 450-430 BC). All the restrictions and rules incorporated into the Jewish religion were intended to preserve the purity of the strain against contamination from the Gentiles....Apartheid is so powerful a mindset in this society, that its existence and preservation is championed by all the members of the "Zionist parties", including those who believe themselves to be in the vanguard of the struggle for socialism, peace and equal rights. We have yet to hear them speak out against the existence of two categories of citizens, or in favor of a comprehensive Israeli school system, or in favor of the abolition of restrictions on where Jews and Arabs are allowed to live. One gets the impression that their energetic struggle for the establishment of a Palestinian state and their vocal opposition to Jewish "settlements" on the other side of the green line is based on their desire to preserve a "Jewish state", something which allows and, in the eyes of many of them, even justifies the retention of discriminatory laws, and the privileges granted to the Jews.

Everyone who supports democracy and is concerned about the future of Israel, should place the abolition of the Apartheid regime that exists here at the top of his list of priorities. And not only leftists, but also those with liberal views on the right. Those who say we must be ready to "give up a lot for the sake of peace" should to so in good faith: abolish Israel's Apartheid laws and grant non-Jewish resident (sic) the ability to identify fully with the state.

-- posted by Rafehh

Top 7. Feb 10, 1997 6:43 PM

» Rafehh - The Establishment of the State of Israel as a Jewish State <P>

The Establishment of the State of Israel as a Jewish State

From Chapter I in: Israel - An Apartheid State,

by Uri Davis, Zed Books, London and New Jersey, 1987

Is the state of Israel a sovereign, independent and democratic state, or is Israel a Jewish state? Is the state of Israel governed by and for all its citizens, or is Israel governed by and for all Jews throughout the world? Is the Israeli government accountable to all its nationals, Arabs and Jews, or is the Israeli government accountable only to Jews both inside and outside the land of Palestine, whether they are Israeli nationals or not ? These are not new questions in Israeli political discourse for they have accompanied the process of the establishment of the state of Israel since its earliest days.

The state of Israel was established by unilateral declaration on 15 May 1948. The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel - popularly and wrongly known as 'Israel's Declaration of Independence' - does not declare Israel an independent state, nor does it declare Israel a sovereign state; rather it declares Israel a Jewish state:

We, the members of the National Council representing the Jewish people in Palestine and the Zionist Movement, are met together in solemn assembly today, the day of termination of the British Mandate for Palestine, and by virtue of the natural and historic right of the Jewish people and of the Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations, we hereby proclaim the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine to be called Medinat Yisrael (the state of Israel) (Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, 15 May 1948, henceforth Declaration II 1948) (original Hebrew)

What may seem to an uninformed outside observer a minor technical quibble was in fact the object of explicit discussion and controversy at the meeting of the People's Council on 14 May 1948, the eve of the announcement of the establishment of the state of Israel. Meir Vilner, then as today a leading member of the Communist Party and a signatory of the Declaration, pointed out as follows:

Members of the Council: we are all united today in recognition of the significance of this great day for the Yishuv [pre-state Jewish community in Palestine] and the Jewish people, the day of the abolition of the Mandate and the declaration of the independent Jewish state....The Eretz Israel Communist Party (sic) supports the proposed resolution of the declaration of the Jewish state, has reservations on a number of issues, and proposes a few amendments and additions....We propose, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations [General] Assembly, to add the following paragraph:

'The Council declares that a fundamental principle of its policy is that of the right of both peoples to self-determination and to independent states of their own'

In section 9, where it says, 'Calling for the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel', we propose to add the word ' independent', namely: 'Calling for the establishment of an independent Jewish state in Eretz Israel'.

...At the end of section 11 it says: 'We...hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel'. We propose to add the words 'sovereign independent', thus 'the establishment of a sovereign, independent Jewish state...' (State of Israel, Protocols of Debates, vol. I, pp.13-14, Hebrew)

Vilner's proposal were not accepted. The debate, however, highlights the fact that those who formulated the draft consciously avoided the words that would have specified the sovereignty and independence of the proposed state, emphasizing its Jewishness.

Thus, the state of Israel was above all declared a Jewish state: 'We hereby proclaim the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine to be called Medinat Yisrael' [the state of Israel, namely, the state of the Jewish people] (Declaration, 1948). Significantly, the borders of the new state were intentionally left undefined. The relevant discussion was summarized by David Ben Gurion in the same debate as follows:

There was a discussion of this matter in the People's Executive. There was a proposal to determine the borders, and there was opposition to this proposal. We decided to evade (and I choose this word intentionally) the matter for a simple reason: If the UN fulfils all its resolutions and undertakings and maintains the peace and prevents bombardments and uses its powers to execute its own resolutions, then we on our part (and I express the opinion of the people) will honour all the resolutions in their entirety. So far the UN has not done so....therefore, we are not bound by anything, and we have left this matter open. We did not say no UN borders, but neither did we say the opposite. We have left this matter open for developments. (Declaration, 1948, p.19; emphasis in the original)

Over the first five decades of the twentieth century, the infrastructure for the Jewish state were laid out through the Zionist colonial effort in Palestine as institutionalized in the various departments and offices of the Jewish Agency for the Land of Israel (JA), the executive arm of the World Zionist Organization and its affiliated companies: the Jewish National Fund (JNF), the Foundation Fund, Hemnutah, etc. It is interesting that in their capacity as voluntary confessional associations, the success of the various Zionist agencies in Palestine was fairly limited. The JNF, for instance, since the year of its incorporation in London in 1907 and throughout the period of its activity under the Ottoman and the British regimes until 1948, had failed to purchase more than 936,000 dunums of land, at the most (Ephraim Orni, Agrarian Reform and Social Progress in Israel, p.66; Walter Lehn, 'Zionist Land: The Jewish National Fund', Journal of Palestine Studies, Summer 1974, p.66), namely, some 3.5 percent of the 1922 Mandate Palestine or some 5 percent of the pre-1967 Israeli territory.

Following the establishment of the state of Israel, however, and the introduction of the legislation detailed below into the body of Israeli law, the legal situation governing the activities of the World Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency, the Jewish National Fund, the Histadrut, the Workers' Company, and their various subsidiaries radically altered. Their respective restrictive constitutions, which were legally binding on what were, until 1948, technically voluntary organisations, are now incorporated into the legal foundations and the body of law of the state of Israel, thereby establishing a situation of radical legal apartheid of Jew versus non-Jew.

(...)

By the conclusion of the 1948-9 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement which brought to an end armed conflict in Palestine, Israel has achieved a significant territorial expansion from 57 percent of the territory of Mandatory Palestine, as allocated to the Jewish state by the 1947 UN Partition Plan, to 68 percent (20,600 km.sq.). Of the remaining area, the West Bank (6,400 km.sq.) was annexed to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1950, and the Gaza Strip (362 km.sq.) came under Egyptian military administration.

In the territories thus coming under Israeli rule and occupation lived some 900,000 Palestinian Arabs. They inhabited approximately 500 villages as well as all major cities: Tiberias, Safad, Nazareth, Shafa 'Amr, Acre, Haifa, Jaffa, Lydda, Ramleh, Jerusalem, Majdal (Ashqelon), Isdud (Ashdod), and Beer Sheba. Of these people, only some 150,000 remained under Israeli rule inside Israeli armistice boundaries (the 'Green line'). The majority of the Palestinian Arab population either fled during the hostilities, or was forcibly expelled by the Israeli army and has never been permitted by Israel to return; nor has Israel ever acknowledged the right of these people to return.

Having expelled the majority of the people, the Israeli authorities then pursued the systematic destruction of their homes. Of the 500 or so Palestinian Arab villages, some 400 (385 according to the list compiled by the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights; below) were razed to the ground by the Israeli army during the 1948-9 war and throughout the 1950s.

As noted above, the state of Israel has consistently denied the right of return to the erstwhile Palestinian Arab inhabitants of the land, and violated UN General Assembly resolutions recognizing their right to return and calling for their repatriation. In fact, all 1948 Palestinian Arab displaced persons and refugees were subsequently legislated as 'absentees' through the Absentee Property Law (1950). Thus, they were alienated from all rights to Israeli citizenship, to their lands, and to their properties in Israel. The enormity of this nation-wide, systematic practice of war crimes is indicated in the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights' list of destroyed Palestinian Arab villages. The list refers to Arab villages destroyed in pre-1967 Israel alone.

It is worth noting that official statistics list only 103 Arab localities (101 villages and the two towns of Nazareth and Shafa 'Amr) and 44 Bedouin tribes (22 in the Northern and Central regions and 22 in the Southern region). The Arab population of the cities of Tiberias, Safad, Majdal, Isdud and Beer Sheba was expelled in its entirety. In Lydda, Ramleh, Jaffa, Haifa and Acre, the surviving Arab population was confined to ghettoes.

The vast properties defined under the Absentee Property Law (1950) as 'absentee property' can be further assessed if one recalls that, until 1947, individual or corporate Jewish land ownership in Palestine did not exceed 7 percent, or 10 percent of the territories that came under Israeli rule and occupation following the 1948-9 war. Of the remainder, according to the Israeli Custodian of Absentee Property, almost 70 percent of the territory of pre-1967 Israel consists of land classified as 'absentee property':

The Custodian of Absentee Property does not choose to discuss politics. But when asked how much of the land of the state of Israel might potentially have two claimants - an Arab and a Jew holding respectively a British Mandate and an Israeli deed to the same property - Mr. Manor [the Custodian in 1980] believes that 'about 70 percent' might fall into that category (Robert Fisk, 'The Land of Palestine, Part Eight: The Custodian of Absentee Property', The Times, 24 December, 1980)

Jewish National Fund estimates, on the other hand, set the figure as high as close to 90 percent:

Of the entire area of the state of Israel only about 300,000-400,000 dunums ...are state domain which the Israeli government took over from the mandatory regime [2 percent]. The JNF and private Jewish owners possess under two million dunum [10 percent]. Almost all the rest [i.e. 88 percent of the 20,225,000 dunums within the 1949 armistice lines] belongs at law to Arab owners, many of whom have left the country (Jewish National Fund, Jewish Villages in Israel, p.xxi, quoted in Lehn and Davis, The Jewish National Fund)

(...)

Consider, for instance, the following outline by Don Peretz [estimates of the value of the abandoned property of Palestinian Arabs vested with the Israeli Custodian of Absentee Property]:

Much information concerning the use, amounts and distribution of abandoned Arab property and the government's policy toward it was secret. Records and most reports of the Custodian of Absentee Property were secret. Sessions of the Knesset's Finance Committee, when it discussed the problem, were closed. Even the United Nations, in spite of frequent requests, was unable to obtain adequate information about Israel's disposition of Arab property. In its Fifteenth Progress Report of October 4, 1956, the CCP [UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine] stated that its representatives had still received no reply to a request submitted to the Israel Government the previous February for information concerning the administration of Arab refugee property or the measures taken to protect it, safeguard its identity, an provide restitution to the refugee owners. Therefore much information in this Chapter and Chapter IX concerning absentee property necessarily came from indirect sources.

The CCP Refugee Office estimated that although only a little more than a quarter was considered cultivable, more than 80 percent of Israel's total area of 20,850 km.sq. represented land abandoned by the Arab refugees. Three-quarters of the former Arab land was sub-marginal land or semi-desert in the Negeb. Evaluation of the property varied from that of the United Nations - 120 million pounds sterling - to the Arab League's estimate of over than ten times that amount.

Abandoned property was one of the greatest contributions toward making Israel a viable state. The extent of its area and the fact that most of the regions along the border consisted of absentee property made it strategically significant. Of the 370 new Jewish settlements established between 1948 and the beginning of 1953, 350 were on absentee property. In 1954, more than one third of Israel's Jewish population lived on absentee property and nearly a third of the new immigrants (250,000 people) settled in urban areas abandoned by Arabs. They left whole cities like Jaffa, Acre, Lydda, Ramleh, Baysan (Bisan), Majdal (Ashqelon); 388 towns and villages and large parts of 94 other cities and town, containing nearly a quarter of all the buildings in Israel. Ten thousand shops, businesses and stores were left in Jewish hands. At the end of the Mandate, citrus holdings in the area of Israel totalled about 240,000 dunums of which half were Arab owned. Most of the Arab groves were taken over by the Israel Custodian of Absentee Property. But only 34,000 dunums were cultivated by the end of 1953. By 1956 73,000 dunums were either cultivated or fit for cultivation. In 1951-2, former Arab groves produced one-and-a-quarter million boxes of fruit, of which 400,000 were exported. Arab fruit sent abroad provided nearly 10 per cent of the country's foreign currency earnings from export in 1951. In 1949 the olive produce from abandoned Arab groves was Israel's third largest export, ranking after citrus and diamonds. The relative economic importance of Arab property was largest from 1948 until 1953, during the period of greatest immigration and need. After that, as the immigrants became more productive, national dependence upon abandoned Arab property declined relatively.

The CCP estimated that the amount of Israel's cultivable abandoned Arab land was nearly two and half times the total area of Jewish-owned property at the end of the mandate. The Israel Custodian of Absentee Property estimated that only two and half million of the four million dunums of Arab land held by him were cultivated. No account was given for the discrepancy between the amount of cultivable area cited by the CCP (4,574,000 dunums) and the cultivated area held by the Custodian. Neither was the difference between the total of four million dunums of absentee property held by the Custodian and the CCP's total of 16,324,000 dunums clearly explained...

In 1951 abandoned cultivable land included nearly 95 per cent of all Israel's olive groves, 40 thousand dunums of vineyards, and at least 10 thousand dunums of other orchards excluding citrus.

Twenty thousand dunums of absentee property were leased by the Custodian in 1952 for industrial purposes. A third of Israel's stone production was supplied by 52 Arab quarries under his jurisdiction.

The amount and value of movable Arab property was never accurately determined. In the chaotic war conditions which prevailed after the Arab flight most of their property was destroyed, looted or lost. More than four million pounds worth of movable property was in the warehouses of the Custodian in 1951. The CCP's Refugee Office estimated that the approximate value of all movable Arab refugee property was about 20 million Palestine pounds...(Don Peretz, Israel and the Palestine Arabs, pp. 142-6)

By all accounts, the massive properties vested in the Custodian of Absentee Property following the 1948-9 war constituted the primary rural and urban resources for post-1948 Israeli, exclusively Jewish, settlements projects, cultivation and development. As Moshe Dayan noted in his famous speech before students at the Israeli Institute of Technology (Techniyon) in 1969:

We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building here a Hebrew, Jewish state. In a considerable portion of localities we purchased the land from the Arabs. Instead of the Arab villages Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the name of the villages and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist. Not only the books, but also the villages no longer exist. Nahalal was established in the place of Mahalul, Gevat in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Hanifas and Kefar Yehoshu'a in the place of Tel Shaham. There is not a single settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village (Dayan, 19 March 1969; as quoted in Haaretz, 4 April 1969)

-- posted by Rafehh

Top 8. Feb 10, 1997 6:48 PM

» Rafehh - Memorandum On Institutionalized Racial Discrimination By And In

Memorandum On Institutionalized Racial Discrimination By And In The State Of Israel

By Elias Davidsson - April 1991 (Revision July 1993)

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1965, has now been ratified by most member states. Article 1 of this Convention defines the term racial discrimination as 'any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.'

This Convention lays down specific obligations on member states to outlaw racial discrimination and penalize activities of racial incitement. It must be borne in mind that the term 'racial discrimination' is not basically a technical term but a term used to encompass all kinds of discrimination based on a person's being or origin (for which a person is not responsible). The Nazi persecution of Jews has been pursued on the basis of 'racialism' and condemned by the whole world as 'racial persecution', in spite of the fact that Jews don't constitute a specific race.

When evaluating whether certain conditions or practices constitute 'racial discrimination', it is not imperative that intent is proved. It suffices that conditions or practices have the 'effect of nullifying or impairing' equality of rights (see above), regardless of the declared intent of those conditions or practices.

The State of Israel defines itself as a Jewish and Zionist state. All major Israeli parties identify themselves as Zionist. Racial discrimination against non-Jews is grounded in Israeli laws, regulations, practices and permeates all fields of public life. The very definition of Israel as a Jewish State cannot but alienate the indigenous non-Jewish population of the country, which constitutes - depending on definition - between 18% and 60% of the population.

Most non-Jews who are living in or originate from areas under Israeli control, identify themselves as Palestinians. Although most of these are Muslim, there are also many Christian Palestinians and a few hundred Jews, both religious and secular, who prefer to identify themselves as Palestinians.

Zionism took off in Europe at the end of last century. It's aim was to create in Palestine a state with Jewish majority in spite of the adamant opposition of Palestinian Arabs (95% of the population). But the Zionists were more powerful, militarily, economically and technologically, and succeeded in 1948 in conquering 70% of the area of Mandatory Palestine. After driving into exile most indigenous Arabs from the conquered areas, approximately 750,000 people, and razing most of their villages to the ground - over 370 villages - the Zionists could finally establish a predominantly Jewish State. Only 150,000 non-Jews remained on territory controlled by the Zionists.

Once the Jewish State was established, it began enacting laws to help the confiscation of land from native non-Jews, their political repression and their destitution. This process was described in detail by Azriel Karlibach, first editor and founding member of the Hebrew newspaper Ma'ariv in a shattering article published in that paper on 25 Feb.. 1953 and by many other authors. The Israeli parliament passed laws to make it impossible for non-Jews who temporarily left the area of conflict to return to their homes or obtain access to their possessions that were left behind. A law was enacted that enabled any Jew in the world to immigrate to Israel and automatically become an Israeli citizen. A law was enacted that enabled the World Zionist Organisation and the Jewish Agency to act as a semi-official body, for the exclusive benefit of Jews.

In 1967 the State of Israel invaded Egypt and Syria, under the fallacious pretext of being threatened, and occupied the rest of Palestine (the West Bank and the Gaza strip). Thus another 1.5 million Palestinians fell under its jurisdiction. Its occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories is considered illegal by the international community, as reflected in Security Council resolutions. Israel has rejected all U.N. resolutions that deal with its treatment of Palestinians and began without delay to entrench its occupation and rule over these territories with the aim of annexing them at the appropriate time. There has been no significant difference between the Israeli governments concerning this aim, as construction for Jews in the occupied territories continues unabated until this day. Part of these territories, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, have already been annexed by Israel, in defiance of international law, UN resolutions and the wishes of the population concerned.

The Palestinian people are now divided into three main segments: Those who remained in Israel in 1948 and their descendants (about 800,000 people), who live in Israel proper and have nominal Israeli citizenship; those who live in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel in 1967 - Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza strip (about 1.8 million people); and those who live in exile, in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the Gulf States and elsewhere (an estimated 2.5 million people).

It must be emphasized that, although these people live under different regimes, they are united in their self-perception as Palestinians, that is as people identifying with Palestine.

All three segments of the Palestinian people suffer discrimination at the hands of the Zionist State, but in different degrees.

Perhaps those who suffer the heaviest discrimination are those Palestinians who were ejected from their homeland in 1948 and again in 1967, dispossessed of their homes and land, and rendered stateless. The one and only criterion used by Israel to prevent these people from returning to their homeland and receive equal treatment under Israeli law, is that they are not Jews. Many of them still live in a destitute condition in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, supported by UN relief agencies.

The non-Jewish population living in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel in 1967 suffers not only blatant discrimination but is subject to brutal military occupation. Israel allows settlement of its own Jewish nationals in these areas and thus violates the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Jews settling in the occupied areas enjoy full civil and political rights as Israeli citizens. Their non- Jewish neighbors who are the overwhelming majority of the population of these areas, are denied many civil and all political rights. Their rights of movement, travel, assembly, expression, the right to obtain a car licence, to start a business and to buy industrial equipment, the right to educate children, all of these basic rights are subject to arbitrary rulings by military authorities and cannot be challenged in court. Only Jewish inhabitants of the occupied territories are permitted to carry firearms, which they use to terrorize defenceless non- Jews.

Some 800,000 people in Israel proper are not Jews: Most of them are Muslim but there are also thriving Christian Arab communities in Israel. For many years after the establishment of Israel they were subjected to harsh military control. Much of their land was confiscated by the State and handed to Jewish organisations for exclusive Jewish settlement. They have been subject to massacres, destitution and humiliation. While they enjoy, with Jewish Israelis, the right to vote, they are discriminated against both through law and in practice.

Approximately 92% of the surface of the State of Israel within the Green Line is for all purposes closed to Palestinians who are second-class citizens in Israel. They may neither legally live on such land, nor rent or cultivate it. A direct effect of these policies is that native non-Jewish citizens of Israel are in practice denied residence and membership rights in the collective settlements, kibbutzim. Non-Jews are discriminated against in many other ways: The Government starves local authorities of Palestinian villages and townships of funds; in some communities Palestinians are unwelcome or forced to live in ghettos; Jewish families receive higher child allocations than their non-Jewish neighbors, Palestinian schools suffer underfunding and understaffing (as compared to Jewish schools); Palestinian children are forced to learn their own history and literature as interpreted by Zionists; Israelis who struggle for equal rights and for the end of racial discrimination, are regularly and in many ways harassed by the authorities.

The State of Israel refuses to acknowledge itself as the State of all its inhabitants. Although Israeli governments have never openly endorsed the `transfer' idea (the forced removal from the country of its native Palestinian population, that is, its ultimate Judaization), Israeli government policies, such as inducing emigration of non-Jews and forced underdevelopment of the Palestinian sector, have since the establishment of Israel borne the mark of this ultimate aim. No serious attempt is made by the Zionist authorities to integrate Palestinian Arabs into Israeli public life. Thus, although comprising approximately 17% of the population of Israeli citizens, no Palestinian citizen of Israel has ever served as Cabinet member, as director of a Ministry or of a national institution, as judge of the Supreme Court, as ambassador of Israel, or in any position of power in Israeli economic or financial life. Even Arab Members of Parliament (Knesset) are systematically excluded from serving in 'sensitive' Parliamentarian committees, solely because of their ethny. In this 'enlightened democracy of the Middle East', as Israel is often called, a Jew cannot legally marry a non-Jew. Since its establishment in 1948, Israeli governments have consistently rejected demands by the secular public for the institution of civil marriage. Although intimate relations between Jews and Arabs are legal, they are frowned upon by Zionist society as 'befriending the enemy', something near treason.

Zionism rejects the idea of a modern secular state, based on equality of all citizens. Zionism predicates a state where Jews have privileged rights. Thus, according to Israeli law, a person born in London, who has never visited Israel, does not speak Hebrew and professes atheism, is granted automatic Israeli citizenship, if he can produce proof from a rabbi that his mother was considered a Jew, while indigenous Palestinian inhabitants who were born to Christian or Muslim parents are at best tolerated but never considered as full fledged partners in Israeli society. Racial discrimination, as defined in international law, is thus not only reflected in Israeli laws and policies, but is grounded in the very nature of Israel as a Jewish state, in public perception and in the Zionist credo.

Any proposal for Israeli-Arab and Israeli-Palestinian peace that does not address the issue of racial discrimination by Israel - that is the Zionist nature of the State of Israel - is thus doomed to fail.

Selected bibliography

1.Uri Davis: Israel, an Apartheid State, Zed Books Ltd., London 1987

2.Sabri Jiryis: The Arabs in Israel, Monthly Review Press, New York, 1976

3.Ed. A.W. Kayyali: Zionism, Imperialism and Racism, Croom Helm, London, 1979 (Writings by Arab, English and American scholars)

4.Abdeen Jabara: The Responsibility of the State of Israel According to its International Commitments; Arab Studies Quarterly, Spring/Summer 1985, p.27-41

5.Ilan Halevi: Zionism Today; Arab Studies Quarterly, Spring/Summer 1985, p.3-10

6.Roselle Tekiner: Jewish Nationality Status as the Basis for Institutionalized Racism in Israel. The International Organisation for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD), Washington, 1985

7.Dr. W. Mallison and Sally V. Mallison: The Zionist Organization/Jewish Agency in International and US Law, in Judaism or Zionism - What Difference for the Middle East; Zed Books Ltd., London 1986

8.John Quigley: Palestine and Israel - A Challenge to Justice; Duke University Press, Durham, N.C., 1991

9.Dr. Uri Davis: Israel's Zionist Society - Consequences for Internal Opposition and the Necessity for External Intervention; in Judaism or Zionism - What Difference for the Middle East; Zed Books Ltd., London 1986

-- posted by Rafehh

Top 9. Feb 10, 1997 8:02 PM

» Lawhawk - Mr. Hulays, I apologize for not dealing with all of the points y

Mr. Hulays, I apologize for not dealing with all of the points you raise. In the future, please keep your remarks short and to the point in order to get short replies back. As I have mentioned in an earlier posting, I will attempt to deal with all the issues raised in a timely manner.

Readers should keep in mind that the editorials are my opinion of the situation and I try to supply as much information to support my beliefs, as Mr. Hulays is doing.

The Palestinian issue is something that the nations of the world have been dealing with constantly since 1948. Israel's current Prime Minister wrote in his biography that he felt that the Palestinians already have a country to call their own - Jordan. Technically, he is correct since the modern day Jordan was born of the British Mandate Palestine that was carved up by Britain prior to 1947 into Transjordan and Palestine. I however do not agree with this view.

As an aside, it was clearly evident during the Gulf War that any ballistic missile, no

matter how inaccurate can be utilized as a terror weapon. I do not agree with the Israeli decision to maintain a nuclear stockpile nor do I agree with any other country in the region getting weapons of mass destruction.

Israel has committed numerous violations of human rights and should be held accountable, just as any other country should. Israel should be held to the same standard as all those other countries, from China to South Africa to Iran and Iraq.

My view of the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict was that it was shaped by the Cold War conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States, not solely by actual participants of the the Arab-Israeli conflict. Both the US and Soviet Union took advantage of the situation in order to dominate the region and its resources. The US chose to side with Israel since they viewed it as the most stable regime, but they dealt with others from time to time to maximize their influence. The conflict could possibly have been resolved many years back had the US and Soviets chosen to bring peace to the region. Instead the region took advantage of the situation, with Israel taking serious advantage of its contacts with the US.

I will talk further of this issue in later essays.

Michael Siegel
Mid-East Politics

-- posted by Lawhawk

Top 10. Feb 11, 1997 2:44 PM

» Rafehh - While it is hard for me to keep my posting short, I shall put th

While it is hard for me to keep my posting short, I shall put the effort to do so. I do like to document points that I make. This is due to my engineering background, where one derives the final formula and one has to support a conclusion. Nonetheless, I SHALL TRY!

With regard to the issue of Jordan and Palestine, the reader should consider that For hundreds of years and up to 1919, the area east of the Jordan river (nowaday Jordan) was governed by the Ottoman empire as the district of Al-Baka, distinct and separate from Palestine. Also the Jordanians have never considered themselves Palestinians.

Regards,

Rafeh Hulays

-- posted by Rafehh

Top 11. Feb 12, 1997 6:19 PM

» Rafehh - ETHNIC CLENSING IN THE WEST BANK By LINDA

ETHNIC CLENSING IN THE WEST BANK

By LINDA BRAYER

Executive Lebal Director

Society of St. Ives - Jerusalem

(1/29/97) On a misty Monday morning, the air wet from the
continuing drizzle, the Israeli Military High Command
decided to swoop on to a scattered Bedouin community
whose presence has been hindering the expansion of the
Jewish colony of Ma'ale Adumim in the Occupied
Palestinian territory of the West Bank. Ma'ale Adumim
is situated to the south east of the villages of Abu-Dis
and el-Azzariah (the latter being the home town of
Lazarus who was raised from the dead.) beyond the
expanded Israeli borders of Jerusalem, but it will be
annexed into Jerusalem very soon. Both the building of
this colony and its subsequent annexation are illegal in
international law, and in contravention of the agreement
with the Palestinians.

The Israeli forces carried out a military operation
against the Jahalin Bedouin who are unarmed civilians.
The police, most of whom carry standard army
automatic rifles, set up road blocks preventing people
entering the site of the military operation. Foreign
delegations , press representatives, peace activists and
Palestinian representatives, such as Mr. Faisal Husseini,
were all prevented from approaching the sites where
the operation was taking place In order to pass one
road block I had to give an explanation of what I was
doing there: I just told them that I was a lawyer and
seeing as I speak a fluent Hebrew I had no trouble
entering the "forbidden site."

Tens of policemen swooped down on to the first
encampment chosen for destruction; a wall of
policemen's bodies was set up to prevented any and all
civilians from approaching the tents and shacks up for
destruction, and the area was declared a "closed
military area" -an interesting designation for a police
action! The owner of the structures of the first
encampment tried to prevent his long-standing shelters
from being destroyed but the police surrounded and
arrested him. The young Bedouin men who witnessed
the violence and humiliation of the man tried to help
him and attempted to pull the police off him but they
were thrown back up the hill away from the
encampment and were pushed against a fence set up
against a 3 meter high ledge. The police and soldiers
then began shoving the young men down the hill to get
them away from the site where they would be held
under control in a confined area by police and army
forces. They kicked and pushed the Jahalin youngsters,
pulled their hair and their clothes, and at times, struck
them with their truncheons. At the lower end of the
hillock they pushed them down a one meter ledge on to
the ground, with many of them being injured in the
process. The army did not see fit to have an ambulance
on hand, nor did they call one. They also had not
brought any stretchers to deal with possible injuries.
Here more police, soldiers and secret service people
waited to surround and to control them. A member of
the "mohabarat" - secret services - was filming all the
action. Everyone at the site was filmed: the local
bedouin, the local and foreign press and myself, their
lawyer.

Meanwhile, down the hill on the other side, the
bulldozers had a free run of the encampment. Moving
trucks had been brought in to gather up the most
meagre of belongings which did not include the building
material for new shelters - neither the traditional woven
cloth nor the iron sheets. Shacks and tents had been
smashed with no thought of saving anything for the
alternative site and the inhabitants had been far
removed and had no say in what they wanted brought
over. I came in time to watch and photograph the
destruction of the central tent/tin shack which had
formed the heart of the compound that I had visited on
several occasions.

This was an army action in all its details although the
police carried it out. The Israelis wanted the forced
expulsion to look like an ordinary civil action taken by
ordinary civilian authorities against civilian
"lawbreakers" - rather than as a violent illegal military
action. It was so pathetic. Ordinary human beings,
unarmed and unprotected, whose only crime was that
they were not Jewish and who had lived in one place
for many years, had all traces of their habitation
removed within a matter of less than one hour.

After expediting this expulsion and destruction quite
efficiently, the troops moved on to the second
encampment located further south and trapped between
buildings under construction. Here, there was only one
tiny, elderly couple, each of whom was more than
eighty years old, who lived together with about twenty
to twenty five sheep and goats. The animals were in a
pen and the couple had three or four tents and shacks
which held their belongings and the food of the sheep.

This second entire operation did not last more than one
hour. The elderly couple had been removed, the tent
shacks were run down and destroyed, the foreign
workers from Rumania carried the sheep and goats into
a container on a truck, and the pen was destroyed.
Within about ten minutes, the couple and their goats
and sheep had been transferred to the alternative site
where the wind was howling and the couple looked
completely dazed. Udi, from the co-ordinating office
said that he would give the old couple a tin shack but
that the other five families evicted from the first
encampment would receive nothing. The partiality of
the generosity is indicative of an outlook which refuses
to regard all human beings as human and as equal.

On the alternative site the people were left stranded.
Despite all claims to the contrary, the Israeli authorities
did precisely what we have been predicting for years.
They threw the expelled Jahalin bedouin families on to
a rocky hill with no provisions made for their new life.
It proves the point that the Israeli authorities have
never had any intention of providing the Jahalin with
anything except sweet words. As Paul says in the New
Testament, "by their fruit ye shall know them." There
is no Israeli fruit: only a sterile, uninhabitable rocky
protuberance whose outer perimeter road serves 800
garbage trucks daily on their way to the Greater
Jerusalem garbage dump five hundred meters away.

It has been argued that I, Lynda Brayer, an aging
Jewish Catholic grandmother, has prevented the Israeli
government of coming to a solution of the problem that
they, the Israeli government, has created. I have told
the army, members of the Knesset and Israeli
journalists that no one has prevented the Israelis from
taking unilateral action. No-one has prevented the
army or "civil" administration from preparing a proper
infrastructure of water, sewage, electricity, telephone
lines, roads and pavements on the site. No-one has
prevented the army or "civil" administration from
building apartment blocks suitable for large families on
the site. No one has prevented the army or "civil"
administration from building a wall to protect the site
from the traffic of 800 garbage trucks per day. . No
one has prevented the army or "civil" administration
from building a medical clinic, a kindergarten, a primary
school building and a community center. No-one, in
fact, has, or can, prevent the army or "civil"
administration from doing anything it wants to do -
least of all an aging Jewish Catholic grandmother.

Instead, the new site will be an instant favello or barios
or squatter township as in South America or apartheid
South Africa. These are the dwelling places for the less
than human. In the Jahalin case, their crime is that they
are not Jewish and as such, they are not fully human
from the position of the Jewish authorities. The way
we know this is the way the Jewish authorities treat
them. The Jewish authorities do not think that the
Jahalin need the kind of housing that Jews need. This
reminds me of a Supreme Court Justice who
commented on a demand for the restoration of drinking
water for Palestinians in a particular village in the
amount that the Jews received in the neighbouring
Jewish illegal settlement. "I am not interested in what
Jews receive! What did they [i.e. the Palestinians]
receive before the water was cut off? That is what they
must get. You cannot compare Jewish and Palestinian
consumption!

He is right of course. You cannot compare
consumption because you may not compare
consumption. In the same manner, you cannot
compare Palestinian dwelling conditions with Jewish
housing conditions, because you may not compare
them. The High Court says you cannot!! Therefore one
may not compare the ultra-modern, well watered,
flowered and treed colony of Ma'ale Adumim with the
"alternative site" or the new Ma'ale Adumim
Township!

This new bedouin township will be a disaster for the
Jahalin; not only because a professional Israeli town
planner says so or a professional Israeli
environmentalist has deems the site uninhabitable - a
charge never answered either by the Israeli Ministry of
Justice or the High Court of Justice. In contrast to a tin
shanty slum, traditional bedouin shelters consisted of
tents made of woven woollen swathes of thick cloth or
sacking which is covered with plastic in the winter. In
the event that the weather conditions and topographical
features of the site do not permit additional tents, then
tin shacks lined with wood inside for insulation are
erected for various facilities such as a kitchen hut,
storerooms and pens for the animals. Bedouin
compounds need space in order to allow for the
spreading out of several of these shelters which need
to be placed sufficiently far apart to provide and
maintain the privacy needed for people living in these
movable dwellings. The space beside and between the
shelters constitute part of the actual dwelling place and
in itself contributes towards the dignity and
independence granted to each person living under these
conditions. Such dwellings needed constant repair and
at times replacement: this is always done without much
ado or fuss and was regarded as a necessary part of the
maintenance of the compound.

There is no space between the tin shanties - there is no
room for the animals. It is obvious that the Israelis will
come to a final solution for the Jahalin of area 06 in
Ma'ale Adumim with the forced expulsion of the last
encampments. We can only hope that the Jahalin
community will not destroyed culturally as a result of
this forced expulsion and eviction.

The forced eviction has been on the cards since the
High Court ratified the State of Israel's claim that the
land in the occupied territories is "state land" and
therefore forbidden for use to the native population -
and all this despite there being no documents to prove
this claim as the state had destroyed the files on its own
admission.

The destruction of the Jahalin of Ma'ale Adumim is
part of continuing Zionist policy. I predict that this
"alternative site" will be re-classified as Area B
unilaterally by the Israelis in the very near future as
part of the ethnic cleansing of Area C, towards the final
solution of the Palestinian problem.

I also want to point out a further point which no one
seems to have picked up. When Palestinians claim to
own land, they have to prove this ownership according
to Israeli standards. When the land is conveniently
expropriated in a myriad of legal methods, it becomes a
market commodity which can be traded. At that point,
it can no longer be obtained by Palestinians.

The land of Ma'ale Adumim was stolen - whether one
recognises the Israeli designation of "state land" or not.
The land was removed from Palestinian ownership
either actual or potential. It is now in Jewish hands,
and as we know, Ma'ale Adumim is about to be
officially annexed to Jerusalem.

The Jahalin were expelled yesterday, two weeks ago,
and will be expelled within the next several days or
maybe at the end of Ramadan, because the Jewish
contractors cannot fulfil their contractual obligations to
their Jewish clients. Jewish Israelis and new immigrants
have bought these apartments and they should have
moved into them months ago. The contractors are
either being sued or are about to be sued for damages.

The economics of the Jewish colonies/settlement are
the crux of the matter and not security. When will the
Israeli government be held accountable for this theft?

Further house demolition took place in Ramallah today,
Tuesday, 28th January as well as the destruction of
tents in the Jordan valley. Area C is being ethnically
cleansed of its "foreign subjects" according to Israeli
jargon and the land in these areas will become the
market commodity of property. How long will the
Palestinians and the world have to put up with this
gross violation of private property rights and the
violation of basic inviolable human rights of
Palestinian non-Jews?

Lynda Brayer, Advocate

Executive Legal Director

-- posted by Rafehh