West Bank Bedouin to be moved from where they live?

a_unique_person

Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
a_unique_person
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
48,841
Location
Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
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.
Click to expand...


Something doesn't add up here.
​
 
And in Jerusalem.

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.
Click to expand...
http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...-set-up-new-settlement-activists-say-1.399735
 
Seen similar stuff ignored previously. Do not be surprised if it happens again.
 
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.
 
IDB87 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Israel is not occupying West Bank. This kind of rhetoric does not help.
 
a_unique_person said:
The Area C in the West Bank is run by the Israeli Military. It is not run by the Israeli Government, nor the Palestinian.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Miramar Marine Combat Air Station in San Diego County, California, USA, is run by the United States Marines.
Click to expand...
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.


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



Other people have other definitions, I suppose, but I have yet to see them articulated.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom