The demographic composition of the Israel-Palestine region has played a major role in the events, policies and debates that have shaped the area. Early on, population figures were used to establish or deny the legitimacy of particular claims. As Ami Isseroff, Director of the MidEastWeb, notes "the Zionist claim that Palestine was 'a land without a people' is challenged by pro Palestinian historians who cite census figures showing a substantial Palestinian-Arab population by 1914. Zionists note that most of this increase seems to have occurred after 1880, when Jews began developing Palestine."
In addition to these claims, population statistics were used to determine the partition plans of 1937 and 1947, as well as British immigration policy in 1939. After 1967, demographics influenced settlement policy (especially in East Jerusalem), and during the 1990s it determined the areas to be turned over to the Palestinian Authority. Other relevant considerations include the demographic impact of war (especially the wars of 1948 and 1967) and of Palestinian refugee Right of Return upon the state of Israel. Demographics will likely play a role in any future peace talks and is currently a part of Sharon's motivation to withdraw from the Gaza Strip.
History: The areas known today as Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, were in 1922 designated under the British Mandate as a single territorial unit called Palestine.
Prior to British rule, the area existed as several districts within the Ottoman Empire. (Only the inhabitants from the Ottoman districts that would become British Mandate Palestine were included in the population figures presented below).
In 1948, the British withdrew, Israel declared statehood, and the first Arab-Israeli war broke out. The armistice lines established between Israel and Jordan, and Israel and Egypt formed the West Bank and Gaza Strip respectively. These territorial divisions remained until the 1967 War when Israel came to control both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, as well as East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Since 1967, population figures for Israel have included the residents of East Jerusalem as well as the Jewish settlers in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (until their removal in Aug. 2005). The population of the Golan Heights was included in the Israeli figures starting in 1982. See our complete history of these developments as told through maps.
Demographic Divisions: We have divided the population into two main ethnic groups: Jews and Arabs. For Jerusalem however, we used religious rather than ethnic designations because of the religious significance of the city to Jews, Muslims, and Christians.
Demographic Display: The demographic information below is displayed in graphs and charts. Each graph derives from the data in its corresponding chart. The accompanying maps designate the territory of focus.
Accuracy: The population statistics below are approximations. Older data is generally seen as less accurate than more modern population figures.
Get all the statics here
Subscribe to Falestin Under Occupation by Email
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Newsest Israeli Military Fashion.
Dead babies, mothers weeping on their children’s graves, a gun aimed at a child and bombed-out mosques - these are a few examples of the images Israel Defense Forces soldiers design these days to print on shirts they order to mark the end of training, or of field duty. The slogans accompanying the drawings are not exactly anemic either: A T-shirt for infantry snipers bears the inscription "Better use Durex," next to a picture of a dead Palestinian baby, with his weeping mother and a teddy bear beside him. A sharpshooter’s T-shirt from the Givati Brigade’s Shaked battalion shows a pregnant Palestinian woman with a bull’s-eye superimposed on her belly, with the slogan, in English, "1 shot, 2 kills." A "graduation" shirt for those who have completed another snipers course depicts a Palestinian baby, who grows into a combative boy and then an armed adult, with the inscription, "No matter how it begins, we’ll put an end to it."
There are also plenty of shirts with blatant sexual messages. For example, the Lavi battalion produced a shirt featuring a drawing of a soldier next to a young woman with bruises, and the slogan, "Bet you got raped!" A few of the images underscore actions whose existence the army officially denies - such as "confirming the kill" (shooting a bullet into an enemy victim’s head from close range, to ensure he is dead), or harming religious sites, or female or child non-combatants.
In many cases, the content is submitted for approval to one of the unit’s commanders. The latter, however, do not always have control over what gets printed, because the artwork is a private initiative of soldiers that they never hear about. Drawings or slogans previously banned in certain units have been approved for distribution elsewhere. For example, shirts declaring, "We won’t chill ’til we confirm the kill" were banned in the past (the IDF claims that the practice doesn’t exist), yet the Haruv battalion printed some last year.
The slogan "Let every Arab mother know that her son’s fate is in my hands!" had previously been banned for use on another infantry unit’s shirt. A Givati soldier said this week, however, that at the end of last year, his platoon printed up dozens of shirts, fleece jackets and pants bearing this slogan.
"It has a drawing depicting a soldier as the Angel of Death, next to a gun and an Arab town," he explains. "The text was very powerful. The funniest part was that when our soldier came to get the shirts, the man who printed them was an Arab, and the soldier felt so bad that he told the girl at the counter to bring them to him."
Does the design go to the commanders for approval?
The Givati soldier: "Usually the shirts undergo a selection process by some officer, but in this case, they were approved at the level of platoon sergeant. We ordered shirts for 30 soldiers and they were really into it, and everyone wanted several items and paid NIS 200 on average."
What do you think of the slogan that was printed?
"I didn’t like it so much, but most of the soldiers wanted it."
Palestine monitor
Subscribe to Falestin Under Occupation by Email
There are also plenty of shirts with blatant sexual messages. For example, the Lavi battalion produced a shirt featuring a drawing of a soldier next to a young woman with bruises, and the slogan, "Bet you got raped!" A few of the images underscore actions whose existence the army officially denies - such as "confirming the kill" (shooting a bullet into an enemy victim’s head from close range, to ensure he is dead), or harming religious sites, or female or child non-combatants.
In many cases, the content is submitted for approval to one of the unit’s commanders. The latter, however, do not always have control over what gets printed, because the artwork is a private initiative of soldiers that they never hear about. Drawings or slogans previously banned in certain units have been approved for distribution elsewhere. For example, shirts declaring, "We won’t chill ’til we confirm the kill" were banned in the past (the IDF claims that the practice doesn’t exist), yet the Haruv battalion printed some last year.
The slogan "Let every Arab mother know that her son’s fate is in my hands!" had previously been banned for use on another infantry unit’s shirt. A Givati soldier said this week, however, that at the end of last year, his platoon printed up dozens of shirts, fleece jackets and pants bearing this slogan.
"It has a drawing depicting a soldier as the Angel of Death, next to a gun and an Arab town," he explains. "The text was very powerful. The funniest part was that when our soldier came to get the shirts, the man who printed them was an Arab, and the soldier felt so bad that he told the girl at the counter to bring them to him."
Does the design go to the commanders for approval?
The Givati soldier: "Usually the shirts undergo a selection process by some officer, but in this case, they were approved at the level of platoon sergeant. We ordered shirts for 30 soldiers and they were really into it, and everyone wanted several items and paid NIS 200 on average."
What do you think of the slogan that was printed?
"I didn’t like it so much, but most of the soldiers wanted it."
Palestine monitor
Subscribe to Falestin Under Occupation by Email
Women in fetters! 6 Palestinian women are currently being held under administrative detention orders
Addameer Prisoners Support and Human Rights Association on 8 March 2003, International Women's Day, issued a touching statement about the tragic condition of Palestinian Women under occupation. The Association said: “As we also commemorate International Women's Day today, we also remember the remaining 65 Palestinian female detainees currently being held by Israel in the Neveh Terzah section of Ramleh Prison. Of the 65 Palestinian women being detained, 10 are Palestinian minors under the age of 18, held in conditions that contravene international standards of detention and contrary to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which stipulates that all individuals under the age of 18 are considered children, must not be submitted to forms of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, nor should they be deprived of their liberty except as a last resort. The youngest of the detainees are Zainab Al Shouly and 'Aisha Abeyat, both turned 15 whilst in prison.
6 Palestinian women are currently being held under administrative detention orders, imprisoned without charge or trial. One woman, Tahani Al Titi, has been serving continuously renewed administrative detention orders since 13 June 2002. The use of administrative detention for Palestinian women has dramatically increased in the past two months, paralleling similar use during the first Palestinian Intifada. Detainees also include mothers of young children, including Mervat Taha, who was arrested on 13 June 2002 while she was pregnant. She recently gave birth to her child whilst in prison and serving a 20 month sentence. An apparent pattern has developed in which Palestinian women are now being detained in order to place pressure on relations who may be 'wanted' by Israel, or under interrogation. This was evident in the case of 'Abla Sa'adaat, wife of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, General Secretary Ahmad Sa'aadat, as well as Asma Abu Al Hayjah, the wife of Jamal Abu Al Hayjah, who is detained by Israel. Al Hayjah also suffers from severe medical problems, as she was diagnosed some time ago with a cancerous brain tumour which was operated on twice, and was waiting for a third operation before she was detained.
The statement spoke of the conditions of detention in which Palestinian women are held as " inhumane", where Female Palestinian detainees are held in two separate sections, with contact between the two sections banned by the Prisons Authorities. Female detainees are subjected to individual and collective punishment, including the prevention of family visits, being placed in solitary confinement for varying periods of time, and banning canteen privileges, meaning that women are not able to obtain supplementary food or hygiene supplies. Surprise searches are conducted regularly of the women's cells, and personal belongings are often confiscated or destroyed, such as mixing clothing with food and confiscating canteen supplies, personal items and clothing. Hot water and electricity to the cells are often cut off as a form of punishment!
Food provided to the detainees is not adequate in terms of quantity and quality and does not meet basic nutritional requirements. This has caused and will cause vitamin deficient diseases and other health problems amongst detainees in the long term.
The current health situation of female detainees is of grave concern. There is clear neglect towards Palestinian detainees in the provision of health services, and a clear discrimination in the form of services offered between Palestinian detainees and Israeli Jewish detainees held in the same facility. There are often delays in medical treatment when needed, and those in need of hospital care are often not taken to hospital or are offered pain killers for any illness.
Any attempt from female detainees to protest their conditions of detention is met by collective punishment. For example, in July 2002 female detainees began a hunger strike in protest of these conditions. In response, the Prisons Authorities threw tear gas canisters into the women's small cells, causing numerous injuries amongst the detainees. Four of the female detainees were transferred to other prisons and placed in isolation. As a result of the fact that family visits have been prevented for over a year, female detainees do not have enough clothing or supplies that are normally provided by families. For over a year, permits for families of female detainees to travel from the West Bank to Ramleh Prison in Israel, where Palestinian female detainees are held in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention, have not been issued. Lawyers attempting to visit the detainees are often met with harassment and humiliation from the Prisons Authorities. They are forced to wait for long periods of time before the detainee is brought to them, sometimes up to four hours. The delay means that lawyers are often not able to see all the detainees requested, as lawyer visits are set for a limited period of time. On 4 February 2003, Addameer's lawyer Adv. Mahmoud Hassan was locked in the prison's family visit center at Neveh Terzah for 3 hours before his client was brought to see him, with no reason given for the delay or for his being detained in the visit room.
Gideon Levy, an Israeli Journlaist, raised a rhetorical question in an article by Ha'aretz on March 9, 2003: “ " Did an IDF tank fire a shell at a burning carpentry shop last Thursday morning in the Jabalya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, killing seven civilians? The moment the IDF sends tanks into a densely crowded refugee camp, it puts all the inhabitants at risk. The moment the tanks open fire, innocent people are bound to be hurt. Tanks in Jabalya cannot fire shells without killing women and children, just as it was impossible to drop a one-ton bomb on the house of Salah Shehadeh in Gaza without killing 15 civilians, mostly children. Thus, anyone who decides to send tanks into Jabalya is making a decision to kill civilians. An operation to kidnap a wanted individual from Hamas in the heart of Jabalya - a "surgical operation" in the spit-and-polish language of the divisional commander, Brigadier General Gadi Shamni - that ends, as could be expected, in a dozen Palestinians killed, most of them civilians, and large-scale destruction, is an act of terrorism.
Golan67.net
Subscribe to Falestin Under Occupation by Email
6 Palestinian women are currently being held under administrative detention orders, imprisoned without charge or trial. One woman, Tahani Al Titi, has been serving continuously renewed administrative detention orders since 13 June 2002. The use of administrative detention for Palestinian women has dramatically increased in the past two months, paralleling similar use during the first Palestinian Intifada. Detainees also include mothers of young children, including Mervat Taha, who was arrested on 13 June 2002 while she was pregnant. She recently gave birth to her child whilst in prison and serving a 20 month sentence. An apparent pattern has developed in which Palestinian women are now being detained in order to place pressure on relations who may be 'wanted' by Israel, or under interrogation. This was evident in the case of 'Abla Sa'adaat, wife of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, General Secretary Ahmad Sa'aadat, as well as Asma Abu Al Hayjah, the wife of Jamal Abu Al Hayjah, who is detained by Israel. Al Hayjah also suffers from severe medical problems, as she was diagnosed some time ago with a cancerous brain tumour which was operated on twice, and was waiting for a third operation before she was detained.
The statement spoke of the conditions of detention in which Palestinian women are held as " inhumane", where Female Palestinian detainees are held in two separate sections, with contact between the two sections banned by the Prisons Authorities. Female detainees are subjected to individual and collective punishment, including the prevention of family visits, being placed in solitary confinement for varying periods of time, and banning canteen privileges, meaning that women are not able to obtain supplementary food or hygiene supplies. Surprise searches are conducted regularly of the women's cells, and personal belongings are often confiscated or destroyed, such as mixing clothing with food and confiscating canteen supplies, personal items and clothing. Hot water and electricity to the cells are often cut off as a form of punishment!
Food provided to the detainees is not adequate in terms of quantity and quality and does not meet basic nutritional requirements. This has caused and will cause vitamin deficient diseases and other health problems amongst detainees in the long term.
The current health situation of female detainees is of grave concern. There is clear neglect towards Palestinian detainees in the provision of health services, and a clear discrimination in the form of services offered between Palestinian detainees and Israeli Jewish detainees held in the same facility. There are often delays in medical treatment when needed, and those in need of hospital care are often not taken to hospital or are offered pain killers for any illness.
Any attempt from female detainees to protest their conditions of detention is met by collective punishment. For example, in July 2002 female detainees began a hunger strike in protest of these conditions. In response, the Prisons Authorities threw tear gas canisters into the women's small cells, causing numerous injuries amongst the detainees. Four of the female detainees were transferred to other prisons and placed in isolation. As a result of the fact that family visits have been prevented for over a year, female detainees do not have enough clothing or supplies that are normally provided by families. For over a year, permits for families of female detainees to travel from the West Bank to Ramleh Prison in Israel, where Palestinian female detainees are held in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention, have not been issued. Lawyers attempting to visit the detainees are often met with harassment and humiliation from the Prisons Authorities. They are forced to wait for long periods of time before the detainee is brought to them, sometimes up to four hours. The delay means that lawyers are often not able to see all the detainees requested, as lawyer visits are set for a limited period of time. On 4 February 2003, Addameer's lawyer Adv. Mahmoud Hassan was locked in the prison's family visit center at Neveh Terzah for 3 hours before his client was brought to see him, with no reason given for the delay or for his being detained in the visit room.
Gideon Levy, an Israeli Journlaist, raised a rhetorical question in an article by Ha'aretz on March 9, 2003: “ " Did an IDF tank fire a shell at a burning carpentry shop last Thursday morning in the Jabalya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, killing seven civilians? The moment the IDF sends tanks into a densely crowded refugee camp, it puts all the inhabitants at risk. The moment the tanks open fire, innocent people are bound to be hurt. Tanks in Jabalya cannot fire shells without killing women and children, just as it was impossible to drop a one-ton bomb on the house of Salah Shehadeh in Gaza without killing 15 civilians, mostly children. Thus, anyone who decides to send tanks into Jabalya is making a decision to kill civilians. An operation to kidnap a wanted individual from Hamas in the heart of Jabalya - a "surgical operation" in the spit-and-polish language of the divisional commander, Brigadier General Gadi Shamni - that ends, as could be expected, in a dozen Palestinians killed, most of them civilians, and large-scale destruction, is an act of terrorism.
Golan67.net
Subscribe to Falestin Under Occupation by Email
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
President Abdullah Gül denounces Islamophobia, Palestinian infighting
On the second day of an official visit to Saudi Arabia, Gül addressed members of the Saudi Consultative Council, becoming the first-ever foreign Muslim leader to address the Saudi assembly. His visit to Saudi Arabia came following Israel's recent deadly offensive in the Gaza Strip, which led to the death of hundreds of civilians.
Describing the Saudi peace plan that calls for Israel to return to the 1967 borders in exchange for full normalization of relations with the Arab states as a "guiding principle," Gül recalled and voiced appreciation that Saudi King Abdullah had hosted leaders of Palestinian rivals Fatah and Hamas in the holy city of Mecca in early 2007, hoping that the two groups could restart negotiations to form a national unity government.
Subscribe to Falestin Under Occupation by Email
Describing the Saudi peace plan that calls for Israel to return to the 1967 borders in exchange for full normalization of relations with the Arab states as a "guiding principle," Gül recalled and voiced appreciation that Saudi King Abdullah had hosted leaders of Palestinian rivals Fatah and Hamas in the holy city of Mecca in early 2007, hoping that the two groups could restart negotiations to form a national unity government.
Subscribe to Falestin Under Occupation by Email
Monday, March 16, 2009
Uprooting and land theaft continues in Wadi arRasha and Ras atTira
Over thirty ancient olive trees were uprooted yesterday in the groves of Wadi arRasha and Ras atTira in the Qalqilya region, as part of the construction of a new path for the wall in the area. The uprooting was secured by an overwhelming presence of soldiers, police and riot police, who prevented the villages' women attempt to obstruct the destruction.
Currently, the two villages are separated from the rest of the West Bank by the wall, which was constructed to secure as much land as possible to the nearby settlement of Alfei Menashe. Following an Israeli Supreme Court decision, the path of the wall in the area is being rerouted so to exclude the villages from the Alfi Menashe enclave. The new route, though now leaving the villages east of the wall, is still planned with expansionist aspirations in mind, and may actually worsen the villagers' situation. Under the new path, though no longer separated from the rest of the West Bank, Wadi arRasha will be cut of from virtually all of its lands, with only a quarter of an acre out of about 200 left on their side of the wall. In addition, dozens of olive trees are expected to be felled to allow for the construction of the new path
Source
Subscribe to Falestin Under Occupation by Email
Why Intifada / Uprise?
Why Intifada?
What inspires a nation in their entirety to Intifada?
Human Rights
Israel denies full human rights to the Palestinians. In the meantime, Jewish settlers enjoy the full privileges and protection of the Jewish state.
For example, the Palestinians have to seek the permission of the Israelis as they go about One of the tasks of Israel Defence Forces.
their daily lives.
Palestinians are regularly stopped and questioned by the army and police. Travel outside and within Palestine requires an "occupation signed permit" - this also occurs when Palestinians need to travel to pray.
Many Palestinians rightly feel degraded by such treatment. On occasions, bribes are sought from passers by.
Expulsion
There are currently five million Palestinians living outside Palestine as refugees.
Why is Israel still in Palestine streets and towns?
Many left as a result of the Israeli violence. Others left after the occupation to pursue work or studies.
When those people attempted to return to their homes and towns, Israel closed its borders and denied them entry....this situation continues today.
Theft
Over the years, Palestinian homes and villages have been cleared by the Israelis to make way for their settlements.
Siege
An old man weeping on the ruins of his house.
Israel controls all the ports and roads into and out of Palestine. Israel has not allowed the Palestinians to build their own port.
Every shipment of food and medicine must pass under the Israelis supervision and approval. On many occasions Israel collectively punishes the Palestinians by closing these roads and ports.
A daily sight in Palestine. A demonstrator shot for throwing stones.
Torture
Israeli law effectively permits the use of torture. Their statute books refer to it is "physical pressure".
Killing
The Jewish state has killed tens of thousands of Arabs and Palestinians.
Leniency is often granted to those who commit such crimes in Israeli trials. Three soldiers were ordered by an Israeli court to pay the family of a Palestinian they killed a compensation of one cent, divided between the three.
Sick mentality exhibited on this Israeli helmet.
An Israeli was sentenced to serve a life sentence for killing a nine years old boy
(whose head he crushed with a machine gun).
He was released from jail after two years.
Holy shrines
Israel has desecrated the sanctuary of Muslim and Christian shrines regularly. Aqsa mosque was nearly burned down in 1969. It is still threatened with demolition by the Israelis. Frequently, Muslims are prevented from attending prayers by the Israeli army.
Palestinian forced to pray in the streets. The army prohibited them from going to their mosque
Conclusion
Palestine is our home.
We were born there.
We lived there.
We loved there.
We hate no one, but we despise injustice.
Children are the future.
In peace we believe, for freedom we fight.
We have a right to live in peace in our Palestine. This is why there is Intifada.
Subscribe to Falestin Under Occupation by Email
Zionism is the problem
Zionism is the problem
The Zionist ideal of a Jewish state is keeping Israelis and Palestinians from living in peace.
By Ben Ehrenreich
March 15, 2009
It's hard to imagine now, but in 1944, six years after Kristallnacht, Lessing J. Rosenwald, president of the American Council for Judaism, felt comfortable equating the Zionist ideal of Jewish statehood with "the concept of a racial state -- the Hitlerian concept." For most of the last century, a principled opposition to Zionism was a mainstream stance within American Judaism.
Even after the foundation of Israel, anti-Zionism was not a particularly heretical position. Assimilated Reform Jews like Rosenwald believed that Judaism should remain a matter of religious rather than political allegiance; the ultra-Orthodox saw Jewish statehood as an impious attempt to "push the hand of God"; and Marxist Jews -- my grandparents among them -- tended to see Zionism, and all nationalisms, as a distraction from the more essential struggle between classes.
To be Jewish, I was raised to believe, meant understanding oneself as a member of a tribe that over and over had been cast out, mistreated, slaughtered. Millenniums of oppression that preceded it did not entitle us to a homeland or a right to self-defense that superseded anyone else's. If they offered us anything exceptional, it was a perspective on oppression and an obligation born of the prophetic tradition: to act on behalf of the oppressed and to cry out at the oppressor.
For the last several decades, though, it has been all but impossible to cry out against the Israeli state without being smeared as an anti-Semite, or worse. To question not just Israel's actions, but the Zionist tenets on which the state is founded, has for too long been regarded an almost unspeakable blasphemy.
Yet it is no longer possible to believe with an honest conscience that the deplorable conditions in which Palestinians live and die in Gaza and the West Bank come as the result of specific policies, leaders or parties on either side of the impasse. The problem is fundamental: Founding a modern state on a single ethnic or religious identity in a territory that is ethnically and religiously diverse leads inexorably either to politics of exclusion (think of the 139-square-mile prison camp that Gaza has become) or to wholesale ethnic cleansing. Put simply, the problem is Zionism.
It has been argued that Zionism is an anachronism, a leftover ideology from the era of 19th century romantic nationalisms wedged uncomfortably into 21st century geopolitics. But Zionism is not merely outdated. Even before 1948, one of its basic oversights was readily apparent: the presence of Palestinians in Palestine. That led some of the most prominent Jewish thinkers of the last century, many of them Zionists, to balk at the idea of Jewish statehood. The Brit Shalom movement -- founded in 1925 and supported at various times by Martin Buber, Hannah Arendt and Gershom Scholem -- argued for a secular, binational state in Palestine in which Jews and Arabs would be accorded equal status. Their concerns were both moral and pragmatic. The establishment of a Jewish state, Buber feared, would mean "premeditated national suicide."
The fate Buber foresaw is upon us: a nation that has lived in a state of war for decades, a quarter-million Arab citizens with second-class status and more than 5 million Palestinians deprived of the most basic political and human rights. If two decades ago comparisons to the South African apartheid system felt like hyperbole, they now feel charitable. The white South African regime, for all its crimes, never attacked the Bantustans with anything like the destructive power Israel visited on Gaza in December and January, when nearly1,300 Palestinians were killed, one-third of them children.
Israeli policies have rendered the once apparently inevitable two-state solution less and less feasible. Years of Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have methodically diminished the viability of a Palestinian state. Israel's new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has even refused to endorse the idea of an independent Palestinian state, which suggests an immediate future of more of the same: more settlements, more punitive assaults.
All of this has led to a revival of the Brit Shalom idea of a single, secular binational state in which Jews and Arabs have equal political rights. The obstacles are, of course, enormous. They include not just a powerful Israeli attachment to the idea of an exclusively Jewish state, but its Palestinian analogue: Hamas' ideal of Islamic rule. Both sides would have to find assurance that their security was guaranteed. What precise shape such a state would take -- a strict, vote-by-vote democracy or a more complex federalist system -- would involve years of painful negotiation, wiser leaders than now exist and an uncompromising commitment from the rest of the world, particularly from the United States.
Meanwhile, the characterization of anti-Zionism as an "epidemic" more dangerous than anti-Semitism reveals only the unsustainability of the position into which Israel's apologists have been forced. Faced with international condemnation, they seek to limit the discourse, to erect walls that delineate what can and can't be said.
It's not working. Opposing Zionism is neither anti-Semitic nor particularly radical. It requires only that we take our own values seriously and no longer, as the book of Amos has it, "turn justice into wormwood and hurl righteousness to the ground."
Establishing a secular, pluralist, democratic government in Israel and Palestine would of course mean the abandonment of the Zionist dream. It might also mean the only salvation for the Jewish ideals of justice that date back to Jeremiah.
Ben Ehrenreich is the author of the novel "The Suitors."
Source
Subscribe to Falestin Under Occupation by Email
The Zionist ideal of a Jewish state is keeping Israelis and Palestinians from living in peace.
By Ben Ehrenreich
March 15, 2009
It's hard to imagine now, but in 1944, six years after Kristallnacht, Lessing J. Rosenwald, president of the American Council for Judaism, felt comfortable equating the Zionist ideal of Jewish statehood with "the concept of a racial state -- the Hitlerian concept." For most of the last century, a principled opposition to Zionism was a mainstream stance within American Judaism.
Even after the foundation of Israel, anti-Zionism was not a particularly heretical position. Assimilated Reform Jews like Rosenwald believed that Judaism should remain a matter of religious rather than political allegiance; the ultra-Orthodox saw Jewish statehood as an impious attempt to "push the hand of God"; and Marxist Jews -- my grandparents among them -- tended to see Zionism, and all nationalisms, as a distraction from the more essential struggle between classes.
To be Jewish, I was raised to believe, meant understanding oneself as a member of a tribe that over and over had been cast out, mistreated, slaughtered. Millenniums of oppression that preceded it did not entitle us to a homeland or a right to self-defense that superseded anyone else's. If they offered us anything exceptional, it was a perspective on oppression and an obligation born of the prophetic tradition: to act on behalf of the oppressed and to cry out at the oppressor.
For the last several decades, though, it has been all but impossible to cry out against the Israeli state without being smeared as an anti-Semite, or worse. To question not just Israel's actions, but the Zionist tenets on which the state is founded, has for too long been regarded an almost unspeakable blasphemy.
Yet it is no longer possible to believe with an honest conscience that the deplorable conditions in which Palestinians live and die in Gaza and the West Bank come as the result of specific policies, leaders or parties on either side of the impasse. The problem is fundamental: Founding a modern state on a single ethnic or religious identity in a territory that is ethnically and religiously diverse leads inexorably either to politics of exclusion (think of the 139-square-mile prison camp that Gaza has become) or to wholesale ethnic cleansing. Put simply, the problem is Zionism.
It has been argued that Zionism is an anachronism, a leftover ideology from the era of 19th century romantic nationalisms wedged uncomfortably into 21st century geopolitics. But Zionism is not merely outdated. Even before 1948, one of its basic oversights was readily apparent: the presence of Palestinians in Palestine. That led some of the most prominent Jewish thinkers of the last century, many of them Zionists, to balk at the idea of Jewish statehood. The Brit Shalom movement -- founded in 1925 and supported at various times by Martin Buber, Hannah Arendt and Gershom Scholem -- argued for a secular, binational state in Palestine in which Jews and Arabs would be accorded equal status. Their concerns were both moral and pragmatic. The establishment of a Jewish state, Buber feared, would mean "premeditated national suicide."
The fate Buber foresaw is upon us: a nation that has lived in a state of war for decades, a quarter-million Arab citizens with second-class status and more than 5 million Palestinians deprived of the most basic political and human rights. If two decades ago comparisons to the South African apartheid system felt like hyperbole, they now feel charitable. The white South African regime, for all its crimes, never attacked the Bantustans with anything like the destructive power Israel visited on Gaza in December and January, when nearly1,300 Palestinians were killed, one-third of them children.
Israeli policies have rendered the once apparently inevitable two-state solution less and less feasible. Years of Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have methodically diminished the viability of a Palestinian state. Israel's new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has even refused to endorse the idea of an independent Palestinian state, which suggests an immediate future of more of the same: more settlements, more punitive assaults.
All of this has led to a revival of the Brit Shalom idea of a single, secular binational state in which Jews and Arabs have equal political rights. The obstacles are, of course, enormous. They include not just a powerful Israeli attachment to the idea of an exclusively Jewish state, but its Palestinian analogue: Hamas' ideal of Islamic rule. Both sides would have to find assurance that their security was guaranteed. What precise shape such a state would take -- a strict, vote-by-vote democracy or a more complex federalist system -- would involve years of painful negotiation, wiser leaders than now exist and an uncompromising commitment from the rest of the world, particularly from the United States.
Meanwhile, the characterization of anti-Zionism as an "epidemic" more dangerous than anti-Semitism reveals only the unsustainability of the position into which Israel's apologists have been forced. Faced with international condemnation, they seek to limit the discourse, to erect walls that delineate what can and can't be said.
It's not working. Opposing Zionism is neither anti-Semitic nor particularly radical. It requires only that we take our own values seriously and no longer, as the book of Amos has it, "turn justice into wormwood and hurl righteousness to the ground."
Establishing a secular, pluralist, democratic government in Israel and Palestine would of course mean the abandonment of the Zionist dream. It might also mean the only salvation for the Jewish ideals of justice that date back to Jeremiah.
Ben Ehrenreich is the author of the novel "The Suitors."
Source
Subscribe to Falestin Under Occupation by Email
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The massacre of Jenine refugees camp - 12.04.2002
The Battle of Jenin took place in April 2002 in Jenin's Palestinian refugee camp as part of Operation Defensive Shield, a large-scale military operation conducted by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), the largest conducted in the West Bank since the 1967 Six-Day War. The battle attracted widespread international attention because journalists, particularly in the UK, reported that a massacre of Palestinians had taken place during the fighting, and that hundreds, or even thousands, of bodies had been secretly buried in mass graves by the IDF.
The United Nations (UN) report said that the number of Palestinians killed was at least 52, 22 of whom were civilians, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW). 23 Israeli soldiers were killed. A section of the camp was destroyed during the fighting.
An UNRWA administrated refugee camp near Jenin was entered by Israeli forces in early April 2002, an operation the IDF described as intending "to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure operating out of the P.A.-controlled areas". Over the next few days a battle took place between the IDF and Palestinians. According to the IDF, Israel chose not to bomb the spots of resistance using aircraft as it entered, but rather to take hold of the city using infantry, although there appears to have been a limited use of helicopters.
After the April 9 ambush, the IDF changed tactics, presumably in order to continue the operation without risking more Israeli deaths, and began operating the heavily-armored IDF Caterpillar D9 bulldozers. Earlier, the IDF maintained that heavy bulldozers were mainly used to clear booby traps and open routes to armored fighting vehicles. After April 9, the bulldozers demolished each house that was allegedly used by the militants to attack Israeli soldiers, and other houses to widen alleyways or to secure locations for IDF troops. Some Palestinians claim that there were cases when the IDF bulldozed houses while there were people inside.
The introduction of the heavily armored bulldozers, which shrugged off explosives and RPGs alike, and the threat of being buried alive, caused the Palestinian militants to surrender. Later, IDF forces withdrew gradually from the refugee camp under international pressure.
After the conflict Israeli reports claim that 8-9% of the houses within the refugee camp were destroyed. This was largely within an area of intense fighting of approximately 100 m by 100 m according to the IDF. Most of the demolition occurred in the Hawashin neighborhood.
Immediately following the event, Israeli authorities prevented the international press from entering the refugee camp for two weeks, which potentially delayed the ability of the world community to assess the damage. Later inquiries by human rights groups and the UN commission did not find evidence of massacres by Israeli forces in Jenin.
Source
Subscribe to Falestin Under Occupation by Email
The United Nations (UN) report said that the number of Palestinians killed was at least 52, 22 of whom were civilians, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW). 23 Israeli soldiers were killed. A section of the camp was destroyed during the fighting.
An UNRWA administrated refugee camp near Jenin was entered by Israeli forces in early April 2002, an operation the IDF described as intending "to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure operating out of the P.A.-controlled areas". Over the next few days a battle took place between the IDF and Palestinians. According to the IDF, Israel chose not to bomb the spots of resistance using aircraft as it entered, but rather to take hold of the city using infantry, although there appears to have been a limited use of helicopters.
After the April 9 ambush, the IDF changed tactics, presumably in order to continue the operation without risking more Israeli deaths, and began operating the heavily-armored IDF Caterpillar D9 bulldozers. Earlier, the IDF maintained that heavy bulldozers were mainly used to clear booby traps and open routes to armored fighting vehicles. After April 9, the bulldozers demolished each house that was allegedly used by the militants to attack Israeli soldiers, and other houses to widen alleyways or to secure locations for IDF troops. Some Palestinians claim that there were cases when the IDF bulldozed houses while there were people inside.
The introduction of the heavily armored bulldozers, which shrugged off explosives and RPGs alike, and the threat of being buried alive, caused the Palestinian militants to surrender. Later, IDF forces withdrew gradually from the refugee camp under international pressure.
After the conflict Israeli reports claim that 8-9% of the houses within the refugee camp were destroyed. This was largely within an area of intense fighting of approximately 100 m by 100 m according to the IDF. Most of the demolition occurred in the Hawashin neighborhood.
Immediately following the event, Israeli authorities prevented the international press from entering the refugee camp for two weeks, which potentially delayed the ability of the world community to assess the damage. Later inquiries by human rights groups and the UN commission did not find evidence of massacres by Israeli forces in Jenin.
Source
Subscribe to Falestin Under Occupation by Email
Monday, March 2, 2009
The Philosopy of Zionism and Israel, Who are Zionists? What about Palestine?
People everywhere are asking the questions; "What is Zionism?" and "Why are we here?" You might be amazed to learn, that Islam is providing clear and concise answers for these questions. Islam is not a new religion, but the same truth that God has revealed to all His prophets throughout history. The Quran proclaims in verse 3:19 "The only religion approved by God is Submission." (Islam) - In a religious context it means complete submission to the will of God and anyone who does so is called a "Muslim", "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to God) it will never be accepted of Him" (quran 3:85) Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy, and forgiveness, and the majority have nothing to do with the extremely grave events which have come to be associated with their faith. Muslims believe the Holy Quran is the Final Revelation from Almighty GOD which was revealed to Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) in 610 a.d The name of God's religion lslam was not decided upon by man. It was chosen by GOD Himself and is clearly mentioned in His final revelation -the Quran. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. (quran 5:3)
Subscribe to Falestin Under Occupation by Email
Haniyeh: Hamas willing to accept Palestinian state with 1967 borders
Hamas has said it is ready to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders but "will not recognise Israel".
Speaking at a news conference on Monday, Khaled Meshaal, the exiled Hamas political leader, reaffirmed Hamas's stance towards Israel and clarified his comments as relayed earlier by Jimmy Carter, the former US president.
"We accept a state on the June 4 line with Jerusalem as capital, real sovereignty and full right of return for refugees but without recognising Israel," Meshaal said.
The Hamas leader was making his first public comments following two meetings with Carter in Damascus last week.
Your Views
Carter, speaking in Jerusalem earlier on Monday, said that Hamas had told him it would accept the right of Israel "to live as a neighbour" if a peace deal was approved by a Palestinian referendum.
Carter said Hamas leaders had told him they would "accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders if approved by Palestinians".
But Carter also said Meshaal turned down his appeal for a unilateral ceasefire with Israel to end violence threatening peace efforts.
"I did the best I could on that," Carter said of his failure to persuade Hamas to halt rocket fire for one month from the Gaza Strip it has controlled since June when it ousted the Fatah movement of Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president.
Aljazeera
Subscribe to Falestin Under Occupation by Email
Speaking at a news conference on Monday, Khaled Meshaal, the exiled Hamas political leader, reaffirmed Hamas's stance towards Israel and clarified his comments as relayed earlier by Jimmy Carter, the former US president.
"We accept a state on the June 4 line with Jerusalem as capital, real sovereignty and full right of return for refugees but without recognising Israel," Meshaal said.
The Hamas leader was making his first public comments following two meetings with Carter in Damascus last week.
Your Views
Carter, speaking in Jerusalem earlier on Monday, said that Hamas had told him it would accept the right of Israel "to live as a neighbour" if a peace deal was approved by a Palestinian referendum.
Carter said Hamas leaders had told him they would "accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders if approved by Palestinians".
But Carter also said Meshaal turned down his appeal for a unilateral ceasefire with Israel to end violence threatening peace efforts.
"I did the best I could on that," Carter said of his failure to persuade Hamas to halt rocket fire for one month from the Gaza Strip it has controlled since June when it ousted the Fatah movement of Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president.
Aljazeera
Subscribe to Falestin Under Occupation by Email
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Palestine 101 hosted by former white house chief of staff John Sununu
Award-winning educational video on the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Hosted by Former White House Chief of Staff John Sununu.
Subscribe to Falestin Under Occupation by Email
Subscribe to Falestin Under Occupation by Email
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
