|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On March 24 2024 00:52 Ciaus237 wrote:Israel announces largest West Bank land seizure since 1993. Some key highlights, including an explanation of the title: Show nested quote +
Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, announced the seizure of 10 square kilometers (3.8 square miles) of Palestinian territory in the West Bank on Friday. The move marks the single largest land seizure by the Israeli government since the 1993 Oslo accords, according to Peace Now, a settlement watchdog group.
As well as recent legal changes that make it easier for this to happen: Show nested quote +
In June, the Knesset waived a long-standing legal precedent that required the prime minister and the defense minister to sign off on West Bank settlement construction at every phase. Smotrich enjoys near-total control over construction planning and approvals in the West Bank, and approved a record number of settlements in 2023.
“Israel has reached the conclusion that they could get away with this huge land grab because of the lack of international action,” said Sarit Michaeli, international advocacy lead at B’Tselem. “There have been individual economic U.S. sanctions placed on violent settlers, but the greater violence of the occupation is this colossal land theft.
Full article below. + Show Spoiler +
Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, announced the seizure of 10 square kilometers (3.8 square miles) of Palestinian territory in the West Bank on Friday. The move marks the single largest land seizure by the Israeli government since the 1993 Oslo accords, according to Peace Now, a settlement watchdog group.
“While there are those in Israel and the world who seek to undermine our right over the Judea and Samaria area and the country in general,” Smotrich said Friday, referring to the territory by its biblical name, “we are promoting settlement through hard work and in a strategic manner all over the country.”
Israeli settlements in the West Bank are considered illegal under international law. Still, Israel has used land orders like the one issued Friday to gain control over 16 percent of Palestinian-controlled lands in the West Bank. The newly seized area includes parcels in the Jordan Valley and between the settlements of Maale Adumim and Keidar.
The announcement came as Secretary of State Antony Blinken landed in Tel Aviv for talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the future of the war in Gaza. Blinken’s arrival followed meetings in Cairo with several Arab leaders, and amid calls from Democratic senators for President Biden to establish a “bold, public framework” for a two-state solution that recognizes a “nonmilitarized Palestinian state.”
Friday’s land order is particularly problematic for the prospect of a two-state solution, experts say.
“If Israel confiscates land around Jerusalem, all the way to the Dead Sea, there will be no future for a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem,” said Hamza Zubiedat, a land rights activist for the Ramallah-based Ma’an Development Center. “This is where a Palestinian capital was supposed to be located, according to the American and European talks.”
The land transfer will also cut across the West Bank, dividing the north and south.
“If the Israelis annex this area near Maale Adumim, it will be a catastrophe for Palestinians who live in the south,” Zubiedat said. “Palestinian traders, especially in the south, will be cut off, and it will become impossible to have any independent Palestinian ways of life.”
More than 40 percent of the West Bank is under the control of Israeli settlers, according to the Israel-based rights group B’Tselem, and more than half-a-million Jewish residents now live in the West Bank. Israel’s government has also used incentive programs to move Jewish residents into West Bank settlements, where more than 200 settlements and unofficial outposts have fractured the Palestinian territory and displaced Palestinian residents. In recent years, the Housing Ministry has offered subsidized apartments in the West Bank through a lottery system.
Palestinians have little ability to stop the land transfers. After the 1967 war, Israel issued a military order that stopped the process of land registration across the West Bank. Now families lack the paperwork to prove that they have private ownership over their land. And tax records, the only other evidence of West Bank property rights, are not accepted by Israeli authorities.
In June, the Knesset waived a long-standing legal precedent that required the prime minister and the defense minister to sign off on West Bank settlement construction at every phase. Smotrich enjoys near-total control over construction planning and approvals in the West Bank, and approved a record number of settlements in 2023.
“Israel has reached the conclusion that they could get away with this huge land grab because of the lack of international action,” said Sarit Michaeli, international advocacy lead at B’Tselem. “There have been individual economic U.S. sanctions placed on violent settlers, but the greater violence of the occupation is this colossal land theft.
Smotrich, a member of Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition, is a key leader in Israel’s settlement movement. Dahlia Scheindlin, an Israeli political analyst, called the Friday land transfer announcement by Smotrich a “provocation,” but also the continuation of his pro-settler ideological project. “He entered the government with one overriding purpose: to annex all land conquered in 1967 and extend permanent Jewish sovereignty everywhere, no matter how and when it has to happen,” Scheindlin said. “The timing and provocation ahead of Blinken’s visit is a bonus.”
The Biden administration announced sanctions on two West Bank settler outposts earlier this month, the first use of such economic restrictions on Israeli outposts. While West Bank settlements are authorized by the Israeli government, outposts are considered illegal under Israeli law.
The only way to stop this is real international pressure. Sanctions, full boycotts of business, academic and political institutions in Israel and exclusion from the international community. The theft of land and disregard for Palestinians is baked into the law and identity of the state. The kind of changes needed are of similarly massive scope to those implemented when Apartheid was overturned here - and the pressure for that will never come from within.
The only way to get real international pressure is to force Biden/the US to stop protecting Israel from it. The only way to do that is to pressure Biden. The only way to do that is to disrupt Biden's/the US's ability to protect Israel from international pressure to stop their ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign through organized civil disobedience.
Unfortunately, in the US, "the white moderate" would rather vote for genocide enablers than engage in the disruption necessary to force the person they support to stop aiding and abetting Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign of Palestinians.
So Biden's probably going to keep aiding and abetting what his own voters see as the genocide of Palestinians and they'll all express ostensible regret if Israel finishes their campaign as a consequence of such cowardice.
|
On March 09 2024 05:15 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 00:02 RvB wrote:On March 08 2024 03:43 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 03:12 RvB wrote:On March 08 2024 02:10 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 02:08 RvB wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps in name only. They were refugee camps decades ago and developed into cities. Either way even civilian objects with special protections under IHL can become a valid target. Rules are stricter but it's possible nonetheless. If we think about it that makes a lot of sense because otherwise it'd be very easy for organizations like Hamas to abuse IHL in their favor. Whether these attacks are a war crime or not is heavily context dependent. We almost always do not have that context. Hi RvB, can I quickly get your opinion on this military strategy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine What do you want me to say? It's based on two quotes from a military conflict almost two decades ago and a UN report where one of the main authors makes the same observation I do: that the conclusions depend on information from Israel. Okay so the first thing I would want you to say is whether you would agree that, if it is true that they're doing this, it amounts to a war crime. Cause maybe you don't, I wouldn't know. Second, I would ask what you think is more likely based on the results that we see on the ground, that they're applying this strategy that they said they would be applying, or that they've verified that Hamas is hiding in every single building which makes them all valid military targets because they really care about military laws. Disproportionate force is a warcrime as far as I understand yes. The links to his quotes in the wikipedia article are dead or in Hebrew so there's very little to comment on. I don't share your conclusion that the IDF/IAF said they'd be applying that strategy. Assuming the wikipedia article is correct that's still only two quotes from Eisenkott of which only one talks about disproportionate force. Considering the way Hamas operates and that they've prepared for this conflict since they took over Gaza I believe that they've operated from most targeted buildings yes. I guess the underlying question is why I believe the Israeli army mostly complies with International Humanitarian Law. Israel's army has the MAG corps and other systems to ensure compliance. They also advise on targeting decisions. Their decisions are subject to judicial review and the (independent) judiciary has more than once ruled on military matters even during conflicts. The current chief of the IDF, Herzi Halevi, also has a reputation for upholding ethical and legal standards. That does not mean that Israel never breaches IHL but it does mean that they have the institutions to correct course and broadly operate in line with IHL. On March 08 2024 07:55 Magic Powers wrote:On March 08 2024 03:12 RvB wrote:On March 08 2024 02:10 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 02:08 RvB wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps in name only. They were refugee camps decades ago and developed into cities. Either way even civilian objects with special protections under IHL can become a valid target. Rules are stricter but it's possible nonetheless. If we think about it that makes a lot of sense because otherwise it'd be very easy for organizations like Hamas to abuse IHL in their favor. Whether these attacks are a war crime or not is heavily context dependent. We almost always do not have that context. Hi RvB, can I quickly get your opinion on this military strategy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine What do you want me to say? It's based on two quotes from a military conflict almost two decades ago and a UN report where one of the main authors makes the same observation I do: that the conclusions depend on information from Israel. On March 08 2024 02:26 Magic Powers wrote:On March 08 2024 02:08 RvB wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps in name only. They were refugee camps decades ago and developed into cities. Either way even civilian objects with special protections under IHL can become a valid target. Rules are stricter but it's possible nonetheless. If we think about it that makes a lot of sense because otherwise it'd be very easy for organizations like Hamas to abuse IHL in their favor. Whether these attacks are a war crime or not is heavily context dependent. We almost always do not have that context. I'm sure the "context" of bullets and shrapnels ripping through men, women and children who were told to move South to flee from a war zone is very relevant to them now that they've met their maker. You're shifting the goal posts. Your claim is that it is a war crime. Obviously nobody cares whether something is legally a war crime or not when you're in an active war zone fearing for your life. Nobody disputes that. I'm not shifting the goalpost at all. It is a warcrime. And you're also excusing the war crime. Can you stop replying to me if your post consists only of a personal attack. Thanks. Thanks for the feedback. Why is it a war crime to use disproportionate force in your understanding? What's the mecanism?
Sorry I forgot to respond. A strike is disproportionate when the expected collateral damage is excessive compared to the expected military advantage gained. So you cannot blow up an apartment building full of civilians when there's one random Hamas terrorist inside the building. On the other hand if that Hamas terrorist is Sinwar then it might be proportionate. The word expected is important. If I have every reason to suspect someone is an enemy combatant and shoot him but afterward it turns out it's an innocent civilian it's still not a war crime.
Also one more thought on the Dahiya doctrine. Assuming this is the doctrine Israel uses then that also means the worst accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity are not true. The quote calls for disproportionate attacks on Hezbollah targets so it is not indiscriminate. It also calls for the evacuation of civilians for its protection. That means there's no ethnic cleansing because the intent of the evacuation is not to make the area ethnically homogeneous and there's no genocide because there's no deliberate killing with the intent of destroying the nation or group.
|
Eyewitness accounts of rape at Al-Shifa
Source
|
On March 24 2024 18:51 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2024 05:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 09 2024 00:02 RvB wrote:On March 08 2024 03:43 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 03:12 RvB wrote:On March 08 2024 02:10 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 02:08 RvB wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps in name only. They were refugee camps decades ago and developed into cities. Either way even civilian objects with special protections under IHL can become a valid target. Rules are stricter but it's possible nonetheless. If we think about it that makes a lot of sense because otherwise it'd be very easy for organizations like Hamas to abuse IHL in their favor. Whether these attacks are a war crime or not is heavily context dependent. We almost always do not have that context. Hi RvB, can I quickly get your opinion on this military strategy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine What do you want me to say? It's based on two quotes from a military conflict almost two decades ago and a UN report where one of the main authors makes the same observation I do: that the conclusions depend on information from Israel. Okay so the first thing I would want you to say is whether you would agree that, if it is true that they're doing this, it amounts to a war crime. Cause maybe you don't, I wouldn't know. Second, I would ask what you think is more likely based on the results that we see on the ground, that they're applying this strategy that they said they would be applying, or that they've verified that Hamas is hiding in every single building which makes them all valid military targets because they really care about military laws. Disproportionate force is a warcrime as far as I understand yes. The links to his quotes in the wikipedia article are dead or in Hebrew so there's very little to comment on. I don't share your conclusion that the IDF/IAF said they'd be applying that strategy. Assuming the wikipedia article is correct that's still only two quotes from Eisenkott of which only one talks about disproportionate force. Considering the way Hamas operates and that they've prepared for this conflict since they took over Gaza I believe that they've operated from most targeted buildings yes. I guess the underlying question is why I believe the Israeli army mostly complies with International Humanitarian Law. Israel's army has the MAG corps and other systems to ensure compliance. They also advise on targeting decisions. Their decisions are subject to judicial review and the (independent) judiciary has more than once ruled on military matters even during conflicts. The current chief of the IDF, Herzi Halevi, also has a reputation for upholding ethical and legal standards. That does not mean that Israel never breaches IHL but it does mean that they have the institutions to correct course and broadly operate in line with IHL. On March 08 2024 07:55 Magic Powers wrote:On March 08 2024 03:12 RvB wrote:On March 08 2024 02:10 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 02:08 RvB wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps in name only. They were refugee camps decades ago and developed into cities. Either way even civilian objects with special protections under IHL can become a valid target. Rules are stricter but it's possible nonetheless. If we think about it that makes a lot of sense because otherwise it'd be very easy for organizations like Hamas to abuse IHL in their favor. Whether these attacks are a war crime or not is heavily context dependent. We almost always do not have that context. Hi RvB, can I quickly get your opinion on this military strategy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine What do you want me to say? It's based on two quotes from a military conflict almost two decades ago and a UN report where one of the main authors makes the same observation I do: that the conclusions depend on information from Israel. On March 08 2024 02:26 Magic Powers wrote:On March 08 2024 02:08 RvB wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps in name only. They were refugee camps decades ago and developed into cities. Either way even civilian objects with special protections under IHL can become a valid target. Rules are stricter but it's possible nonetheless. If we think about it that makes a lot of sense because otherwise it'd be very easy for organizations like Hamas to abuse IHL in their favor. Whether these attacks are a war crime or not is heavily context dependent. We almost always do not have that context. I'm sure the "context" of bullets and shrapnels ripping through men, women and children who were told to move South to flee from a war zone is very relevant to them now that they've met their maker. You're shifting the goal posts. Your claim is that it is a war crime. Obviously nobody cares whether something is legally a war crime or not when you're in an active war zone fearing for your life. Nobody disputes that. I'm not shifting the goalpost at all. It is a warcrime. And you're also excusing the war crime. Can you stop replying to me if your post consists only of a personal attack. Thanks. Thanks for the feedback. Why is it a war crime to use disproportionate force in your understanding? What's the mecanism? Sorry I forgot to respond. A strike is disproportionate when the expected collateral damage is excessive compared to the expected military advantage gained. So you cannot blow up an apartment building full of civilians when there's one random Hamas terrorist inside the building. On the other hand if that Hamas terrorist is Sinwar then it might be proportionate. The word expected is important. If I have every reason to suspect someone is an enemy combatant and shoot him but afterward it turns out it's an innocent civilian it's still not a war crime. Also one more thought on the Dahiya doctrine. Assuming this is the doctrine Israel uses then that also means the worst accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity are not true. The quote calls for disproportionate attacks on Hezbollah targets so it is not indiscriminate. It also calls for the evacuation of civilians for its protection. That means there's no ethnic cleansing because the intent of the evacuation is not to make the area ethnically homogeneous and there's no genocide because there's no deliberate killing with the intent of destroying the nation or group.
I see why you answered that way, but this is more like "when" something is a war crime, rather than "why". Like, what is the mechanism that makes it a war crime (and a bad thing) when someone uses disproportionate force. It was a bit disingenuous on my part, it's mostly an attempt to have some specifics on the bad things that could be happening because it's not very easy to think of a specific bad thing that the IDF hasn't done to Palestinians.
Full disclosure since it's been a while and we don't need to stretch this conversation a lot further, I'm not entirely sure that it's possible to do any war without committing war crimes. We did some in WW2 vs the nazis, no question. So I'm not really approaching this conversation in the same way as you do, I am of course disgusted with the nonsense about the IDF being the "most moral army in the world" or whatever, especially given that their main animus right now is for sure anti-Arab hatred, but mainly I think when you're trying to demonstrate that no war crimes are happening you're trying to demonstrate something impossible. I would have expected the "grisly realism" defense, something like "Oh yeah it's a war of course war crimes are happening, what do you expect", which is fair enough, and then the conversation can loop back to the legitimacy of the expansion goals of zionism, but if instead you're going "actually I'm not sure there are any war crimes", then we can stay there but I have to win this one easily don't I.
The Dahiya doctrine doesn't call for "disproportionate attacks on Hezbollah targets" because that doesn't mean anything. You can't "disproportionately attack" an Hezbollah target, the Hezbollah target is fully destroyed and that's it. Nobody is going to go "Hey, you were only meant to destroy 50% of that Hezbollah target, you went too far". The disproportionality comes from, in the Beirut example, destroying the whole quarter of Dahieh because there's a Hezbollah base in it. It is the notion that you'll voluntarily destroy the whole quarter as well as the target, and one of the reasons mentioned specifically in the quotes is so that Lebanese people stop supporting Hezbollah because Hezbollah's actions have caused their villages to be destroyed ("Before Nasrallah gives the order to fire at Israel, he will need to think 30 times if he wants to destroy his support base in the villages.") It is two things, one it's extremely stupid, because obviously it's Israel that's destroying the villages so that's who the villagers will be mad at, not at Nasrallah, and two, it's very explicitly terrorism, this is in no sane definition anything else than state terrorism.
Currently Israel hasn't done much ethnic cleansing in Lebanon as far as I know (maybe stilt can correct me if I'm wrong), but this strategy also pairs quite nicely with the ulterior goal of ethnic cleansing, because you're causing disproportionate destruction. That will naturally cause some people to experience despair, and they'll then be more likely to leave the place, and some other people will also be dead, which means that they don't occupy the land you want anymore. Both of those outcomes make it more likely that you'll be able to settle the land.
|
On March 24 2024 22:04 Cricketer12 wrote:Eyewitness accounts of rape at Al-Shifa Source
Wartime rape allegations are a tricky thing, because often the only people that can corroborate stories are people on the opposing sides who are incentivized to claim the other is engaging in war crimes. It’s not really feasible to get a third-party observer out there to verify these claims objectively.
I know that sounds terrible since when applied individually a rape accuser should often be believed, but again the accusation of the enemy side of war crimes in war is so ubiquitous that I can’t help but feel more skeptical. The most likely outcome is that there are isolated incidences of war crimes like rape and torture that occur amongst all militaries engaging with each other, and they’re either swept under the rug if minor enough, or embarrassingly addressed if it’s too widespread (e.g. Abu Gharib).
FWIW the same would apply to accusations of rape and baby killing in the Oct 7th attacks, but there’s so much video evidence of that attack that removes a lot of doubt for me. Personally if I was made aware of at least one piece of video/photo evidence of rape by the IDF (or I guess IOF according to the article, which upon research is a pejorative term indicating a strong bias against the IDF), or other video evidence of war crimes, I would believe that there are at least isolated incidents that are going unpunished.
Unrelated to the above, the recent seizure of West Bank land is pushing me over the fence to “Israel is attempting to expand its borders by relying on the Oct 7th attacks in bad faith” territory.
|
On March 24 2024 23:08 Ryzel wrote:Wartime rape allegations are a tricky thing, because often the only people that can corroborate stories are people on the opposing sides who are incentivized to claim the other is engaging in war crimes. It’s not really feasible to get a third-party observer out there to verify these claims objectively. I know that sounds terrible since when applied individually a rape accuser should often be believed, but again the accusation of the enemy side of war crimes in war is so ubiquitous that I can’t help but feel more skeptical. The most likely outcome is that there are isolated incidences of war crimes like rape and torture that occur amongst all militaries engaging with each other, and they’re either swept under the rug if minor enough, or embarrassingly addressed if it’s too widespread (e.g. Abu Gharib). FWIW the same would apply to accusations of rape and baby killing in the Oct 7th attacks, but there’s so much video evidence of that attack that removes a lot of doubt for me. Personally if I was made aware of at least one piece of video/photo evidence of rape by the IDF (or I guess IOF according to the article, which upon research is a pejorative term indicating a strong bias against the IDF), or other video evidence of war crimes, I would believe that there are at least isolated incidents that are going unpunished. Unrelated to the above, the recent seizure of West Bank land is pushing me over the fence to “Israel is attempting to expand its borders by relying on the Oct 7th attacks in bad faith” territory.
The fact that you're willing to shift your view of Israel is encouraging. Far too often do I see people hold on to their views regardless of what the evidence shows.
I ignored plenty of signs over the years (always shrugging off criticism of Israel as a mix of right-wing and left-wing propaganda) and it took me until this war to fully open my eyes.
|
On March 24 2024 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2024 00:52 Ciaus237 wrote:Israel announces largest West Bank land seizure since 1993. Some key highlights, including an explanation of the title:
Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, announced the seizure of 10 square kilometers (3.8 square miles) of Palestinian territory in the West Bank on Friday. The move marks the single largest land seizure by the Israeli government since the 1993 Oslo accords, according to Peace Now, a settlement watchdog group.
As well as recent legal changes that make it easier for this to happen:
In June, the Knesset waived a long-standing legal precedent that required the prime minister and the defense minister to sign off on West Bank settlement construction at every phase. Smotrich enjoys near-total control over construction planning and approvals in the West Bank, and approved a record number of settlements in 2023.
“Israel has reached the conclusion that they could get away with this huge land grab because of the lack of international action,” said Sarit Michaeli, international advocacy lead at B’Tselem. “There have been individual economic U.S. sanctions placed on violent settlers, but the greater violence of the occupation is this colossal land theft.
Full article below. + Show Spoiler +
Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, announced the seizure of 10 square kilometers (3.8 square miles) of Palestinian territory in the West Bank on Friday. The move marks the single largest land seizure by the Israeli government since the 1993 Oslo accords, according to Peace Now, a settlement watchdog group.
“While there are those in Israel and the world who seek to undermine our right over the Judea and Samaria area and the country in general,” Smotrich said Friday, referring to the territory by its biblical name, “we are promoting settlement through hard work and in a strategic manner all over the country.”
Israeli settlements in the West Bank are considered illegal under international law. Still, Israel has used land orders like the one issued Friday to gain control over 16 percent of Palestinian-controlled lands in the West Bank. The newly seized area includes parcels in the Jordan Valley and between the settlements of Maale Adumim and Keidar.
The announcement came as Secretary of State Antony Blinken landed in Tel Aviv for talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the future of the war in Gaza. Blinken’s arrival followed meetings in Cairo with several Arab leaders, and amid calls from Democratic senators for President Biden to establish a “bold, public framework” for a two-state solution that recognizes a “nonmilitarized Palestinian state.”
Friday’s land order is particularly problematic for the prospect of a two-state solution, experts say.
“If Israel confiscates land around Jerusalem, all the way to the Dead Sea, there will be no future for a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem,” said Hamza Zubiedat, a land rights activist for the Ramallah-based Ma’an Development Center. “This is where a Palestinian capital was supposed to be located, according to the American and European talks.”
The land transfer will also cut across the West Bank, dividing the north and south.
“If the Israelis annex this area near Maale Adumim, it will be a catastrophe for Palestinians who live in the south,” Zubiedat said. “Palestinian traders, especially in the south, will be cut off, and it will become impossible to have any independent Palestinian ways of life.”
More than 40 percent of the West Bank is under the control of Israeli settlers, according to the Israel-based rights group B’Tselem, and more than half-a-million Jewish residents now live in the West Bank. Israel’s government has also used incentive programs to move Jewish residents into West Bank settlements, where more than 200 settlements and unofficial outposts have fractured the Palestinian territory and displaced Palestinian residents. In recent years, the Housing Ministry has offered subsidized apartments in the West Bank through a lottery system.
Palestinians have little ability to stop the land transfers. After the 1967 war, Israel issued a military order that stopped the process of land registration across the West Bank. Now families lack the paperwork to prove that they have private ownership over their land. And tax records, the only other evidence of West Bank property rights, are not accepted by Israeli authorities.
In June, the Knesset waived a long-standing legal precedent that required the prime minister and the defense minister to sign off on West Bank settlement construction at every phase. Smotrich enjoys near-total control over construction planning and approvals in the West Bank, and approved a record number of settlements in 2023.
“Israel has reached the conclusion that they could get away with this huge land grab because of the lack of international action,” said Sarit Michaeli, international advocacy lead at B’Tselem. “There have been individual economic U.S. sanctions placed on violent settlers, but the greater violence of the occupation is this colossal land theft.
Smotrich, a member of Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition, is a key leader in Israel’s settlement movement. Dahlia Scheindlin, an Israeli political analyst, called the Friday land transfer announcement by Smotrich a “provocation,” but also the continuation of his pro-settler ideological project. “He entered the government with one overriding purpose: to annex all land conquered in 1967 and extend permanent Jewish sovereignty everywhere, no matter how and when it has to happen,” Scheindlin said. “The timing and provocation ahead of Blinken’s visit is a bonus.”
The Biden administration announced sanctions on two West Bank settler outposts earlier this month, the first use of such economic restrictions on Israeli outposts. While West Bank settlements are authorized by the Israeli government, outposts are considered illegal under Israeli law.
The only way to stop this is real international pressure. Sanctions, full boycotts of business, academic and political institutions in Israel and exclusion from the international community. The theft of land and disregard for Palestinians is baked into the law and identity of the state. The kind of changes needed are of similarly massive scope to those implemented when Apartheid was overturned here - and the pressure for that will never come from within. The only way to get real international pressure is to force Biden/the US to stop protecting Israel from it. The only way to do that is to pressure Biden. The only way to do that is to disrupt Biden's/the US's ability to protect Israel from international pressure to stop their ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign through organized civil disobedience. Unfortunately, in the US, "the white moderate" would rather vote for genocide enablers than engage in the disruption necessary to force the person they support to stop aiding and abetting Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign of Palestinians. So Biden's probably going to keep aiding and abetting what his own voters see as the genocide of Palestinians and they'll all express ostensible regret if Israel finishes their campaign as a consequence of such cowardice.
You're right.
The way to pressure Biden is to make sure the guy who wants Israel to have a carte blanche and complete freedom to do whatever it wants to do in Gaza wins the presidency.
That'll show Biden. The extra Palestinian casualties this will end up causing thank you for your enlightenment.
|
I'm pretty sure that Biden is beyond changing on Gaza.
The best voter can hope is to tie Biden defeat to his Israel policy.
Gives them some chance that the next democratic administration will handle things differently.
|
There won't be a Gaza to handle differently if Trump wins the general election.
|
Same could be said for 2 more years of Biden-Bibi tandem.
Fundamentally there is no changing of this US policy in the near term.
|
Northern Ireland24392 Posts
Broad brush strokes, direction of travel aye I don’t see some massive shift in tack happening anytime soon. We’ve had the wobbliest of baby’s first steps which is obviously deficient, albeit probably still more than I expected.
Versus Trump I mean it’ll be even worse no doubt. And not only do he and his coterie have bad foreign policy ideas, they’re also not particularly competent at the whole diplomacy thing either.
I mean perhaps one is jolted into changing foreign policy on a more long-term basis with a humbling electoral defeat, but I’m unsure even if that happens it’ll be Israel/Palestine specifically the delivers it, and even less confident that the takeaway will be ‘Hm we should consider changing our policy here so that doesn’t happen next time’.
It’ll probably devolve into the usual blaming and guilt tripping the left as per.
|
"We should show the Democrats we don't agree with Biden's Israel policy by letting a person with an even worse policy win"
Yeah I don't think you realise the point your not sending.
|
Northern Ireland24392 Posts
On March 25 2024 18:33 Gorsameth wrote:
"We should show the Democrats we don't agree with Biden's Israel policy by letting a person with an even worse policy win"
Yeah I don't think you realise the point your not sending.
I mean we don’t apply that maxim to basically anything in life other than elections. Or if you’re me ‘hey I’ll take any woman who’ll have me’.
Joking aside (least I hope it’s a joke) if you care about this policy, what are you supposed to do? Vote for the lesser of two evils and hope they change tack, despite by virtue of getting your vote having no impetus to?
Hey I mean I’d vote to keep Trump out by all means necessary personally.
But I mean stick the lens on other groups and political persuasion if keeping Trump out is paramount. If it’s so catastrophic then centrists should be under the same microscope as the left, with the same culpability for letting him in if they vote with their feet, or lack thereof.
|
On March 25 2024 15:48 Mikau wrote:
There won't be a Gaza to handle differently if Trump wins the general election.
The "next democratic president" part is looking pretty optimistic as well...
|
Reuters article from February 27
"While none of the five dozen Democrats interviewed by Reuters said they will back Trump, half said they were considering sitting out the election or casting their lot with a third party.
Biden’s campaign has acknowledged the concerns. But it points to evidence of Democratic enthusiasm, such as a recent fundraising windfall. Last week, his campaign and Democratic Party allies said they raised more than $42 million in January and have $130 million cash on hand for a likely contest against Trump.
Still, Biden’s campaign has been surprised by the depth of anger and frustration over Israel and other policies, according to about a dozen officials in his campaign, the White House and the Democratic Party. “We are getting hurt more than we anticipated” by Biden’s support for Israel, one senior campaign adviser said."
"For some it is personal. "I don't even know if Biden views my people or my blood as true human blood," said Abdualrahman Hamad, a Palestinian-American ophthalmologist in Detroit. Hamad said 30 members of his extended family had been killed in Gaza this month. He said he supported Biden in 2020 but has made hundreds of phone calls to convince voters to withhold their votes on Tuesday."
"Although Biden has become more critical of Israeli retaliation in Gaza as the conflict grinds on, he has stopped short of calling for an immediate, permanent ceasefire or blocking funding to Israel, steps that dozens of voters told Reuters were needed to win back their support."
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/inside-democratic-rebellion-against-biden-over-gaza-war-2024-02-27/
Clearly a significant number of democrat voters are willing to stop supporting Biden over the Israel-Gaza conflict. I think it would be a better idea to reason and negotiate with them rather than to shame them for "helping Trump win".
Biden has talked to key voter groups, but his stance apparently hasn't changed. That means the threat of a Trump win is very real, and I'd argue that would be solely Biden's fault, and not that of disappointed democrats abstaining from voting. "Vote for the lesser evil" doesn't seem to be an option. Plenty of Biden voters apparently think Biden and Trump are morally the same. That should raise more than a few eyebrows.
|
|
|
Oh okay, if that's the case. Biden pause funding to Israel. Because with "allies" like this who needs enemies?
|
|
|
On March 25 2024 23:43 JimmiC wrote:Seems especially dumb if true. It will make the US less likely to veto because they won’t want to look like they caved to Israel pressure but was a decision they made in their own. And the US did in fact not veto it.
Not that Israel actually cares, they will ignore the resolution and the UN isn't going to make them.
|
Now Biden should do something similar. Recall the US Ambassador from Israel for consultation/meetings etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
