News Why Does Israel Target Civilian Water Infrastructure?

[tiny-tim]

Silwan

Mrs Clinton indicated the plan contravened the provisions in the five-year-old internationally agreed "road-map" that calls for a halt to all settlement activity.

This is probably a misreport … the 88 homes in question (in Silwan), and the surrounding area, are not intended to be settled by anyone, since they are to be an archaeological park and green area.

Nor do they appear to be part of any general policy of evicting Palestinians, since they only apply to that one specific locality, as a continuation of statutory decisions of the British (Mandate) and Jordanian occupations:
“Statutorily, since the beginning of modern city planning during the Mandate period, it was determined that the valleys surrounding the Old City (including the King’s Valley) would serve as open spaces."
In detail, from http://www.williambowles.info/isrl-pal/2005/silwan.html …

The words were written in detail in an official document produced by the municipal engineer of Jerusalem in November 2004, and since it is an instructive document, it is appropriate to quote it in full in its precise language.
“Subject: evacuation of illegal houses in the King’s Valley. The beginning of Jerusalem is the tel in the City of David. In this tel and in its surroundings are archaeological remains from the past 5,000 years. These remains have great international and national value and they provide the city with its status as one of the important cities of the world.
“The King’s Valley, which is one of the important components of the Kidron Valley, constitutes, together with the City of David tel, a complete archaeological unit in which all the sites are connected and constitute an important component for understanding the whole that is composed of various parts and eras.
“Statutorily, since the beginning of modern city planning during the Mandate period, it was determined that the valleys surrounding the Old City (including the King’s Valley) would serve as open spaces.
“This approach was also encouraged by the Israeli planning authorities. In a municipal plan for the Old City and its surroundings that was prepared in the 1970s the guidelines for planning and development were set out, land use, street networks and detailed architectural guidelines for the purpose of conserving the character of the city within the walls and the whole area of the basin of the Old City. According to this plan the area of the King’s Valley was designated as an open public area.
“In view of all of the above I hereby order the removal of the illegal construction in the King’s Valley.”

This is a normal planning move, similar to that in most major world cities, and apparently an originally Jordanian and British idea, not an Israeli invention.

 

[kyleb]

It its settlement activity, and it is of part general policy of evictions, which I have no doubt you would acknoladge were it Jews being driven out rather than Arabs. Even your the source you cited explains as much in it's opening paragraph:

The Jerusalem municipality wants to demolish an entire neighborhood in Silwan village with 88 houses and a thousand residents, in order to expose an archaeological site from the days of David’s Temple. Even though the procedure is unprecedented in scale in this case, it is not a new story. Since 1967 the State of Israel has wanted to control not only the physical area of Jerusalem but also to Judaize the east of the city, to erase its Arab characteristics and to paint its entire face in Jewish colours. The subjugation of the residents and the annexation regime it administers is not enough for the Jerusalem municipality; it must also wipe the Arab presence off the face of the earth, if not physically, then at least the signs of its identity.

It takes some extreme bigotry to condone that.

 

[Art]

It is part of a much wider pattern,

Gaza homes destruction 'wanton'

Human rights investigators say Israeli forces engaged in "wanton destruction" of Palestinian homes during the recent conflict in Gaza.

Amnesty International has told the BBC News website the methods used raised concerns about war crimes.

Israel's military said buildings were destroyed because of military "operational needs".

The Israeli Defense Forces said they operated in accordance with international law during the conflict.

However, the use of mines to destroy homes contradicted this claim, the head of the Amnesty International fact-finding mission to southern Israel and Gaza, Donatella Rovera, has argued.

Israeli troops had to leave their vehicles to plant the mines, indicating that they faced no danger and that there was no military or operational justification, she said.

Breaking the Silence, an Israeli group that gathers and circulates the testimonies of Israeli soldiers, has also told the BBC News website that its findings from the Gaza war suggested many demolitions had been carried out when there was no immediate threat.

"From the testimonies that we've gathered, lots of demolitions - buildings demolished either by bulldozers or explosives - were done after the area was under Israeli control," said Yehuda Shaul, one of the group's members.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7926413.stm?ad=1

No doubt Israeli apologists will claim it is all a misunderstanding and that the IDF were only trying to help the Palestinian owners rearrange the furniture

 

[tiny-tim]

Even your the source you cited explains as much in it's opening paragraph:

No, the source I cited was "an official document produced by the municipal engineer of Jerusalem in November 2004".

The source you are citing is an extremely biased commentary on that document, ending …

it must also wipe the Arab presence off the face of the earth, if not physically, then at least the signs of its identity.

"wiping the Arab presence off the face of the earth" is a lot to read from a policy of creating an archaeological park and trying to persuade Arab residents to move to a neighbouring hillside still inside East Jerusalem!

 

[turbo]

TT, the link you cited provides this:

The Jerusalem municipality wants to demolish an entire neighborhood in Silwan village with 88 houses and a thousand residents, in order to expose an archaeological site from the days of David’s Temple. Even though the procedure is unprecedented in scale in this case, it is not a new story. Since 1967 the State of Israel has wanted to control not only the physical area of Jerusalem but also to Judaize the east of the city, to erase its Arab characteristics and to paint its entire face in Jewish colours. The subjugation of the residents and the annexation regime it administers is not enough for the Jerusalem municipality; it must also wipe the Arab presence off the face of the earth, if not physically, then at least the signs of its identity.

As well as this:

This letter is destined to occupy a place of honour in the literature of the occupation. It is shameful and deplorable and verges on a crime against humanity. It is written in sterile language in the name of the law and universal values, but between the lines is concealed a racist and destructive ideology.

and a whole lot more damning commentary besides. If you do not want your extreme Zionist views to be opposed, it might not be a good idea to quote sources that are even-handed.

There is a lot of good and bad on both sides, but for the last 50-60 years Israel has framed the debate, to the point where every mention of "Palestinian" is followed with the mental addition of "terrorist" in the minds of many Westerners. They have dehumanized the refugee population that they created to the point that any resistance that the Palestinians raise is de-facto "terrorism" in the popular press. When civilian populations are killed in attacks on "terrorists" it is hard to figure how infants, children, women, and elderly and infirm people pose much of a risk to Israel.

 

[kyleb]

No, the source I cited was "an official document produced by the municipal engineer of Jerusalem in November 2004".

Seriously, what I quoted is the opening paragraph of the same article you quoted and linked https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2105471&postcount=151".

It is part of a much wider pattern...

Seeing the whole pattern requires looking back to 1947, and of course there is a slew of excuses for every last act of displacement between then and now, just as any colonialist movement requires.

 

[Count Iblis]

And what I am wondering about is crystal clear : when will it no longer be inappropriate for the international community to state it clearly against Israel ?

I think things are slowly changing. There is a consensus that the Palestinians must have their own state and the borders of that state will pretty much be the 1967 borders. The view that Israel has the right to use overwhelming force against minor provocations has been undermined in the last few years due to a few significant world events.

Take e.g. the recent conflict between Russia and Georgia. Georgia fired a huge number of missiles, killing about 160 civilians in a matter of hours. Nevertheless, Russia's limited military operations in the region were considered to be aggression. Then, a few months later, Israel uses far more violence and kills far more civilians to stop Hamas firing a few missiles.

Another important factor is Iran's nuclear program and the Israeli threat to attack Iran. Bush had to block Israel on a few occasions when they asked for bunkerbusters to attack Iran. They were also denied permission to overfly Iraq.

So, even the Bush admistration was becoming irritated with Israel. For domestic reasons they (and the current Obama administration) would not say anything to insult the pro-Isreal lobby. But privately, they know that Israel is the real threat in the region.

 

[tiny-tim]

TT, the link you cited provides this:

Since 1967 the State of Israel has wanted …

As well as this:

… between the lines is concealed a racist and destructive ideology.

The extreme and unreliable nature of your source (as to the Israeli government's intentions) … which you quote and place value on … is obvious from its climax:

it must also wipe the Arab presence off the face of the earth, if not physically, then at least the signs of its identity

Do you agree with your source that that is Israel's (or Jerusalem's) aim?

If you do not want your extreme Zionist views to be opposed, it might not be a good idea to quote sources that are even-handed.

i] I didn't quote it (I quoted the document of 2004), I only linked to it (I provided the first link I could find that included the document … and the fact that it was from a clearly anti-Israel source had the advantage that you were unlikely to dispute the document's accuracy).
ii] I often provide links that aren't pro-Israel.
iii] I'm not an extreme Zionist, I'm one of the overwhelming majority of supporters of the right of Israel to exist who also support a permanent two-state solution

I usually quote documents rather than opinions (and of course, I also quote from wikipedia, which has the advantage of, usually, being written by people from both sides).

When I quote opinions, it is (I think) only because the opinion is of someone whose opinion is actually of importance … for example, Hillary Clinton, or the Jordanian Foreign Minister.

Your quotation is from a one-sided and extreme opinion article by some journalist whose opinion is not of importance … and as such, is a breach of the sub-forum guidelines about quoting opinions.

… every mention of "Palestinian" is followed with the mental addition of "terrorist" in the minds of many Westerners. They have dehumanized the refugee population that they created to the point that any resistance that the Palestinians raise is de-facto "terrorism" in the popular press.

oh, so you're an anti-Westerner also

 

[kyleb]

Rather, are you are so pro-equivocating Palestinians as terrorists as a whole that you consider anyone who points out the absurdity of that as anti-Western? Granted, you can't even admit Art and I quoted the same article you did, and claim to support Palestinian statehood while supporting displacing Arabs from Palestinian territory, so I can't rightly expect an honest answer from you anyway.

 

[svastikajla]

I really don't think 'Israel', 'Palestine', 'Egypt', 'Burj Al-Araab' or any other of those has done any thing lately, as they are countries or other things defined by little other than border. I think a council of people in Israel—maybe even one person—authorized it. Funny how people keep pressing that they are past generalization when terms like this Freudianly hint away their primal thoughts to place people in such groups.

'It's funny how people speak about "the actions of America" when only 42 per cent of the country has even voted for the current, admittedly disastrous, administration.'

This thread it littered with such fine examples that give away how humans really think. It makes no sense to speak of the US in the 1800's as the same entity as now because there aren't people living there over 200 years old.

Western culture has seemed to evolved beyond using words like 'black people' in this way, but using 'children', 'Israel' or 'women' apparently still can?

 

[kyleb]

You are overlooking the difference between generalising people and and referring to the actions of a state by it's name.

As to the topic at hand, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/07/israel-palestine-eu-report-jerusalem" :

A confidential EU report accuses the Israeli government of using settlement expansion, house demolitions, discriminatory housing policies and the West Bank barrier as a way of "actively pursuing the illegal annexation" of East Jerusalem.
...

Granted, this should have been obvious to anyone paying attention since back when Israel illegally claimed annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967, so the EU is obviously a bit of a slow learner here.

 

[tiny-tim]

Rather, are you are so pro-equivocating Palestinians as terrorists as a whole

that's rubbish … you just made that up

you consider anyone who points out the absurdity of that as anti-Western?

no, i consider that anyone who thinks that westerners mentally add "terrorist" whenever they hear "Palestinian", or that westerners have dehumanized the refugee population, is anti-western

you can't even admit Art and I quoted the same article you did

d'uh … that's because i didn't quote that thoroughly biased article, i only quoted the 2004 document!

… and claim to support Palestinian statehood while supporting displacing Arabs from Palestinian territory

i only supported the Israeli attempts to persuade Arabs to move from one part of Palestinian territory to another (both in East Jerusalem) … that's not "displacing Arabs from Palestinian territory"!

 

[kyleb]

Sure, a state planing to demolish peoples homes on land they have no legal right to is just an "attempt to persuade" those people to move, and anyone who suggests otherwise is biased.

 

[Evo]

Locked pending moderation.