West Bank Bedouin to be moved from where they live?

a_unique_person · 6th December 2011, 05:26 AM

Quote:

ABOUT 20 Bedouin communities between Jerusalem and Jericho are to be forcibly relocated from the land on which they have lived for 60 years under an Israeli plan to expand a huge Jewish settlement.
The removal of about 2300 members of the Jahalin tribe, two-thirds of whom are children, is due to begin next month. Israeli authorities plan to relocate the families to a site close to a rubbish dump on the edge of Jerusalem.
The Bedouin say the move would expose them to health hazards and deny them access to land to graze their livestock. They add that the viability of their existing communities has been seriously damaged by the growth of Jewish settlements, the creation of military zones and demolition of homes.

''We are living in a jail, which gets smaller every year,'' said Eid Hamis Swelem Jahalin, 46, who was born in the encampment of Khan al-Ahmar and has lived there almost all his life.
The relocation plan is the first phase of a program to remove about 27,000 Bedouin from Area C, the 62 per cent of the occupied West Bank under full Israeli military control.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/israe...#ixzz1flDt9l7I

Something doesn't add up here.

a_unique_person · 6th December 2011, 05:29 AM

And in Jerusalem.

Quote:

The Jerusalem Planning and Building Committee is to consider a plan for a new national park in the Mount Scopus area, which Palestinian residents and leftist activists say is designed to block the development of two Palestinian neighborhoods in the east of the city.
..................
"They took the whole mountain away from us, there's nothing we can do," says Maluk Abdullah of A-Tur. "It's driving people crazy."
According to a member of Jerusalem's city council, Meretz's Meir Margalit, "This national park is a farce. There's nothing there but rocks and thorns, certainly nothing to justify a national park. The only reason for such a plan is to seize lands and hold them as a reserve for a future settlement, while suffocating the Palestinian neighborhoods."
Bimkom, a group of planners and architects that addresses human rights issues, has been advancing plans to renovate and expand Issawiya. The park plan scuttles their efforts, they say.
"These two neighborhoods are boxed-in from all sides, they have no other way for development," says architect Efrat Cohen of Bimkom.
The Palestinians fear that building the national park will require tearing down around 15 of their buildings in that area.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...s-say-1.399735

funk de fino · 6th December 2011, 08:40 PM

Seen similar stuff ignored previously. Do not be surprised if it happens again.

IDB87 · 7th December 2011, 06:12 AM

I suppose support or opposition to this move, referenced in the OP, depends on how you define the legal status of the Bedouin camps. They're illegal, as far as the occupying power is concerned, so I wonder how and what they're basing that off of.

If Israel is occupying the West Bank, they're responsible for upholding the law, right? Well, if the law determines these camps are illegal, what should Israel do?

I don't agree that removing them and expanding settlements is at all the right or moral thing to do, and it's politically stupid.

Gazpacho · 7th December 2011, 05:18 PM

What doesn't add up?

Jonnyclueless · 9th December 2011, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by IDB87

I suppose support or opposition to this move, referenced in the OP, depends on how you define the legal status of the Bedouin camps. They're illegal, as far as the occupying power is concerned, so I wonder how and what they're basing that off of.

If Israel is occupying the West Bank, they're responsible for upholding the law, right? Well, if the law determines these camps are illegal, what should Israel do?

I don't agree that removing them and expanding settlements is at all the right or moral thing to do, and it's politically stupid.

Israel is not occupying West Bank. This kind of rhetoric does not help.

a_unique_person · 9th December 2011, 04:43 PM

The Area C in the West Bank is run by the Israeli Military. It is not run by the Israeli Government, nor the Palestinian.

theprestige · 9th December 2011, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

The Area C in the West Bank is run by the Israeli Military. It is not run by the Israeli Government, nor the Palestinian.

Miramar Marine Combat Air Station in San Diego County, California, USA, is run by the United States Marines.

Strangely enough, this means it is run by the United States government, and also that it is not occupied territory (though undoubtedly there exists or existed some aboriginal tribe or clan with historical claims on the land).

I think the real problem is that people have differing definitions of "occupied". For some people--me, for example--"occupied" means "territory previously belonging to one belligerent, under the control of an opposing belligerent, during an active armed conflict, where the dispossessed belligerent still presses its claim by force of arms either directly by reconquest or indirectly by imposing favorable terms in peace negotiations".

By this definition, I see territory as no longer "occupied", the moment the dispossessed belligerent is gives up its bid to regain the territory by force of arms, either directly by reconquest or indirectly by imposing favorable terms. At the cessation of hostilities, the dispossessed belligerent is instead compelled by the force of arms of its enemy to give up its claim to the territory. At that point, the territory is no longer "occupied", and becomes simply territory belonging to the victor in the conflict.

At that point, any treaty obligations the victor has regarding enemy territory it occupied during the war, are discharged, and the victor may commence governing its newly-acquired territories according to its own internal laws and customs.

Other people have other definitions, I suppose, but I have yet to see them articulated.

The Fool · 10th December 2011, 02:56 AM

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Israel is not occupying West Bank. This kind of rhetoric does not help.

Maybe you could explain why Israeli law applies? Why not Australian Law?

The Fool · 10th December 2011, 03:10 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Miramar Marine Combat Air Station in San Diego County, California, USA, is run by the United States Marines.

who cares who runs the place? Its part of the United States. If Israel was to declare the West Bank is part of Israel then things would be very different. I just don't see the comparison.

Quote:

I think the real problem is that people have differing definitions of "occupied".

Absolutely correct but again I don't see the point you are making. The definition that counts is the one used for International law. In that case its not surprising that Israel has a different one to the one used in international law.

Quote:

Other people have other definitions, I suppose, but I have yet to see them articulated.

The definition used under international law are well articulated...can be rejected if you wish (for an alternate you prefer) but its a little unfair to say they are not articulated.

bit_pattern · 11th December 2011, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Israel is not occupying West Bank. This kind of rhetoric does not help.

Yes it is.

shemp · 12th December 2011, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Israel is not occupying West Bank. This kind of rhetoric does not help.

Perhaps this is true on Planet X.

6th December 2011, 05:26 AM	#1
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,327	West Bank Bedouin to be moved from where they live? Quote: ABOUT 20 Bedouin communities between Jerusalem and Jericho are to be forcibly relocated from the land on which they have lived for 60 years under an Israeli plan to expand a huge Jewish settlement. The removal of about 2300 members of the Jahalin tribe, two-thirds of whom are children, is due to begin next month. Israeli authorities plan to relocate the families to a site close to a rubbish dump on the edge of Jerusalem. The Bedouin say the move would expose them to health hazards and deny them access to land to graze their livestock. They add that the viability of their existing communities has been seriously damaged by the growth of Jewish settlements, the creation of military zones and demolition of homes. ''We are living in a jail, which gets smaller every year,'' said Eid Hamis Swelem Jahalin, 46, who was born in the encampment of Khan al-Ahmar and has lived there almost all his life. The relocation plan is the first phase of a program to remove about 27,000 Bedouin from Area C, the 62 per cent of the occupied West Bank under full Israeli military control. Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/israe...#ixzz1flDt9l7I Something doesn't add up here.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

6th December 2011, 05:29 AM	#2
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,327	And in Jerusalem. Quote: The Jerusalem Planning and Building Committee is to consider a plan for a new national park in the Mount Scopus area, which Palestinian residents and leftist activists say is designed to block the development of two Palestinian neighborhoods in the east of the city. .................. "They took the whole mountain away from us, there's nothing we can do," says Maluk Abdullah of A-Tur. "It's driving people crazy." According to a member of Jerusalem's city council, Meretz's Meir Margalit, "This national park is a farce. There's nothing there but rocks and thorns, certainly nothing to justify a national park. The only reason for such a plan is to seize lands and hold them as a reserve for a future settlement, while suffocating the Palestinian neighborhoods." Bimkom, a group of planners and architects that addresses human rights issues, has been advancing plans to renovate and expand Issawiya. The park plan scuttles their efforts, they say. "These two neighborhoods are boxed-in from all sides, they have no other way for development," says architect Efrat Cohen of Bimkom. The Palestinians fear that building the national park will require tearing down around 15 of their buildings in that area. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...s-say-1.399735
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

6th December 2011, 08:40 PM	#3
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,790	Seen similar stuff ignored previously. Do not be surprised if it happens again.
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

7th December 2011, 06:12 AM	#4
IDB87 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: In the Grass Posts: 3,414	I suppose support or opposition to this move, referenced in the OP, depends on how you define the legal status of the Bedouin camps. They're illegal, as far as the occupying power is concerned, so I wonder how and what they're basing that off of. If Israel is occupying the West Bank, they're responsible for upholding the law, right? Well, if the law determines these camps are illegal, what should Israel do? I don't agree that removing them and expanding settlements is at all the right or moral thing to do, and it's politically stupid.
	__________________ It's guaranteed I'm overreacting.

7th December 2011, 05:18 PM	#5
Gazpacho Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Valley Lodge, USA Posts: 2,136	What doesn't add up?
	__________________ _{Google search help}

9th December 2011, 04:08 PM	#6
Jonnyclueless Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,360	Originally Posted by IDB87 I suppose support or opposition to this move, referenced in the OP, depends on how you define the legal status of the Bedouin camps. They're illegal, as far as the occupying power is concerned, so I wonder how and what they're basing that off of. If Israel is occupying the West Bank, they're responsible for upholding the law, right? Well, if the law determines these camps are illegal, what should Israel do? I don't agree that removing them and expanding settlements is at all the right or moral thing to do, and it's politically stupid. Israel is not occupying West Bank. This kind of rhetoric does not help.

9th December 2011, 04:43 PM	#7
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,327	The Area C in the West Bank is run by the Israeli Military. It is not run by the Israeli Government, nor the Palestinian.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

9th December 2011, 07:58 PM	#8
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,590	Originally Posted by a_unique_person The Area C in the West Bank is run by the Israeli Military. It is not run by the Israeli Government, nor the Palestinian. Miramar Marine Combat Air Station in San Diego County, California, USA, is run by the United States Marines. Strangely enough, this means it is run by the United States government, and also that it is not occupied territory (though undoubtedly there exists or existed some aboriginal tribe or clan with historical claims on the land). I think the real problem is that people have differing definitions of "occupied". For some people--me, for example--"occupied" means "territory previously belonging to one belligerent, under the control of an opposing belligerent, during an active armed conflict, where the dispossessed belligerent still presses its claim by force of arms either directly by reconquest or indirectly by imposing favorable terms in peace negotiations". By this definition, I see territory as no longer "occupied", the moment the dispossessed belligerent is gives up its bid to regain the territory by force of arms, either directly by reconquest or indirectly by imposing favorable terms. At the cessation of hostilities, the dispossessed belligerent is instead compelled by the force of arms of its enemy to give up its claim to the territory. At that point, the territory is no longer "occupied", and becomes simply territory belonging to the victor in the conflict. At that point, any treaty obligations the victor has regarding enemy territory it occupied during the war, are discharged, and the victor may commence governing its newly-acquired territories according to its own internal laws and customs. Other people have other definitions, I suppose, but I have yet to see them articulated.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,590	Last edited by theprestige; 9th December 2011 at 07:59 PM.

10th December 2011, 02:56 AM	#9
The Fool Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 11,558	Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless Israel is not occupying West Bank. This kind of rhetoric does not help. Maybe you could explain why Israeli law applies? Why not Australian Law?
	__________________ And what is good, Phaedrus,and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? R. M. Pirsig. (Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance) Lose half your IQ....Ask me how.

10th December 2011, 03:10 AM	#10
The Fool Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 11,558	Originally Posted by theprestige Miramar Marine Combat Air Station in San Diego County, California, USA, is run by the United States Marines. who cares who runs the place? Its part of the United States. If Israel was to declare the West Bank is part of Israel then things would be very different. I just don't see the comparison. Quote: I think the real problem is that people have differing definitions of "occupied". Absolutely correct but again I don't see the point you are making. The definition that counts is the one used for International law. In that case its not surprising that Israel has a different one to the one used in international law. Quote: Other people have other definitions, I suppose, but I have yet to see them articulated. The definition used under international law are well articulated...can be rejected if you wish (for an alternate you prefer) but its a little unfair to say they are not articulated.
	__________________ And what is good, Phaedrus,and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? R. M. Pirsig. (Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance) Lose half your IQ....Ask me how. Last edited by The Fool; 10th December 2011 at 03:12 AM.

11th December 2011, 08:59 PM	#11
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless Israel is not occupying West Bank. This kind of rhetoric does not help. Yes it is.
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	__________________ "You are the epitome of the 'pigeon playing chess'. No matter how good I am at chess, you are just going to knock the pieces over, **** on the board and strut around like you've won something" "In this political climate, all of science is vulnerable to ideological attack when reality disagrees with political beliefs."

12th December 2011, 07:12 PM	#12
shemp Timothy, Timothy, where on earth did you go? Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: trapped in a cave-in with Joe Posts: 12,884	Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless Israel is not occupying West Bank. This kind of rhetoric does not help. Perhaps this is true on Planet X.
	__________________ Church on Sunday, sleep and nod Tryin' to duck the wrath of God Preacher's fillin' us with fright Tryin' to tell us what he thinks is right He really got to be some kind of nut (I can't use it!) Tryin' to make it real - compared to what?