Family Watches Israeli Forces Take Down Home

Printer Friendly Version

In Photos: Family Watches Israeli Forces Take Down Home

By Khaleel Reash

14 Januaury, 2011
Ma'an Image

Members of the Younis family watch while their home is demolished by the Israeli bulldozers in the West Bank village of Azzun Atma near Qalqiliya, January 11, 2011.

Owner Mu’in Amin Younis, told Ma'an that he began building the home in 2003, on lands owned by his family. He had not yet completed the 130 meter structure when it was demolished.

"They said I built it without a license, but it is my own land," he said.

The village where the Younis family lives is stranded between the Green Line, Israel's separation barrier and two settlements. It is only partially under Palestinian control. Areas of the village near the barrier and settlements come under Israeli civil and military jurisdiction, known as Area C.

Because Younis owns land in Area C, he must apply to Israel for a permit to construct a home. Rights organizations and UN bodies have recognized that it is almost impossible to obtain such a permit.

http://www.countercurrents.org/reash140111.htm

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by TONY RANSOM on January 19, 2011 at 2:18am

Some minor observations. It was not the British but rather the League of Nations that called for a Mandate for Palestine and in it a National Jewish Homeland. Nothing vague about that. No need to bring the Nazis into that as that is only a gratuitous remark. Part of that mandate said that both sides of the Jordan were in fact Palestine and the Hashemites are not native to Palestine. So perhaps the British did give a state to the Arabs of the area with this division. No Jews were allowed to buy or settle there and that law is still in place

You are right that this was not a binding resolution and thus the original League of Nations mandate is still operative. Lets also remember that both houses of Congress in the USA signed off on it ( League of Nations mandate ,that is)

On the outnumbering one ,you are engaging in inconsistencies as the Jewish "Army" consisted mainly of Holocaust survivors. The Iraqi and Egyptian armies were British trained and armed as well as the Jordanian army being under the full control of the British. All the forts and fortifications as well as arms were given to the Arab irregulars in Palestine when the British retreated.

Read the interpretations of the framers of 242 and specifically the USA and British representatives. They may surprise you as to what 242 actually means.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Basil Keilani on January 19, 2011 at 2:35am

The League of Nations does not exist. A Jewish homeland did not entail all the territory in question. You said in it. That's rather vague. And the League of Nations was directed by the colonial powers at the time and by default Britain, a victor of World War I. The British promised the Arabs freedom. They did not inform them they wanted to build a Jewish homeland until later. Thus, it was a betrayal. At any rate, the League of Nations does not exist. The UN does. It replaced the UN, and it's clear regarding the 1967 lands. I don't know why you make no mention of the UN. The UN's resolutions are not vague, and they are Security Council resolutions.

The Arab armies were no match for the Jewish forces. There are many myths behind that. There were not mainly holocaust survivors. That's a bit of hyperbole. There were

Jewish settlers already there prior to WWII and people who fled Europe during WWII. Not everyone who fled Europe was a holocaust survivor. You mean people fled the German invasion of much of Europe. There is a difference. The Arab militaries were no match for the Jewish forces in terms of firepower. The Jordanian king, at any rate, had a secret pact with Golda Meir and betrayed the other Arabs for his Greater Syria ambitions.

I read what 242 and 338 entails. The French text says les territoires occupes and the Russian text as well. The American text says occupied territory without the article.

A pro-Israeli American politician helped draft the English version. Nonetheless, it entailed

that Israel would withdraw from occupied territories and there would be a land exchange

where Israel would give up land from the 1948 lands should it take land from the 1967 lands.

That was the understanding. It was land for peace. You remember the part of it saying

territories without the article. The security council has been clear that until there is a negotiated settlement Israel should not change the demography of the territories, but Israel thumbs itself

at international law and claims the Geneva Convention does not apply, and Israel is free to do as it will with the Palestinians under their control and the land under their military control, and this making it unpopular world-wide.

In fact, the Arab forces were vastly inferior to the IDF. By mid-May 1948 the IDF was fielding 65,000 troops; by early spring 1949, 115,000. The Arab armies had an estimated 40,000 troops in July 1948, rising to 55,000 in October 1948, and slightly more by the spring of 1949. Of the Arab aircraft, only less than a dozen fighters and three to four bombers saw action, the rest were unserviceable. With only a dozen or so airplanes the IDF achieved air superiority by the fall of 1948. And the IDF had vast superiority in firepower and knowledgeable personnel, many of whom had seen action in WWII. Source: "Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001", Benny Morris (2001), pp. 217-18.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Smith on January 19, 2011 at 9:22am

One thing you left out after the 6 day war and the resolutions that followed Israel offered to give back the land for peace and the Arabs answered with the three famous No's "No peace , no recognition no negotiation".

You cannot have your cake and eat it too- when Arabs of Palestine we offered a state the Arabs refused the resolution and started war. When they were offered land in 67 after they were destroyed by Israel and a resolution in the UN was made they refused.

Sometimes if you dont want to loose you should start wars.... You cannot ignore resolutions when they are not fitting for you and use them later when they are...

. Ignoring words like "Jewish state" in resolution 181 which you try to use as teh basis to an Arab state or "from the lands occupied during the Six Day War in exchange for recognition and secure borders " (occupied here is referring to Jordanian and Egyptian land not Palestinian) - this mean through negotiation to secure borders not to the previous ones.....

Its convenient to pick and choose when it comes to history - just not very convincing...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TONY RANSOM on January 19, 2011 at 3:37pm

How does one argue against the grain of overwhelming historical data. You can invert all the data that you want but that does not change history. The UN has adapted the continuation of the League of Nations and has ,to my knowledge, not abrogated the Mandate but rather re-affirmed it.

Please re-read the UN Charter and the League of Nations Mandate and perhaps you will have a better understanding of the conflict. In any case even the UN 242 does not mention a nation called Palestinians.

In any contract there must be two willing partners signing and since that was not the case the Mandate for Palestine is the only valid document still operating.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sussan on January 19, 2011 at 4:09am

Recommendations of the King-Crane Commission On Syria and Palestine 1919

If, however, the strict terms of the Balfour Statement are adhered to-favoring "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"—it can hardly be doubted that the extreme Zionist Program must be greatly modified. For a "national home for the Jewish people" is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor ran the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the "civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/crane.html

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TONY RANSOM on January 19, 2011 at 3:42pm

How are your rights diminished , whether civil or religious, by being a minority in Singapore? It is a knocking down a straw man with a bulldozer argument that you present.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Smith on January 19, 2011 at 7:29pm

"For a "national home for the Jewish people" is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State"

The term "Jewish state" is used in resolution 181 which Arabs try to use as the basis to an Arab state just like in 242 it says "from the lands occupied during the Six Day War in exchange for recognition and secure borders " (occupied here is referring to Jordanian and Egyptian land not Palestinian) - this mean through negotiation to secure borders not to the previous ones(1967).....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mika laiho on January 19, 2011 at 7:55pm

(occupied here is referring to Jordanian and Egyptian land not Palestinian)

++++ Sorry, but it means also palestinian land.

- this mean through negotiation to secure borders not to the previous ones(1967).....

++++ It means really pre 1967 borders. If you would kindly really that res. 242 from beginning to the end, there is also mentioned one tiny detail ( from international law ), which makes your claim no go.

And here it is :

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Smith on January 19, 2011 at 8:51pm

"++++ Sorry, but it means also palestinian land." - there was no such thing at the time there was only Jordan and Egypt on the map....

"++++ It means really pre 1967 borders. If you would kindly really that res. 242 from beginning to the end, there is also mentioned one tiny detail ( from international law ), which makes your claim no go." - If it meant 67 it would have said it it says "(withdraw) ...from the lands occupied during the Six Day War in exchange for recognition and secure borders " -

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TONY RANSOM on January 20, 2011 at 2:40am

++++ Sorry, but it means also palestinian land.

Please refer to the passage where the word "Palestine or Palestinians" is mentioned.

And here it is :

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.

It is very interesting what slant you are using , but there was no acquisition by Israel of any territory that has been sovereign by any state as Jordan acquired the land through a war of aggression and therefore your quote is not valid. 242 reiterates the cease fire wording of 1949 that the borders will be fixed through negotiations. Only the physical cease fire lines have changed between 1949 and 1967.

Lets not invert history to a slant that is not in synch with the actual events, please.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Basil Keilani on January 20, 2011 at 5:24am

The United Nations and the Hague have already addressed this. The arguing that the Geneva Convention does not apply in occupied territory was used in Nuremberg and didn't work as an argument.

You cannot simply demolish homes, change the topography. Israel acquired the West Bank in a war. It was not granted to Israel. It's clearly not accepted in international law to change the demographics and engage in fait accomplis on the land. Regardless if Jordan took land by force or not, so did

Israel. UN 242 and 338 if accepted has the Arab side seeding what

Israel acquired up to 1948.

Based on the US interpretation of 242 and 338, Israel could have a portion of the West Bank in an agreement. However, it should not

annex parts of the territories, willfully grab land to expand settlements.

The UN Security Council has ruled on the question based on stare decisis or international law precedent and Israel has been found to be in violation of the Geneva Convention. It's not about liking or not liking Israel. Israel treats the resolutions as if they irrelevant and international law is something arbitrary for the state. There are consequences to having such views when one wants the good-will and cooperation and exchanges in connection with other states.

The borders will be fixed by negotiation. That's true.

However, the council has ruled trying to change it by force by expanding settlements is illegal. However, Israel does not care because the Arabs are a mind object, like an obstacle to be moved away, transferred from various parts of the West Bank to free the land of Arabs and replace them with Israelis. It's essentially Israel promulgating a Jewish holy war in the Middle East, which is a dangerous gamble. International law isn't based on interpretations of the Quran, Bible, or TANACH. We have to be careful if we want to live together. The Arabs can't be treated as objects to be simply moved out of the way. Using religion as a tool to harm others harks back to things like the 30 years war between Catholics and Protestants, the Spanish Inquisition etc...

Permalink Reply by mika laiho on January 20, 2011 at 7:11pm

Please refer to the passage where the word "Palestine or Palestinians" is mentioned.

++++ Please refer to the passage where is ANY country by name mentioned.

++++ Do you think that UN dropped palestinian case somehow in 1948 ?

242 reiterates the cease fire wording of 1949 that the borders will be fixed through negotiations.

++++ No, that those borders should finally be agreed. Which is still missing in west bank / Israel part.

Only the physical cease fire lines have changed between 1949 and 1967.

++++ Would you be kind and read those ceasefire agreements ? And what they say.

Lets not invert history to a slant that is not in synch with the actual events, please.

++++ I really dont have to. And events and international law are quite different thing my friend.