Palestinian village undergoing 'ethnic cleansing' by Israel

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/19938-palestinian-village-undergoing-ethnic-cleansing-by-israel

The Secretary General of the Palestinian National Initiative Movement Mustafa Al-Barghouti said on Monday that the Palestinian village of Susiya is experiencing "ethnic cleansing" by the Israeli occupation.

Khirbet Susiya, a Palestinian Bedouin village of an estimated 300 people, has been under imminent threat of demolition since May, when the Israeli High Court approved the demolition of villagers' tents and homes. One of the tents serves as a school.

"Demolishing the village reinforces that the Israeli settlers, who expropriated the land, are thieves," Al-Barghouti said in a press release. "This decision will not break the insistence of the village, which residents have previously rebuilt."

Al-Barghouti predicted that the destruction of the village would contribute to increasing international solidarity with the Palestinian cause.

[2naSalit]

1. Seems like

that's been going on all over Palestine since the end of WWII. Time for that shit to end in favor of the real victims, the Palestinians.

[oberliner]

2. The real victims?

As opposed to the fake victims?

[2naSalit]

3. Yup.

[oberliner]

4. I don't understand

What exactly did you mean by that comment. Please clarify.

[guillaumeb]

5. What I understood from the comment, and I cannot speak for the poster,

is that the Palestinians who are being oppressed, dispossessed, and distressed by Israel's actions are the real victims. The Palestinians have lost nearly 90% of what was Palestine because of European colonialists making decisions about the Middle East, as well as the theft of land by the Israelis that has intensified since 1967.

Hope that helps to clarify.

[oberliner]

6. Nothing that you've written here is actually true

Do you characterize the Ottoman Empire as Palestinians or as European colonialists?

[guillaumeb]

7. Some clarification:

Do you consider the Balfour Declaration to be the work of a European politician?

Do you consider the Sykes-Picot Agreement to be the work of European politicians?

Do you consider England and France to be among the group of European countries that practiced and benefitted greatly from colonialism?

Do you consider that European colonial powers SHOULD have had the legal right to take away land that was lived on and occupied for thousands of years and decide to create a homeland for a people that had been persecuted and killed by those same European colonialists?

Have you seen the many maps that graphically show how the Palestinian territory that is controlled by the Israelis has grown from 1948 to the present?

Have you read any stories about continuing Israeli theft of Palestinian land?

[oberliner]

8. Ok

Yes to the first three.

No to number four, but that didn't actually happen.

Yes - those maps are BS. I've made numerous posts explaining why.

Here's one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=330332

Yes - Israel should withdraw all the West Bank settlements as far as I am concerned.

Can you answer my question about the Ottoman Empire?

[guillaumeb]

9. Turks and Palestinians are not the same people. eom

[oberliner]

10. Exactly

So the Palestinians went from being controlled by one colonial power (The Ottoman Empire) to another colonial power (The British)

[guillaumeb]

12. And that makes it acceptable for one group to hand off power

over another, or one group to seize such power?

[oberliner]

24. No

I just think it is important to understand what the situation was before the British got involved.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

25. Which has been replaced by a third colonial power.

Israel.

[oberliner]

27. Yes, Israel has a vast colonial empire rivaling Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire

Just look at how much territory the Israeli flag flies over.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

28. After you're finished throwing out the straw dog argument

perhaps you can come back to the reality of what I wrote.

[Mosby]

31. He did, you just don't like the answer.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

32. Answering with a straw dog argument doesn't cut it.

But I understand why you believe it would.

[Mosby]

33. it's called a "straw man" argument

Is english a second language for you?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

34. Actually, the educated know it is called a straw dog, straw man and even an aunt sally.

[Mosby]

35. aunt sally is british

And straw dog is just a degenerate version of straw man used by people who don't know better.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

36. And now that you have come to the realization that there are many ways to say the same thing let's

get back to the OP, my dear.

Palestinian village undergoing 'ethnic cleansing' by Israel
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/19938-palestinian-village-undergoing-ethnic-cleansing-by-israel

The Secretary General of the Palestinian National Initiative Movement Mustafa Al-Barghouti said on Monday that the Palestinian village of Susiya is experiencing "ethnic cleansing" by the Israeli occupation.

Khirbet Susiya, a Palestinian Bedouin village of an estimated 300 people, has been under imminent threat of demolition since May, when the Israeli High Court approved the demolition of villagers' tents and homes. One of the tents serves as a school.

"Demolishing the village reinforces that the Israeli settlers, who expropriated the land, are thieves," Al-Barghouti said in a press release. "This decision will not break the insistence of the village, which residents have previously rebuilt."

Al-Barghouti predicted that the destruction of the village would contribute to increasing international solidarity with the Palestinian cause.

[shira]

11. Your question #4

Do you consider that European colonial powers SHOULD have had the legal right to take away land that was lived on and occupied for thousands of years and decide to create a homeland for a people that had been persecuted and killed by those same European colonialists?

1. No one proposed taking away land. The Partition Plan wouldn't have taken land from anyone. It would lead to 2 nations having their own sovereignty. No one would have to move away or lose their land illegally.

2. Those people persecuted and killed by Europeans are indigenous to Judea. That's why we're called Jews.

Am I right to assume that you deny Jews are a nation/people indigenous to the land? You don't believe in the rights of indigenous people (Jews) to self-determination there?

[guillaumeb]

13. As to your ideas:

1) The partition plan did not formally call for the dispossession of the Palestinian people. But that was the result, and the intended result by the Jewish terror gangs that used extreme violence to drive out Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine.

2) As to the "indigenous" argument, the First Peoples are and were indigenous to the Americas. Do you then suggest that all European colonizers, obviously non-indigenous to the Americas, be forced to leave the Americas?

As to your unnumbered question, there are and were many peoples who lived in Palestine/Israel. But one peoples self-determination cannot come at the expense of another's equally valid right.

[shira]

17. My answers to you..

1) The partition plan did not formally call for the dispossession of the Palestinian people. But that was the result, and the intended result by the Jewish terror gangs that used extreme violence to drive out Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine.

But you were talking about European colonial powers who had no right to take away land from Palestinians while giving it to Jews (who you do not see as indigenous). Let's stick to that argument first. You were wrong about that, correct?

2) As to the "indigenous" argument, the First Peoples are and were indigenous to the Americas. Do you then suggest that all European colonizers, obviously non-indigenous to the Americas, be forced to leave the Americas?

Americans who have relatives going back centuries are not colonizers. They have rights of longstanding presence. Recent immigrants aren't colonists either, since the Americas have been sovereign for a while now. So you're wrong about that. Agreed? And my answer to you is "NO".

As to your unnumbered question, there are and were many peoples who lived in Palestine/Israel. But one peoples self-determination cannot come at the expense of another's equally valid right.

I agree & that's what 2 states are for. The vast majority of Jews (both left and right) believe in 2 nation states living side by side in peace. Do you believe there should be one majority Arab state after a full right-of-return?

[guillaumeb]

29. In regard to your theory of "longstanding presence",

a theory accepted in law, does this mean that you also admit that the Palestinians have a similar right of longstanding presence?

As to your last question, define what you mean. There is far too much ambiguity in the question. To wit:
1) What are the boundaries of this hypothetical Arab state?
2) What are the rights of this Arab state?
3) "Right of return" meaning a right of return to lands previously occupied in all of historic Palestine?

Absent much more detail the question cannot be answered.

[shira]

37. Yes, Palestinians have the right to longstanding presence, absolutely....

a. Do you believe Jews are indigenous to Judea (Israel)?

As to your last question, define what you mean. There is far too much ambiguity in the question. To wit:
1) What are the boundaries of this hypothetical Arab state?
2) What are the rights of this Arab state?
3) "Right of return" meaning a right of return to lands previously occupied in all of historic Palestine?

Absent much more detail the question cannot be answered.

My vision of 2 states is similar to the Clinton Parameters, Olmert's 2008 offer, and the Geneva Initiative. All different but basically the same result.

b. Do you think the Palestinians made the right choice in rejecting the 2000 and 2008 offers?

[guillaumeb]

53. The only offer that makes sense and is fair to both sides

is a complete withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders, and that includes Jerusalem as well. In addition, compensation for destroyed housing, businesses, and farms that occurred from 1967 through the present day.

[shira]

55. Oh really? You're asking more than what the PA & Saudi Peace Plan call for.

They say they'd accept land swaps.

Your argument is with them, not me.

[guillaumeb]

58. The Saudis are tools of the US and not to be trusted.

The Palestinian Authority is not a tool of the US.

[shira]

61. And yet the PA accepts land swaps. You don't. Go figure. n/t

[sabbat hunter]

82. Jerusalem should

not be included, as it was never supposed to belong to Palestine under any partition plan.

Additionally, I agree that Palestinians should be compensated for lost housing, etc. But at the same time jews who were forced to leave Arab countries after the formation of Israel should get similar compensation.

[guillaumeb]

94. Jerusalem was to remain an International City.

I agree with your second paragraph.

[Little Tich]

15. Do you believe both ethnic groups have equal rights to the land between the Jordan river and the

Mediterranean, or do you believe something else?

I personally believe that there should be no distinction between the rights of either group, but I'm not really sure where you stand...

[shira]

18. I believe in 2 nation states side-by-side in peace. Each people with their own land....

If you still believe in 1-state after a full right-of-return, then you're for Palestinian sovereignty and against that of the Jews.

[Little Tich]

23. So far, so good...

Do you think either ethnic group should be favored in the partition of the land into two states?

After all, one state would have the 8 million people it has today, and the other would have like, 10 million people. Logically, the more populous state would then also be the larger one, geographically.

This isn't a trick question, I'm just trying to figure out where we separate on this issue. I personally think that if if there was no right of return to Israel, but to the Palestinian state instead, then Palestine would be no more than an overcrowded rump state with its current size. That wouldn't really be fair, IMHO.

[shira]

38. The Palestinians say they want a state in the W.Bank & Gaza....

So who are you to say they should be holding out for more land?

To answer you, I think Palestinians should at the very least be given the CHOICE to become citizens where they are if they live outside Israel, W.Bank, Gaza. That solves the overcrowding issue.

Do you believe they should be given the right to choose to be citizens where they are, like any other people in any other country?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

39. They should be give the right of return from the country that ethnically cleansed them

Last edited Fri Jul 24, 2015, 12:25 AM - Edit history (1)

in the first place.

[shira]

43. Wow! Behold the wonderfully, humane pro-Palestinian viewpoint here!

It appears you really are against nations giving Palestinians the CHOICE to become citizens in lands they were born in.

A right that every other people has.

Amazing.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

47. Keep on clutching those pearls when the truth is stated, shira.

It's hysterical to watch the hyperventillation if those that can't handle the historical truth.

[shira]

48. You really can't say you support Palestinian CHOICE to either....

...remain as refugees or become citizens in the lands to which they were born.

A choice all other people have.

Why the discriminatory attitude against Palestinians?

Riddle me that one.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

49. "Why the discriminatory attitude against Palestinians?"

That's a question best left to apartheid Israel, it's right wing politicians, the indolent Israelis that voted them in and of course the hasbara machine that wants to push off the Palestinian refugee situation on others instead of accepting well-earned responsibility fir its actions.

[guillaumeb]

54. What is amazing is your theory of birthright citizenship.

Especially considering that the reason so many Palestinians live in foreign refugee camps is because they were terrorized into leaving Palestine.

[shira]

56. I believe Jews are indigenous to Israel and the territories. You deny it.

Further, it seems you agree with RDO in that Palestinians should not be given the choice, like all other refugees on the planet, to become citizens in the lands they're born in.

I'm not the one arguing for discrimination of Palestinians WRT denying them universal rights.

But you are doing that.

Now how am I wrong?

[guillaumeb]

59. No prospective immigrant or refugee has a right to citizenship

in another country. Everything depends on the country, and the immigration laws of that country.

Many Semites are indigenous to the area known as Israel/Palestine. Some are Jews, some are Christians, some are Muslims.

[shira]

62. They do when they're BORN in those lands. Just like all other people.

Apparently, you don't believe Palestinians have human rights throughout the rest of the Arab world, where they are denied basic citizenship for the crime of being born in those nations.

[guillaumeb]

75. The crime is not, as you put it, "being born in those nations",

the crime was being driven out of their homeland by the terror tactics of the Jews, followed by the terror tactics of the Israeli government.

[shira]

81. Many refugees during WW2 were driven out but made citizens along with their kids....

....in other lands.

Including Jews from all over the mideast.

You wish to deny Palestinians the same right all other people have, which makes your position decidedly anti-Palestinian. Not to mention discriminatory.

This is what I've come to expect from western so-called advocates of Palestinians. They're nothing of the sort. With friends like these, the Palestinians don't need enemies.

[guillaumeb]

93. Interesting that you have decided what constitutes anti-Palestinian behavior,

and have also decided who is the guilty party.

[Little Tich]

41. Why should one ethnic group have the right to more dibs on their ancestral homeland than the other?

That doesn't seem fair to me.

[shira]

42. I just asked u 2 questions but you're deflecting. I'm still waiting.

But I'll answer you:

Why should one ethnic group have the right to more dibs on their ancestral homeland than the other?

That doesn't seem fair to me.

You're arguing with the Palestinian leadership, not me. They are the ones claiming to want only the W.Bank and Gaza strip. It seems you think they should hold out for more.

[guillaumeb]

14. Interesting R. Daneel that there has been so little discussion about the actual

topic of your post. Ethnic cleansing. Could it be because the term "ethnic cleansing" has such a negative tone? I must admit that terms like "ethnic cleansing", or "genocide", or "apartheid" are nasty terms. No nation likes to be associated with such terms, even though the terms may be accurate.

I will wait for a discussion, and an attempted rationalization, of this latest example of ethnic cleansing.

[shira]

20. Look below. n/t

[Little Tich]

16. (Regavim): Comment: The invention of the village of Susiya

Source: Jerusalem Post opinion

The fact is that the area occupied by the squatters has only served as grazing land.

On July 16 the daily press briefing of the US State Department astonished legal circles in Israel.

In response to the second question, preceded only by an inquiry on the Iran agreement from which Israel is still reeling, State Department spokesperson John Kirby with a prepared statement pressured Israel not to enforce demolition orders against an illegal Arab encampment adjacent to the Jewish community of Susiya. The State Department took this stand despite the fact that these demolition orders had been confirmed by Israel’s High Court in May 2015 after decades of appeals.

The Israelis were astonished for two reasons. One, the State Department was apparently misinformed about basic facts of the case. Two, the statement appears to be an arrogant attempt to undermine the Israeli legal system, including its universally respected High Court.

The High Court found that these assertions were demonstrably false, based on comprehensive objective historical and geographical accounts. Historical aerial photography, detailed mandatory maps, travelogues from the 18th and 19th centuries, and the population registry all established that their assertions were a fabrication. Fact: no such village ever existed. The High Court has ruled repeatedly against these false assertions (HC 7530/01, 430/12, 1556/12, 1420/14).

Read more: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Comment-The-invention-of-the-village-of-Susiya-409861


Note: Regavim is a right-wing hate group that uses legal means to demolish Palestinian housing and evict Palestinians from their lands. They are very involved in trying to remove Susiya.

[shira]

19. That's the response to the OP that some here are asking for....

This in particular:

The High Court found that these assertions were demonstrably false, based on comprehensive objective historical and geographical accounts. Historical aerial photography, detailed mandatory maps, travelogues from the 18th and 19th centuries, and the population registry all established that their assertions were a fabrication. Fact: no such village ever existed. The High Court has ruled repeatedly against these false assertions (HC 7530/01, 430/12, 1556/12, 1420/14).

It's well known how liberal/progressive Israel's Supreme Court is. They're not basing their decisions on lies.

BTW, this is a good example of illegitimate criticism (and yellow journalism that's hostile towards a Jewish state). Just another day with more lies & more demonization. The narrative for this one is that the racist Jewish state is expelling Palestinians who've lived in Susiya since....forever. No mention of aerial photos, maps, and travelogues that prove their assertions false. Lies by commission as well as omission. Why would good, concerned "critics" do that?

[Little Tich]

21. Did I take the bait, or did you take the bait? n/t

[shira]

22. I commend you for bringing the Israeli side of the argument into play. n/t

[guillaumeb]

30. If I understand your response:

Because the village ever existed, no such village can ever exist?

There is no room for growth in the area?

Does this apply also to the many settlements that have sprung up since 1967, or does this situation only apply to non-Israelis?

Are settlers who set up all of the illegal settlements also considered squatters, or is the term squatters reserved for non-Israelis?

[Little Tich]

40. I don't agree with Regavim at all.

I just posted their opinion piece to illustrate the mindset of those who want Susiya removed. The answer to your questions is probably "no".

[shira]

45. That's nice, but the fact is no such village existed until just recently...

So any source claiming otherwise is lying. That's important IMO.

Now why would these sources lie about the situation?

[shira]

46. Do u agree with the OP that this is evidence of ethnic cleansing?

Look up the definition of ethnic cleansing & compare that to evicting illegal squatters.

Then ask yourself why sources would use "ethnic cleansing" to describe what's happening here.

[Little Tich]

50. Of course it's ethnic cleansing.

It's all about removing an established Palestinian village so that its land can be appropriated by settlers. This is what apartheid looks like, and why Israel is hitting rock bottom in the eye of world opinion.

The current leadership of Israel is leading Israel down a dangerous path.

[shira]

52. Show me dictionary definitions of ethnic cleansing & apartheid.....

....that include removing illegal squatters from state land.

The IDF actually does this to illegal settler outposts. Is that also ethnic cleansing & apartheid? Israel commits these crimes against humanity against Jews too?

Your argument is baseless.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

74. Keep on moving those goal posts.

Last edited Mon Jul 27, 2015, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)

It's funny to watch you build these constructs that you demand others solve; as you sadly believe you have won your decrepit arguments.

BDS is growing stronger because of people like you.

So keep up the good work!

[shira]

80. If you're going to make preposterous claims, I'm going to challenge them.

Deal with it.

It's obvious you cannot justify or defend your ridiculously absurd allegations.

When you make an intelligent claim or argument, lemme know and I'll be the first to congratulate you. You do know what makes for an intelligent claim or argument, right?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

84. The OP wasn't preposterous, my F-grade friend. It's was a statement of fact.

Speaking of which, you may encounter a fact someday. I wonder if you will notice.

[shira]

89. You can't defend the charge of "ethnic cleansing". You know that, I know that....

You see, ethnic cleansing has a certain definition, which you could easily look up. You could then supply a definition for it that applies to this situation.

But you can't, and to cover for that you come back with a 3rd grade insult & pretend that is an intelligent defense of your position.

Seriously, elementary level school children can defend their arguments better than you.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

92. No matter how much you stomp your feet, make broad

move your ever elusive goal posts or cite useless stay after state the reality still remains the same.

Israel is an abusive apartheid state. It's proponents want to bury that fact. Some do it terribly and ignore the inexcusable for some weird gasbaga gold star they can wear on their foreheads.

Sorry, but that kind of bankrupt philosophy doesn't work, shira. If you could at least recognize that any country that wants to set up the majority as the only one that counts, at the expense of the minority, is inherently anti-democratic we could at least start a discussion.

See you when you return.

[shira]

44. All the articles slamming Israel for this act are lying about the situation.

That doesn't seem to bother you in the least.

It bothers me b/c it's clear incitement that will eventually lead to acts of hatred against Jews.

Because the village ever existed, no such village can ever exist?

There is no room for growth in the area?

Does this apply also to the many settlements that have sprung up since 1967, or does this situation only apply to non-Israelis?

Are settlers who set up all of the illegal settlements also considered squatters, or is the term squatters reserved for non-Israelis?

Israel has acted upon destroying illegal settlements, did you know that? Do you support that? I know I do. Same situation.

[Little Tich]

57. Wikipedia: Susya

Source: Wikipedia
(snip)

Modern Era
Palestinian Susya, called Susya al-Qadima ('Old Susya') is a centuries' old village which written records attest the existence of from 1830. It is constituted of permanent cave homes. The construction the Israeli settlement in the neighbourhood of Palestinian Susya, called Susya Al-Qadime, their ownership of which land has been established in law, and which was located near the ancient synagogue, was decided by Israel and the World Zionist Organization in 1982, as part of 8 new settlements. In June 1986, Israel expropriated the village's residential ground for "public use", for an 'archeological park', evicting villagers from their homes and lands. The expelled Susyans settled in cave and tin shacks 500 metres away, at a site now called Rujum al-Hamri, to restart their lives. According to David Shulman, for some decades they were subject, to many violent attacks, and settler recourse to both civil and military courts, to drive them out. The BBC broadcast film of settler youths beating an old woman and her family with cudgels to drive them away from their land, in 2008.

Since then the local villages, like Palestinian Susya, have been losing land, and being cut off from each other, as the nearby settlements of Carmel, Maon, Susya and Beit Yatir began to be built and developed, and illegal outposts established. David Dean Shulman described the reality he observed in 2008:

Susya: where thirteen impoverished families are clinging tenaciously,but probably hopelessly, to the dry hilltop and the few fields that are all that remain of their vast ancestral lands.

The second expulsion took place in 1990, when Rujum al-Hamri's inhabitants were loaded onto trucks by the IDF and dumped at the Zif Junction, 15 kilometres northwards a roadside at the edge of a desert. Most returned and rebuilt on a rocky escarpment within their traditional agricultural and grazing territory. Their wells taken, they were forced to buy water from nearby Yatta. Israel sheep-herding settlers expanded their unfenced land use at Mitzpe Yair and the Dahlia Farm. According to B'tselem, by 2010 settlers were cultivating roughly 40 hectares, about 15% of the land area to which they deny access to the traditional Palestinian users of that area. Since 2000 Jewish settlers in Susiya have denied Palestinians access to 10 cisterns in the area, or according to more recent accounts,. and try to block their access to others. Soil at Susya, with a market value of NIS 2,000 per truckload, is also taken from lands belonging to the village of Yatta.

The third expulsion occurred in June 2001, when settler civilians and soldiers drove the Palestinians of Susya out, without warning, with, reportedly violent arrests and beatings, destroying their tents and caves, blocking their cisterns, killing their livestock and digging up their agricultural land. The settlers established a "Dahlia Farm" in the same year, and an outpost was set up on the archeological site. On Sept 26 of the same year, by an order of the Israeli Supreme Court, these structures were ordered to be destroyed and the land returned to the Palestinians. Settlers and the IDF prevented the villagers from reclaiming their land, some 750 acres. The villagers made an appeal to the same court to be allowed to reclaim their lands and live without harassment. Some 93 events of settler violence were listed. The settlers made a counter-appeal, and one family that had managed to return to its land suffered a third eviction. Land next to the Palestinian village of Susya was confiscated from the village of Yatta, from which a dozen local families had been expelled to make way on the pretext of archeological digs, according to one source. A major expansion of the new settlement began on 18 September 1999, when its boundaries expanded northwards and eastwards, with the Palestinian Shreiteh family allegedly losing roughly 150 more dunams.

According to B'tselem, the Palestinians that remain in the area live in tents on a small rocky hill between the settlement and the archeological park which is located within walking distance. According to Amnesty International, ten caves inhabited by Susya Palestinian families were blown up by the IDF in 1996, and some 113 tents were destroyed in 1998. Amnesty International also reports that official documents asking them to leave the area address them generically as 'intruders' (polesh/intruder). Most of the rain-catching water cisterns used by the local Palestinian farmers of Susya were demolished by the Israeli army in 1999 and 2001. A local Susya resident told Amnesty International,

'Water is life ; without water we can’t live; not us, not the animals, or the plants. Before we had some water, but after the army destroyed everything we have to bring water from far away ; it’s very difficult and expensive. They make our life very difficult, to make us leave.'
(end snip)

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susya


The information in the Wikipedia article seems to be at least in part corroborated by what's on the B'Tselem website, which has numerous items on the subject:

(Blog):State seeks to demolish about half of the village of Susiya before HCJ hearing (16 Jul 2015)
http://www.btselem.org/facing_expulsion_blog

Civil Administration maps Susiya – residents fear imminent demolition ( 10 May 2015)
http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20150510_civil_administration_mapping_susiya

Khirbet Susiya – a village under threat of demolition (1 Jan 2013)
http://www.btselem.org/south_hebron_hills/susiya


Which side of the story are we to believe? The Israeli side or the Palestinian side?

[shira]

64. Aerial photo from 1999. No historical village.

:large

[Little Tich]

66. There's an arrow pointing towards historical Susya, called "Archaeological Site" in English. n/t

[shira]

69. Yep, that's an ancient Jewish archaeological site. Now here's an aerial photo....

....from 2013. Compare to 1999:

[Little Tich]

73. Some gaps may simply be too large to bridge.

Khirbet Susiya – a village under threat of demolition
Source: B'Tselem, 1 Jan 2013

The Palestinian village of Khirbet Susiya has existed in the South Hebron Hills at least since the 1830s. Its residents have traditionally earned a living from shepherding and growing olive trees. In 1983, the Israeli settlement of Susiya was established near the village, on Palestinian land that had been declared state land by Israel. In 1986, about 25 families were living in Khirbet Susiya, in caves and structures. That year, the Civil Administration declared the village’s land an “archeological site”; the land was confiscated “for public purposes” and the Israeli military expelled its residents from their homes. Having no other option, the families relocated to other caves in the area and to flimsy wood frame shelters and tents they erected on agricultural land a few hundred meters southeast of the original village and the archeological site.

Read more: http://www.btselem.org/south_hebron_hills/susiya

I feel that the evidence given shows that Regavim is wrong (as always), and that I can't add more w/o repeating myself.

Toodeelo.

[merrily]

26. I hate, hate, hate the terms "extermination" and "ethnic cleansing."

Humans are not bugs or dirt.

Not expressing any opinion on this specific situation. I just wish that, no matter which peoples are involved, who is right or who is wrong, who is killing and who is dying, that people,most especially politicians and media, would stop using such comfortable and hygienic words for mass murder, genocide, slaughter, etc.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

51. It's comically sad that some will go to great lengths

to avoid the OP yet do everything to vilify the Palestinians.

[shira]

60. Do you believe Israel expelling Jewish squatters in remote outposts is ethnic cleansing?

Since your answer is certainly 'NO', then it's not ethnic cleansing in this circumstance either.

See how that works?

=====================

BTW, that directly addresses the OP.

[Little Tich]

63. Not a single settler has a right to live in the West Bank or EJ,

their presence is illegal and they should go back, every single one of them, to their own country. There are no legal settlements whatsoever.

There is no way that the rights of the civilian population under occupation can be somehow compared to the non-existent rights of the population transferred into occupied territory by the occupier.

There are like 600.000 thousand settlers now, and they have to go home now. They have no more rights than any other tourist to stay, regardless whether they arrived with the occupying forces or not.

It doesn't help that there is an apartheid system in the WB and EJ, where Israelis (Jews) have all rights and the Palestinians have no civil rights whatsoever.

[shira]

65. That's Hamas propaganda. Translated as no Jews have any right to live...

....in the W.Bank or Jerusalem.

I can't imagine anyone decent ever calling for a specific indigenous people (ethnic or racial) to be barred from any part of their historic & cultural homeland.

Can you?

================

BTW, it's not illegal. The UN can't even pass a resolution stating that it is.

In fact, point me to binding legislation showing settlement activity is illegal.

I'll help you out:

You can't. It doesn't exist.

[Little Tich]

67. Perhaps the UN should pass a resolution on the subject, affirming the inadmissibility of the

acquisition of territory by war...

[shira]

70. They've only had 45 years to do so.

The problem is that Judea is neither exclusive or sovereign Palestinian land, and historically it never was. That land was administered by the Brits and before them, the Turks.

It's disputed land.

If it were sovereign Palestinian territory before 1967, you'd have a solid case for acquisition of territory by war.

Also, check out the 1964 Palestinian charter. The PLO doesn't make any claims to Gaza or the W.Bank. Their focus was 100% within the green line. Ask yourself why. Here's why: Palestinian leadership has never been interested in their own land as much as they have been against Jewish sovereignty in any part of that area. It's why the conflict persists. Anyone not intentionally blind knows this because that's all Palestinians see on a daily basis in the W.Bank and Gaza.

That's why there's no peace. The existence of a sovereign Israel within 1 square km is intolerable.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

68. They are illegal Israeli settlers. But thak you for conflating Jew to equal Israeli once again.

Gawd, you're horrible.

[shira]

71. Show me a binding document stating settlers are illegal.

Or punt.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

72. I'm not playing your goal post game tonight, champ.

Your team is losing game after game.

I'd be really worried if I were you.

BDS.

[shira]

77. Got it. You have nothing. Just say so next time. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

78. How's that fear of the inevitable BDS coming along?

oh, shira, BDS has got plenty, and it's coming to an apartheid state near and dear to your heart.

[shira]

83. You prove how rotten BDS is. As you know, it's based on complete BS....

In 2011, the UNSC failed to pass a binding resolution that would declare them illegal.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/18/un.israel.settlements/

Now that's a fact. They're not illegal. You know that. Hell, anyone objective knows that.

Hence, the utter depravity of the BDS movement. Keep pushing on, despite the lies....

Why? Hatred.

There is no Justice in hatred.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

86. BDS isn't rotten, poor shira. BDs has a noble cause: the end of apartheid.

I bet that really sticks in your craw. doesn't it?

[shira]

87. It's based on lies & arguments you know you can't justify or defend.

Even your favorite; the 'Apartheid' slander.

No major human rights groups say Israel is apartheid. No western countries say it. Only totalitarian fascist nations (themselves apartheid) claim Israel is apartheid, along with all the other racist hate drivel they peddle in order to control the masses. Like "illegal settlements", the UN can't even pass a resolution claiming Israel is apartheid. I'm not sure they've even tried, as it would be too embarrassing to justify such an idiotic resolution.

So you can't defend that one either, despite your clumsy attempts to mock and gloat.

You know this, I know this, and anyone objective reading this knows it.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

90. There is nothing objective in your posts, IMHO,

When you are obviously flailing, juggling and apparently hyperventilating with your nonsensical attempts at legitimizing illegal Israeli colonies, white washing the unquestionable form of Israel apartheid visited on Palestinians daily and further attempts by Israel to 'disappear' whole villages: inside and outside its borders.

Please take a bow, shira. I'm sure that all these efforts have won you some kind of award for inhumanities, myopia and defense of the indefensible, but don't expect any praise from me for it.

[guillaumeb]

76. Should your question not be:

Show me a binding document "THAT THE STATE OF ISRAEL ITSELF WILL ACCEPT AS BINDING" stating settlers are illegal.

I added the extra wording because International Law is quite clear as to the illegality of an occupying power settling on occupied land. It is absolutely illegal. The only country that disagrees is Israel. The only people who disagree are generally apologists for Israel.

[shira]

79. If it were illegal according to IHL, then the UN wouldn't have tried in 2011...

....to pass a resolution making it illegal.

U.S. vetoes U.N. resolution declaring Israeli settlements illegal
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/18/un.israel.settlements/

So you're wrong & they're not illegal.

You've been deceived. In fact, every single anti-Israel source that makes this claim - along with the fictional right-of-return that also has no basis in IHL - is simply lying.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

85. It's a hoot watching you shell everybody around you with your

Last edited Mon Jul 27, 2015, 09:30 PM - Edit history (1)

"So you're wrong I win!" tantrums.

Keep on cherry picking shira.

You are a gift that keeps on giving.

Where would BDS be without the stalwart shepherds of 'wrong' like you?




Oh, and as always, thanks for the kick.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

91. Too much projection, on your part, is a sorry

Last edited Tue Jul 28, 2015, 06:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Thing to watch.

Are you crying now?

No. Just laughing.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

95. And when they have trouble erasing the Palestinians in one place...

Just do it someplace else.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=109669