babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Fighting the racism that goes by the name of Zionism take 2

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Fighting the racism that goes by the name of Zionism take 2
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 04 June 2005 12:56 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...while at the same time not compromising the truth one bit. I agree with Baldwin:

Baldwin's frankish ancestors entered Jerusalem and killed everyone in the city. I sincerely doubt he was interested in Middle East peace. Are you sure you want to quote him?

quote:
I want to enlist the support of Jewish Israelis, but I think what we need at this point is something on the order of an intervention.


My point is that you will never Inlist the support of Jewish Isrealis by insisting that they give up Zionism, it just won't happen. At least not for a while. The chances of it disappearing will increase once the occupation ends.

RE: intervention: we can't intervene without getting support from the international community. Unfortunatly the international community supports a two state solution. So does the PA. I'm afraid that at this point activists are just going to have to settle for the lesser of two evils and wok with Gush Shalom to get concessions from the Isreali government and create a two state solution.

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 04 June 2005 02:09 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Peech:
Wow:

You're not hiding your objectivity are you. Lands "stolen". This is possibly the biggest hoax of our century.


"a dead city, a corpse city," he noted in his journal, a "horrifying and fantastic sight." But there too the advantages were clear: "What happened in Haifa can happen in other part of the country if we will hold out . . . it may be that in the next six or eight months of the campaign, there will be great changes in the country, and not all to our detriment. Certainly, there will be great changes in the composition of the population of the country." (Simha Flapan, p. 99)

A quote from the beautiful Ben Gurion. Heres some more.

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story638.html

How people can defend this is beyond me.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 04 June 2005 04:04 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
So much talk about the Israeli Left. What Israeli Left? Is it the one under Ben Guorion which ethnically cleansed the Palestinians in 1948, or is it the Israeli Left that kept on building settlements throughout the 1990s, in what was dubbed as the peace process years? Or is it Uri Avneri, who presents himself now as a humanitarian, although he can not escape a racist framework when it comes to Palestinain right of return? He brings himself to accept a limited right of return as not to disturb the demographic nature of the state. To him the Jewish character of Isreal overrides the right of those who were ethnically cleansed for it to be founded. In terms of justice, what is more stringent, the right of people to live freely on their own lands or the rights of states to maintain a certain character? I really disagree with you CMOT when it comes to Avneri (I have had this argument with you 2 years ago).

The point is that what is marketed as the Israeli Left is by no means a true left. The true Israeli Leftists reamin isolated and hardly heard of (though it struggles so hard to be heard). Those who pass themselves as the Israeli Left (Avneri and the like) are nothing but apologists for ethnic cleansing, dispossesion, and occupation.


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 04 June 2005 08:30 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
"Baldwin's frankish ancestors entered Jerusalem and killed everyone in the city. I sincerely doubt he was interested in Middle East peace. Are you sure you want to quote him?"

It is more likely that James Baldwin's ancestors were enslaved by the desendants of the Crusades' Baldwin: James Baldwin was a black man.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 04 June 2005 08:37 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
(I have had this argument with you 2 years ago).

Good god! Has it really been so long!?


quote:
The point is that what is marketed as the Israeli Left is by no means a true left. The true Israeli Leftists reamin isolated and hardly heard of (though it struggles so hard to be heard). Those who pass themselves as the Israeli Left (Avneri and the like) are nothing but apologists for ethnic cleansing, dispossesion, and occupation.

Do you realize what you have just done?
You have written off 99.9% of the Israeli population.
To lump Gush Shalom in with the Israeli Labor Party is incredibly silly.
If the Israeli right is filled to bursting with messianic extremists and the Israeli left is filled with ineffectual hypocrites, that means there's absolutely no one to work with on the Israeli side of the conflict, there is no Israeli resistance, at least not one that can affect public policy in any meaningful way. I refuse to believe that, and I believe anyone who does is being woefully shortsighted.* I don't ask my fellow anti Zionists to like the Zionist left, I do expect them to work with it however. The two state solution is by no means perfect, but it is a quick fix, a band aid solution until a real cure can be found.
*I am guilty of this particular sin and would like to apologize for every single American on the face of the earth for every anti-American generalization I have ever made.


quote:
Or is it Uri Avneri, who presents himself now as a humanitarian, although he can not escape a racist framework when it comes to Palestinain right of return? He brings himself to accept a limited right of return as not to disturb the demographic nature of the state.


Mr. Avnery has condemned the ethnic clensing of 1948 numerous times and his organization has done their level best to educate the Israeli public about and their blood soaked past. Granted they only allow a limited right of return for the Palestinians, but if you look at the actual numbers involved, (Gush wants to allow 500,000 refugees to immigrate a year for ten years) their plan would put a sizable dent in the refugee population and allow the rest of them to accept compensation.

Could the number of refugees be larger? yup. Is the idea of compensation entirely just? Nope. However nothing that Avnery or Gush have done could be characterized as entirely racist.

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 04 June 2005 09:02 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It dosen't look like Avnery considers himself part of the Zionist left. Strange, I thought he was
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 04 June 2005 09:13 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More proof that Uri Avnery isn't racist
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 04 June 2005 10:03 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The true Israeli Leftists

which parties would you characterize as being part of the true left?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 04 June 2005 10:15 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
"Baldwin's frankish ancestors entered Jerusalem and killed everyone in the city. I sincerely doubt he was interested in Middle East peace. Are you sure you want to quote him?"

It is more likely that James Baldwin's ancestors were enslaved by the desendants of the Crusades' Baldwin: James Baldwin was a black man.


Sorrry, my mistake.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 04 June 2005 10:24 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
I think your position is well understood, and many intelligent people, Chomsky, for example, share your view.

I don't, not, as you might think, out of principle, but for several pragmatic reasons.

* The two-state solution does not have enough support in Israel to make it practical in the short term. Given that we have a long fight ahead of us, it is more sensible to set our sights on a real solution, rather than a band-aid.

* The non-Jewish population of Israel stands at 24% of the total. They are expected to reach 30% within 15 years. Today the Zionist movement is highly active in surrounding Palestinian villages with Jewish settlements, confiscating land, refusing to provide basic services, and otherwise emulating the basic strategy of the occupation targeting Israel's Palestinian citizens.

*A two-state solution is not going to help either the refugees or the Palestinian citizens of Israel. Its effect will be like that of the peace treaty with Eygpt, which freed Israel's forces to attack Lebanon: Zionists will redouble their efforts to surpress the growing, and increasingly assertive, Palestinian community within the Green Line.

Picture it for a moment. Israel will reach, in short order, a situation in which 2 million of its citizens are Palestinian. But it will still define itself as a Jewish state. It will still enforce segragationist policies within the Green Line. Then you will add to the mix a hundred or a hundred and fifty thousand angry, racist settlers, expelled, as they see it, from their homes, and finding in Israel proper a burgeoning Palestinian population demanding equal rights.

Imagine the Watts riots seasoned by the arrival of a hundred thousand deported South African plantation owners. That's what it will look like.

Meanwhile, in the Geneva-type state of the Palestinians, how will things look? After 30 years of forced dependence on Israel, their economy will be a shambles. Half the people are crowding onto 22% of the land, so they are desperately crowded, short of water (which they are obliged by some drafts of the Geneva Accord to continue to ship to Israel) and surrounded on all sides by Israeli troops (who will be in the Jordan valley for at least three years) with the IAF flying above them (forever).

That is bad enough, but ask yourself, is Israel going to stay out of the West Bank and Gaza? Israel has invaded every single one of its neighbors with which it shares a border: Lebanon, Syria, Egypt (twice), and Jordan, plus hundreds of peacetime cross-border raids and thousands of overflights and airstrikes.

Given tensions in Israel and the situation in the territories, pretexts are certain to arrive in the form of isolated attacks on Israelis. Thanks to the terms of their statehood, Palestinians will not have any weapons with which to defend themselves or any allies to defend them. How long before the reprisal raids, punishment airstrikes, kidnappings and re-occupations begin?

Two-state is loved by many, not least because of the ease with which it comes to mean all things to all people. But I honestly don't think it's going to work.

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 04 June 2005 10:37 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wish Coyote was here. It's very intimidating being hemmed in by such agressive, well read and extremely intelligent people.
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
cabana me banana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9135

posted 05 June 2005 06:27 AM      Profile for cabana me banana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How much better do you think it would get inside a one-state solution....?

"Greater Israel" ideologues and bible-thumpers would not change their minds at all, and any leftover doves in the secular middle class would balk at the influx of unemployed citizens and the added burden of 2 million or more refugees. Fear would run rampant and this one-state nation would fracture and ghettoize quickly. Initiatives to subdue Palestinian civil human rights would be railroaded through in the courts and in the workplace.

All in all, I fear another Yugoslavia.

Fact is, two heretofore insoluble peoples need two different states.

[ 05 June 2005: Message edited by: cabana me banana ]


From: vancouver | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 05 June 2005 07:22 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
From my vantage point the Zionism as racism canard has been totally discredited by the united Nations many years ago. Why are you trying to resurrect it again?
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
clear mutiny
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9494

posted 05 June 2005 08:11 AM      Profile for clear mutiny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because Israel /Palestine has become the morality play upon which others live and speak their fantasies.

It's got it all, the comeback kid, the sense of injustice, the outrage that launched a thousand columns, the frustration of the ant crisped by a wanton bored child and a magnifying glass.

I don't want to be too cynical; it's real people, their hopes and dreams and hates, living there. I wish them well.


From: no localized | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 05 June 2005 01:02 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Fact is, two heretofore insoluble peoples need two different states.


If I believed that, I wouldn't be anti Zionist. I don't believe that Jews and Palestinians will NEVER be able to live together, I just believe that they won't be able to live together right away. The two state solution(or at least the two state solution put forward by Gush Shalom) would give both Israelis and Palestinians a chance to take a collective breath and calm down before the real work begins. That way, both peoples can avoid the unpleasant scenario you detailed above. The two state solution should not be thought of as a permanent solution. It isn't. It is merely a steppingstone to something better.

I'm all two stated out, I'll leave it to people who actually have a firm grasp of the issues to defend my position. I've run out of ideas.

[ 05 June 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 05 June 2005 02:23 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
ohara:
From my vantage point the Zionism as racism canard has been totally discredited by the united Nations many years ago. Why are you trying to resurrect it again?

You mean the white dominated one with no concept of racism?


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 05 June 2005 02:28 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
From my vantage point the Zionism as racism canard has been totally discredited by the united Nations many years ago. Why are you trying to resurrect it again?

This post is an example of a curious phenomenon I noticed many years ago. When the United Nations is criticizing Israel, Zionists regarded it as an irrevelant, undemocratic, practically evil institution; yet when it appears to support their claims, as with the paritition resolution, for example, it is suddenly the holy oracle of truth.

Let me ask you this: During the many years in which the position of the United Nations was that Zionism was, in fact, a form of racism, did you believe that it was?


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 05 June 2005 02:33 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
CMOT, thank you for your ideas, and your kind words.

I've been reading about Gush Shalom and I like them a lot. Truly, they are among the tzaddikim of our sad present.

Do you have a link to their peace plan, which you mentioned above?


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 05 June 2005 02:55 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[Here's the peace plan
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 05 June 2005 03:23 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm going to respond quickly to this. I've had a busy week-end, and it's about to get busier before a ridiculous week. As for CMOT wishing for my prescence, well, let me just say I am in no way worthy of such a compliment.

liminal has indeed long been quite critical of the Israeli Left, which is of course as varied and nuanced (even more so, possibly) than the Canadian Left. It is also much more active and robust that its decayed and withered American counterpart, more's the pity for our friends to the South.

Such criticisms are valid. There is indeed a deep parochialism in Israel. In many ways, it is the decline of the Israeli Left that has led us to this pass in history. At one time, if one remembers, there were marches in Israeli and Palestinian towns featuring constituencies of peace from both sides, Meretz and Fatah banners through the streets of Netanyah. That doesn't happen any more. The argument from the Israeli Left is that things have gotten too hot for such displays of solidarity; I maintain that now is the only time for such displays to truly count.

Of course, the Israeli Left is not alone in its rejection of solidarity, and nor is it universal. There is more connection there than one would think. Having been there as a member of the ISM, it is truly encouraging to see the number of Israeli organizations and individuals willing to challenge travel bans and go to the most remote (which is a relative term) Palestinian towns to work against the construction of the Wall of Theft on Palestinian land. This is happening all the time, but because it is not picked up in the international media (nor very often the Israeli media, even Haaretz) one is left with the assumption that Israeli-Palestinian relations are defined by two sources: the settlers (with the IDF to back them) and suicide bombs - in no other way shall the twain meet.

It's just not true, and that narrative has to be challenged.

I have no desire to angelicize (to coin a phrase) the Israeli Left, but I would like to point out one area where I think the ground is shifting. Labour, or certain elements within it, have gone on a major recruiting drive in the Israeli Arab community in the last two years. So much so that Labour's membership is now 22% Arab - that is the largest constituency in the party, overtaking the kibbutzim who have not dropped in numbers but in percentage from 16% to 10%. What this bodes for the future I don't know, but what I am cautioning here is for people to take a long, hard, realistic look at their options on the political playing field in Israel-Palestine.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 05 June 2005 03:26 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is a document detailing the differences between the three peace plans.

[ 05 June 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 05 June 2005 10:14 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
An article about the grim future I'm talking about:


In the middle of the demolition conflict yesterday, one of the women on the roof ignited a gas canister. A Yasam policeman flung himself at her, and extinguished the fire before it caused any damage. On the patio below, policemen were exchanging blows with family members. MK Mohammed Barakeh (Hadash-Ta'al) endured a shower of blows, pushes and gas grenades for a few seconds before being shoved back, with other Arab MKs, coughing from the tear gas.

In the end, it appeared that the Arab MKs were injured worse than the others. Makhoul was evacuated by ambulance, Hadash-Ta'al MK Ahmed Tibi's arm was bandaged and MK Azmi Bishara (National Democratic Alliance) was curled up with pain in his car.

After paramedics treated the injured and the police took the detained ones away, the cloud of dust from the house's debris began to settle. Miriam Bushkar sat in what was once the yard of her home, with a bleeding gash on her cheek. Her eldest daughter, 4, lay in her lap looking stunned.

"The mayor is a son of a bitch and will pay," she said. "Today, his intifada has begun in Haifa."

[ 05 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 06 June 2005 03:36 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My apologies, it turns out that the figure the figure of 500,000 refugees per year didn't come from Gush but came from Avnery himself. Here is the article in which he datails his strategy for dealing with the right of return.

[ 06 June 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 06 June 2005 03:58 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
500,000 is, more's the pity, a typo.

He says 50,000 a year for ten years. I noticed 500,000 a year in the original post and assumed as much.

It's a shame, we could have settled all of our differences with one another!


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 15 June 2005 11:30 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
An important editorial from Haaretz:

quote:


Showing a sour face to the Arabs

By Haaretz Editorial

The housing fair that took place in the north last Sunday was aimed at attracting new residents to towns in the Galilee. But it turns out that not all Israeli citizens are welcome in these "community villages." Haaretz reporter David Ratner, who was present at the fair, received the impression that the welcoming approach of agents from the Misgav Regional Council suddenly disappears when the applicant is an Arab citizen - even if he is a doctor and department chair at Poriya Hospital, a factory owner or a journalist.

The result is that the 29 community villages of the Misgav Regional Council do not contain even a single Arab resident. Council head Erez Kreisler says that Arabs do not apply, because they know that there is no "cultural infrastructure" for their absorption. It is possible that he is right and that Arabs are reluctant to apply for places in a community village whose other residents are all Jews. But it is more likely that this reluctance stems from a recognition of reality.

Iman and Adel Ka'adan, who petitioned the High Court of Justice in 1995 because the community village of Katzir refused to accept them, are still not living there, even though the court ruled back in 2000 that they must be allowed to do so. Kreisler says that the court approved these communities' admission criteria and he stands by his right to pick and choose new residents, relying on regulations that allow such communities to examine whether residents would be socially suitable. Even if one accepts his argument, it is hard to believe that other Arabs, "socially suited" to life in Misgav's community villages, have not been found by this time.http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/588642.html


This discussion references one of the three prongs of Israel's decades-old strategy towards the Palestinian citizens of Israel:

1. The confiscation of land. Example.

2. The selective enforcement and biased application of laws and regulations so as to prevent Palestinians from building on land that belongs to them, and destroy what they have built. Example.

3. Preventing Palestinians from settling in Jewish communities, or from establishing new communities. Example.

There are other elements of the strategy, most of which would be familar to anyone conversant with institutional racism anyone in the world; discouraging births, denying educational opportunities, denying access to reacreational facilities like public beachs, and "grassroots" efforts to enforce segragation.

The article concluded:

quote:
Arab Israelis are discriminated against as a group; the public remembers them only when the Labor Party holds a registration drive or when there are riots, like those in Umm al-Fahm at the start of the current intifada.

The view that the Arabs are a demographic threat and, in the case of the Misgav Regional Council, that they are taking over the Galilee - Misgav's communities were originally built to Judaize the Galilee - provides fertile ground for diplomatic platforms such as that unveiled yesterday by Yisrael Beiteinu Chairman Avigdor Lieberman, which calls for transferring Umm al-Fahm to the Palestinian Authority.

The State of Israel is not, and never has been, homogeneous; about one quarter of its citizens are not Jews. This fact should long since have been internalized - first and foremost, in the behavior of Israeli authorities.


[ 15 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]

[ 16 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 15 June 2005 11:51 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
The national philosophy that is reflected in these policies is well expressed here, in an appeal to settle the people leaving Gaza in the Negev. It reads in part:

The Jewish people are slowly losing the Negev, and the Galilee. Losing - because Jews are abandoning them while Palestinian who are citizens of Israel are taking them over. In recent years, those responsible for the various regions at the Ministry of the Interior and the State Comptroller's Office warn: More than 100,000 homes have been built illegally, mostly on state land.

Give it a look, bearing in mind that over 90% of the land in Israel is "state land," mostly confiscated from Palestinians, and due to a web of biased laws and enforcement, with rare exceptions, all new Palestinian building, even if it's just an extra room on your house, is illegal.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 16 June 2005 05:40 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't think there were any Isreali towns in the negev other than Elat. How many communities are there in southern Isreal?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 16 June 2005 07:02 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
I can see how you might think that, but from a historical perspective, your question is a thigh-slapper. Zionists see themselves as pioneers. They build everywhere they possibly can. They scatter small settlements over all the land that they control. And this process is going on all the time. It started in the pre-state days, with "tower and stockade" settlements that could be thrown up overnight, illegally, which the British would then fear to tear down.

It continued until the present day: Sephardim olim were forced to settle in planned towns on the edges of the Green line in order to stregthen the Jewish presence there. In the 60s, 150,000 immigrants were settled in the Negev. Today, only 13,000 of those settlers remain (according to Aron Sofer, Hafia University demographic expert, cited in Sleeping on a Wire, chapter 12.)

For about a decade, their has been a campaign to lure more Jews to settle in the Gailee (where there are now more Arabs than Jews.) It's called "Judaizing the Gailee." No, I'm not kidding.

An article in Haaretz described this philosophy as:

quote:
"the eternal lexicon of the Zionist settlement ethos: establish facts on the ground, pave roads in the sand, build homes in Israel, absorb immigration. Sharon believes in all of these cliches, some of which were apt in their day, especially before the state came into existence, and some of which were sweeping and harmful even then.

. . . [T]his approach . . . relates to every site and every patch of land as a basis for the momentum of building and construction for their own sake alone."


Jewish settlements in the Negev are planned communities, designed to maintain the Jewish claim to the area, and complicated not only by the high Arab birthrate and the Palestinians' tenacious hold on the land, but by the fact that Tel Aviv works "like a magnet" on the populations of these uneconomic, isolated settlements (Sofer, Ibid.)

Am I forgetting something? Oh, right, the question that you asked. Communities in the Negev:

[ 16 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]

[ 16 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 16 June 2005 07:36 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How big are these communities?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 16 June 2005 08:15 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
They are quite small in terms of population -- over 100 have been established in the last thirty years and some are home only to a few dozen families.

Their appetite for land, however, is immense:

quote:
Land Expropriation

British mandate records list 12,600,000 (3) dunams in the Negev as used by the Bedouin. Today the Bedouin are struggling to avoid eviction from the 240,000 dunams of this area remaining to them. While Bedouin land rights and tribal boundaries were respected by Ottoman and British authorities, the State of Israel’s sedentarisation policy has been accompanied by a registration of Negev lands as state property. Unlike the rest of mandatory Palestine, no formal registration process of Negev lands was undertaken during the mandate period.

The state has been able to develop a legal process that makes Bedouin land claims invisible. This process has been achieved through 3 principal laws:

The Land Acquisition (Validation of Acts & Compensation) Law (1953) states that land that was not in the possession of its owner in April 1952 could be registered as state property. It facilitated a massive transfer of lands in the Negev, since at the time the Bedouin had been transferred by the state into the enclosure zone. Although some tribes returned to their lands after the enclosure zone was lifted, they found that, since the land was now registered with the state, they either had to lease it or “trespass.” Consent to lease has been taken in court as proof that the land was never theirs. (4)

The Land Rights Settlement Ordinance (1969) classified all mawat lands (Ottoman term) as state property, unless a formal legal title could be produced. Mawat (literally dead) land was defined as unworked and more than 1.5 miles from the nearest settlement. The last opportunity for the Bedouin to register their lands against mawat status had been in 1921, (5) at a time when their rights were not challenged by anyone. The category became a major means for expropriation in the Negev because although Israeli courts acknowledged that Bedouin had been living in the areas they claimed, they did not recognise Bedouin tents as constituting settlements in terms of the law. (6) Further, they defined working the land as changing it; pastoralism was an unrecognised form of living. The law abolished all previous conflicting registrations.

The Negev Land Acquisition (Peace Treaty with Egypt) Law (1980) facilitated large scale confiscation orders of Bedouin lands to build military bases and an airport in the wake of the peace treaty with Egypt. No appeal against the confiscation was allowed, and the compensation terms offered ranged between 2%-15% of the terms granted to relocated Jewish Sinai settlers. (7) The military base at Im Tinan (56,000 dunams taken) was never built, and in 1994 was turned over for use by Jewish farmers.


After this legal razzle-dazzle, expropriation continues, seasoned by rightous indignation on the part of the thevies:

quote:
ATIR, Negev: Four years ago Raed Abu Elkian, 27, finished serving in the Israeli Army as a Bedouin tracker. Today the entrance to his village in Israel's southern semi-desert region, the Negev, is marked by a giant concrete block stamped in black ink with the words "Danger. Entry Forbidden: Firing Range."

"It's like we're invisible, we don't exist as far as the authorities are concerned," he said.
The army laid a trail of these blocks along the road to the village in March to alert anyone venturing into this part of the Negev to keep away. For the 1,000 residents of Atir, who have farmed this corner of Israel for generations, the creation of a military firing range next to their homes was only advance warning of the authorities' intentions.

In April the supply from a single standpipe, the only source of running water in the village, was cut off. Finally, in June everyone over the age of 16 was issued with an evacuation notice telling them, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, to leave the village "vacant, without person, object or animal in the area." A lawyer representing the state, Gioara Adatao, told the same newspaper:
"As far as I am concerned, these are people who seized land illegally. The state has no obligation to supply them with alternative places of residence." Although the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza has long been in the spotlight of the international media, few outside Israel have noted the potentially violent confrontation developing between the Israeli government and its Bedouin citizens.
One senior official in the Israel Lands Authority, Yaakov Katz, has been reported as saying: "It's high time for this to take place. It should have been done ages ago. The main goal is to make order in (the Negev) and to make sure the Bedouin get their rights and (fulfill their) duties."

Over the next few years the government has set aside $200 million to enforce the removal from the Negev of the last remaining Bedouin farming communities, home to some 70,000 Bedouin.
"The development Sharon wants for the Negev is only Jewish development," said Raed Abu Elkian. "And that means ethnic cleansing for us" . . .

The collective criminalization of the Bedouin, however, was only codified in Israeli law in 1965 by a planning law which zoned the lands on which they live as green areas, making their homes retroactively illegal and subject to destruction.

Today half the Negev's 140,000 Bedouin live in 45 villages the state refuses to recognize and which lack all public amenities, including running water, electricity, sewage and garbage disposal, medical care and schools.
But despite their appalling living conditions in these "unrecognized villages" the Bedouin have so far proved unwilling to move into the townships.

The reason, says Jabr Abu Kaff, a Bedouin leader, is because the other 70,000 Bedouin in the Negev agreed under pressure in the early 1970s to move into seven urban reservations, officially known as "concentration centers." All these townships languish at the very bottom of the country's social and economic league tables.

"Although they were designed to urbanize the Bedouin, the townships lack industrial areas and even the most basic infrastructure," he said. The largest, Rahat, which has 40,000 Bedouin inhabitants, boasts only a post office and one bank.

Observers suggest the confrontation between the Bedouin and the state was inevitable given that one of the core Zionist goals is the "freeing up" of the huge land mass of the Negev - some two-thirds of Israeli territory - for Jewish immigration. Today the Bedouin, a quarter of the Negev's population, live on under 2 per cent of its land.

Sharon's Negev Development Plan is designed to use draconian measures to ensure that the townships policy partially implemented in the 1970s succeeds three decades later. According to legislation Sharon is pushing through the Knesset, any Bedouin living outside a township will be redefined as an illegal squatter. Repeat offenders risk two years in jail.

. . .

The war of words over land rights in the Negev has grown increasingly inflammatory, stoked by right-wing members of the government.
In February 2002, National Infrastructures Minister Avigdor Lieberman told the Israeli media: "We must stop (the Bedouin's) illegal invasion of state land by all means possible. The Bedouin have no regard for our laws."
And Tzachi Hanegbi, the public security minister, urged an audience of Jews in the Negev: "Come on friends, pick up a stick and beat any Bedouin criminal until he leaves."


[ 16 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 16 June 2005 08:28 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Here is a site listing about 600 communities for Israel's Southern District, which includes the Negev and some parts further north. Since the total population of the area is about 500,000, and there are a few sizable towns, you may imagine that the median population of these settlements is probably in the hundreds.

Sources for the last post:

http://www.arabhra.org/factsheets/factsheet3.htm

[URL=http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2& article_id=8242 ]http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2& article_id=8242 [/URL]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 20 June 2005 03:15 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
An article about the effort to sell land in the Gailee and the Negev, at bargin basement prices.

"Without the Negev and the Galilee, there is no Israel. We must allow young couples to come and settle in these areas, and put an end to the movement from the outlying areas to the center," said Peres.

If you have been reading the links posted above, you will have already realized several intesting points:

* The land they are selling for half its value is mostly if not entirely land confiscated from Palestinians.

* These land sales are for Jews only; Palestinian buyers are not welcome.

* When Peres says, "We must allow young couples to come and settle in these areas, and put an end to the movement from the outlying areas to the center," he is talking about the problem that most Jews do not want to live in these areas.

* The 25% of Israel's "young couples" that are Palestinian are not included in his statement; they are the problem, not the solution.

* When Peres says, "Without the Negev and the Galilee, there is no Israel" he is alluding to the fact that Palestinians will soon be in the majority in both places, and this (apparently) cannot be tolerated.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 28 June 2005 08:35 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
An interesting article that ties together the ethnic cleansing of 1947, the settlers, the Negev and the Gailee:

quote:


Final scene before the credits

By Yitzhak Laor

Sometime back in 1971, the largest peace demonstration since 1967 was held in Jerusalem. Under the slogan "Peace Now," about 3,000 demonstrators answered the call of the movement that was known at the time as "The Movement for Peace and Security."

Among other speakers at the culminating rally was Professor Akiva Ernst Simon, one of the heads of that movement. The slogan, which seven years later became the name of the Peace Now movement, was taken from one of the hottest slogans of the demonstrations that were gathering momentum that year in the United States against the Vietnam War.

The activists who prepared the demonstration in Jerusalem were for the most part people from Siah - the Hebrew acronym for the New Israeli Left - who came mainly from the kibbutz movement, or more specifically, the Kibbutz Haartzi.




Advertisement

The most popular slogan at that demonstration, as at other Siah demonstrations, was directed against the Jewish settlers in Hebron, and it also appeared at other, smaller demonstrations: "Hebron settlers - Go down to the Negev." This was a pathetic, lost battle cry, an attempt to breathe fires into the dying embers of the old pioneering spirit, in light of what was then crystallizing as "the new pioneering," the settlement project in the occupied territories.

The slogan vanished. The publicists' attempt to remind the settlers of what David Ben-Gurion had tried to turn into the last great settlement project, the settlement of the Negev, was also doomed to oblivion. The pioneering initiatives, by the light of whose placards an entire generation had grown up - the National Water Carrier, the forestation of the Jerusalem hills, "self-realization at the kibbutz" - had waned. The state of Israel had changed. Or perhaps it had not changed, but was continuing along its path, depending on the historical interpretation that was given to what had happened until then.

The greatest difference between the old settlement project, the Zionist project before there was a state and even the settlement project in the "expanses of wilderness" - where after 1948 tens of thousands of immigrants were settled on lands of ruined Arab villages - and the new project, from the workshop of the Israeli right, is this: Not one of the initiators of the new settlements claimed that he had come to an empty or barren area, and that all he wanted to do was to make the wilderness bloom, for everybody's benefit.

Even if the historic labor movement pretended that its aim was to build a new country for the benefit of the Jewish people and for the benefit of the Arab inhabitants, even if it engendered terrible deeds, this position did have one value: It created among an entire generation the knowledge that there are things that have to be done and there are things that must not be done. Even in the double standard of morality there is morality.

This morality gave rise to two different politics. Those who learned to get excited by green fields in the Jezreel Valley could also get excited about green fields that don't "belong to the Jewish people." With the huge settlement project of the right, this morality died. It wasn't the Jewish settlers in the territories who killed it. The parallel initiative to "making the desert bloom" was by then called "Judaizing the Galilee."

It wasn't the settlers in the territories who invented this term, but it arose as one of the two sides of Israel's moral coin: One morality says make the wilderness bloom. The other says acquire the land for Jews only.

The demolishing of the settlers' houses in Gush Katif, beyond the way this will look to the world, beyond what the Arabs will think of it - whether they dance on the rooftops or lick their wounds - will be the most important screening, however dark, of, by and for the Israelis themselves, of "the truth from the land of Israel": What is not ours must not be anyone else's.

The thirst and the destruction that have been imposed on the most densely populated place in the world for the benefit of a few thousand settlers and for their security have been - ever since the Jewish settlement there began - the supreme expression of Israeli egoism.

The destruction that will be sown there after the withdrawal will be a final scene. Whoever hasn't viewed that scene before will see it now in the cinema of Israel's history. Is it a coincidence that this destruction is associated above all with Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu? No. If there is someone who more than anyone else symbolizes the "new Israeli," it is this minister. He does not have a double moral standard.



From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca