Monthly Archives: October 2013

97.4 Percent Of Investigative Files Relating To Damage To Palestinians Olive Trees Are Closed Due To Police Failings

” The human rights organization Yesh Din today [21/10] publishes updated data highlighting the failure of the Samaria & Judea (SJ) District Police to investigate incidents involving the cutting down, torching, vandalization, and theft of olive trees and other fruits trees belonging to Palestinians in the West Bank. The data are published against the background of the current olive harvest, and after numerous incidents of the vandalization of trees have been reported throughout the West Bank in recent weeks.

The updated figures show that the Israel Police has overwhelmingly failed to investigate the incidents and prosecute offenders. In recent years, the vandalization of olive trees and other fruit trees has become one of the symbols of the occupation. The data are presented on a map, revealing areas of friction in which a particularly large number of incidents involving the vandalization of trees has been reported. The army and the police are well aware of these areas, which form the focus of criminal activities by Israeli civilians against Palestinians and their property throughout the year. The Palestinian village that has suffered the largest number of attacks on trees is Burin. Yesterday a vicious attack on olive harvesters and volunteers from Rabbis for Human Rights by masked men armed with batons was again documented in the village. Two Palestinians and two Israelis were injured in the attack.

From 2005 through June 2013, Yesh Din documented 211 incidents of deliberate damage to fruit trees in the West Bank following which the police opened investigative files. Of the 211 investigative files opened by the S&J District Police, only four ended in indictments; 183 files were closed in circumstances testifying to investigative failure – no less than 94.7 percent of the files in which processing has been completed and the outcome is known to Yesh Din. The failure rate of the S&J District Police in investigating attacks on trees is particularly high, even by comparison to the general failure rate for investigations by the S&J District Police into offenses by Israelis against Palestinians and their property in the West Bank, which stands at 84 percent. The figures show that with regard to attacks on Palestinians’ trees, the ability of the S&J District Police to locate and prosecute offenders is particularly low and almost non-existent.

The vandalization of olive trees and other trees belonging to Palestinians constitutes a serious attack on their property and directly damages their wellbeing, since many Palestinian residents in the West Bank rely on agriculture – and particularly the olive industry – as a significant source of income. This industry provides income and employment for some 100,000 households.

Noah Cohen of Yesh Din’s Research Department comments on the figures: “As the statistics show, and as was again proven only yesterday, the areas of friction are well known. Nevertheless the IDF leaves the Palestinian residents in these areas exposed to repeated violent attacks. The implication of the ongoing failure of the S&J District Police to investigate and prosecute persons who vandalize trees is equally apparent: The complete abnegation of responsibility, and the abandonment of these areas to the control of violent and extremist elements.”

 

http://www.yesh-din.org/postview.asp?postid=268

 

Data sheet can be read here,

http://www.yesh-din.org/userfiles/file/datasheets/data%20sheet%20oct2013/Yesh%20Din%20-%20Netunim%2010_13%20English.pdf

 

Video posted in the comment section below.

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Zionist Heavyweight Sheldon Adelson Says Obama Should Nuke Iran

This is the same guy who only a few weeks ago was hosting a panel against Genocide.

 

“Casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson told a crowd at Yeshiva University in New York on Tuesday that the only proper negotiating tactic with Iran would be fire a nuclear missile at the country and threaten to wipe out the entire population of Tehran, the nation’s capital.

Adelson, the largest donor to the Republican Party and its affiliated groups, made the comments during a panel discussion hosted by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens and Yeshiva University President Richard Joel. Adelson’s remarks were videotaped by Philip Weiss of the news site Mondoweiss:”

 

Read the article here,

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/23/sheldon-adelson-nuke-iran_n_4150237.html

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The Myth of the Generous Offer

“The seemingly endless volleys of attack and retaliation in the Middle East leave many people wondering why the two sides can’t reach an agreement. The answer is simple, according to numerous commentators: At the Camp David meeting in July 2000, Israel “offered extraordinary concessions” (Michael Kelly, Washington Post, 3/13/02), “far-reaching concessions” (Boston Globe, 12/30/01), “unprecedented concessions” (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). Israel’s “generous peace terms” (L.A. Times editorial, 3/15/02) constituted “the most far-reaching offer ever” (Chicago Tribune editorial, 6/6/01) to create a Palestinian state. In short, Camp David was “an unprecedented concession” to the Palestinians (Time, 12/25/00).

But due to “Arafat’s recalcitrance” (L.A. Times editorial, 4/9/02) and “Palestinian rejectionism” (Mortimer Zuckerman, U.S. News & World Report, 3/22/02), “Arafat walked away from generous Israeli peacemaking proposals without even making a counteroffer” (Salon, 3/8/01). Yes, Arafat “walked away without making a counteroffer” (Samuel G. Freedman, USA Today, 6/18/01). Israel “offered peace terms more generous than ever before and Arafat did not even make a counteroffer” (Chicago Sun-Times editorial, 11/10/00). In case the point isn’t clear: “At Camp David, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians an astonishingly generous peace with dignity and statehood. Arafat not only turned it down, he refused to make a counteroffer!” (Charles Krauthammer, Seattle Times, 10/16/00).

This account is one of the most tenacious myths of the conflict. Its implications are obvious: There is nothing Israel can do to make peace with its Palestinian neighbors. The Israeli army’s increasingly deadly attacks, in this version, can be seen purely as self-defense against Palestinian aggression that is motivated by little more than blind hatred.

Locking in occupation

To understand what actually happened at Camp David, it’s necessary to know that for many years the PLO has officially called for a two-state solution in which Israel would keep the 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate (as Britain’s protectorate was called) that it has controlled since 1948, and a Palestinian state would be formed on the remaining 22 percent that Israel has occupied since the 1967 war (the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem). Israel would withdraw completely from those lands, return to the pre-1967 borders and a resolution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees who were forced to flee their homes in 1948 would be negotiated between the two sides. Then, in exchange, the Palestinians would agree to recognize Israel (PLO Declaration, 12/7/88; PLO Negotiations Department).

Although some people describe Israel’s Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank–while retaining “security control” over other parts–that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert–about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex–including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept “security control” for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt–putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an “end-of-conflict” agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.

Violence or negotiation?

The Camp David meeting ended without agreement on July 25, 2000. At this point, according to conventional wisdom, the Palestinian leader’s “response to the Camp David proposals was not a counteroffer but an assault” (Oregonian editorial, 8/15/01). “Arafat figured he could push one more time to get one more batch of concessions. The talks collapsed. Violence erupted again” (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). He “used the uprising to obtain through violence…what he couldn’t get at the Camp David bargaining table” (Chicago Sun-Times, 12/21/00).

But the Intifada actually did not start for another two months. In the meantime, there was relative calm in the occupied territories. During this period of quiet, the two sides continued negotiating behind closed doors. Meanwhile, life for the Palestinian population under Israeli occupation went on as usual. On July 28, Prime Minister Barak announced that Israel had no plans to withdraw from the town of Abu Dis, as it had pledged to do in the 1995 Oslo II agreement (Israel Wire, 7/28/00). In August and early September, Israel announced new construction on Jewish-only settlements in Efrat and Har Adar, while the Israeli statistics bureau reported that settlement building had increased 81 percent in the first quarter of 2000. Two Palestinian houses were demolished in East Jerusalem, and Arab residents of Sur Bahir and Suwahara received expropriation notices; their houses lay in the path of a planned Jewish-only highway (Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 11-12/00).

The Intifada began on September 29, 2000, when Israeli troops opened fire on unarmed Palestinian rock-throwers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, killing four and wounding over 200 (State Department human rights report for Israel, 2/01). Demonstrations spread throughout the territories. Barak and Arafat, having both staked their domestic reputations on their ability to win a negotiated peace from the other side, now felt politically threatened by the violence. In January 2001, they resumed formal negotiations at Taba, Egypt.

The Taba talks are one of the most significant and least remembered events of the “peace process.” While so far in 2002 (1/1/02-5/31/02), Camp David has been mentioned in conjunction with Israel 35 times on broadcast network news shows, Taba has come up only four times–never on any of the nightly newscasts. In February 2002, Israel’s leading newspaper, Ha’aretz (2/14/02), published for the first time the text of the European Union’s official notes of the Taba talks, which were confirmed in their essential points by negotiators from both sides.

“Anyone who reads the European Union account of the Taba talks,” Ha’aretz noted in its introduction, “will find it hard to believe that only 13 months ago, Israel and the Palestinians were so close to a peace agreement.” At Taba, Israel dropped its demand to control Palestine’s borders and the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians, for the first time, made detailed counterproposals–in other words, counteroffers–showing which changes to the 1967 borders they would be willing to accept. The Israeli map that has emerged from the talks shows a fully contiguous West Bank, though with a very narrow middle and a strange gerrymandered western border to accommodate annexed settlements.

In the end, however, all this proved too much for Israel’s Labor prime minister. On January 28, Barak unilaterally broke off the negotiations. “The pressure of Israeli public opinion against the talks could not be resisted,” Ben-Ami said (New York Times, 7/26/01).

Settlements off the table

In February 2001, Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister of Israel. Sharon has made his position on the negotiations crystal clear. “You know, it’s not by accident that the settlements are located where they are,” he said in an interview a few months after his election (Ha’aretz, 4/12/01).
They safeguard the cradle of the Jewish people’s birth and also provide strategic depth which is vital to our existence.The settlements were established according to the conception that, come what may, we have to hold the western security area [of the West Bank], which is adjacent to the Green Line, and the eastern security area along the Jordan River and the roads linking the two. And Jerusalem, of course. And the hill aquifer. Nothing has changed with respect to any of those things. The importance of the security areas has not diminished, it may even have increased. So I see no reason for evacuating any settlements.

Meanwhile, Ehud Barak has repudiated his own positions at Taba, and now speaks pointedly of the need for a negotiated settlement “based on the principles presented at Camp David” (New York Times op-ed, 4/14/02).

In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League–from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq–unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a “just resolution” to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha’ath declared himself “delighted” with the plan. “The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle,” he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02).

Ariel Sharon responded by declaring that “a return to the 1967 borders will destroy Israel” (New York Times, 5/4/02). In a commentary on the Arab plan, Ha’aretz’s Bradley Burston (2/27/02) noted that the offer was “forcing Israel to confront peace terms it has quietly feared for decades.”

 

The Myth of the Generous Offer

 

61 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Why Do Israeli Settlements Expand More During Peace Talks?

Info Graphic from the Christian Science Monitor.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Photo-Galleries/Infographics/Why-do-Israeli-settlements-expand-more-during-peace-talks#728771

7 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Settlements Are Strangling Palestinian Economy

 

“October 8, 2013 – More than half the land in the West Bank, much of it agricultural and resource rich, is inaccessible to Palestinians. The first comprehensive study of the potential impact of this ‘restricted land,’ released by the World Bank today, sets the current loss to the Palestinian economy at about US$3.4 billion.

Area C constitutes 61 percent of the West Bank and is the only contiguous land connecting 227 smaller separate and heavily residential areas. The 1993 Oslo Peace Accords stipulated that Area C be gradually transferred to the Palestinian Authority (PA) by 1998. This transfer has never taken place.

“The densely populated urban areas of the West Bank usually command the most attention,” said Mariam Sherman, outgoing Country Director for the West Bank and Gaza. “But unleashing the potential from that ‘restricted land,’ –access to which is currently constrained by layers of restrictions – and allowing Palestinians to put these resources to work, would provide whole new areas of economic activity and set the economy on the path to sustainable growth.”

With growth of approximately six percent annually needed to absorb new entrants to the labor market, let alone making a dent in the soaring rate of youth unemployment, urgent attention is needed to find ways to grow the economy and create jobs. A vital economy is essential for citizen well-being, social stability and building confidence to underpin the challenging political negotiations. However, the Palestinian economy, which currently relies on donor financed consumption and suffers from ongoing stagnation of the private sector, is unsustainable. The report estimates that if businesses and farms were permitted to develop in Area C, this would add as much as 35 percent to the Palestinian GDP.

Freeing economic activity in Area C would have a particularly high impact on the development of businesses in agriculture and Dead Sea minerals exploitation, stone mining and quarrying, construction, tourism, and telecommunications. Other sectors would be able to benefit from improvements in the quality and cost of infrastructure and increased demand for goods and services.

The volume of increased economic activity would greatly improve the PA’s fiscal position. It is estimated that government revenues would increase by US$800 million, which would cut the fiscal deficit by half, hence reduce the need for donor support, and reduce unemployment and poverty rates.

“Access to Area C will go a long way to solving Palestinian economic problems,” said Sherman. “The alternative is bleak. Without the ability to utilize the potential of Area C, the economic space will remain fragmented and stunted. Lifting multiple restrictions could transform the economy and substantially improve prospects for sustained growth.”

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/10/07/palestinians-access-area-c-economic-recovery-sustainable-growth

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

How Low Can Zionism Sink?

Image

 

 

The above is the flyer for a disturbing meeting between Zionist heavyweights “Elie Wiesel, Shmuely Boteach and Sheldon Adelson discussing the “strong protecting the weak” from genocide”. What’s so disturbing i hear you ask, well, the guest of honour was one Paul Kagame president of Rwanda who is a known war criminal and genocidal maniac.

 

He is described thus by “Filip Reyntjens, a Belgian scholar whom many consider the world’s foremost expert on Rwanda, as “probably the worst war criminal in office today.”  and that “Kagame’s crimes rank with those perpetrated by former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein or Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.”

 

http://mag.newsweek.com/2013/01/13/the-case-against-rwanda-s-president-paul-kagame.html

 

Shame on you Sheldon Adelson! Shame on you Elie Wiesel! Shame on you Shmuely Boteach! and shame on you New York’s Cooper Union for giving these people a platform to praise a vile individual. [See video in comments section]

 

The reader should note that at the top of the flyer it claims “Jewish values…” well let’s get this straight, Zionism does not speak for Jewish values. So please don’t confuse Zionism and its values of greed,hate and war with the values of honest,decent Jewish people.

 

And this is the filth that “Christian” Zionists have yoked themselves with…SHAME ON YOU TOO!

 

 

10 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Chris Proudlove’s Source Declares Israel an Illegal Entity

In a recent comment made by Chris Proudlove on the cfz website he cites the following,

 

“The United Nations cannot create a Palestinian Arab state. Its resolutions are not legally binding. They are only recommendations.”

 

http://www.christiansforzion.com/comment-mike-fryer/2013/10/3/apartheid-a-lie

 

What Chris fails to comprehend is that Israel declared its Independence based on UNGA res 181 but let me put that aside for a second and look at another comment poor old delusional Chris made [under his duplicate account of Buster J Bailey] “Israel actually has a better claim to its existence, having been created by the U.N. rather than by the whims and national interests of the Allied victors.”

https://christiansforzionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/israels-real-legitimacy/

 

lol talk about confused. Anyway back on track. Let’s look at Israel’s declaration Of Independence.

 

“On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.

 

This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.

 

ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE’S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.”

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/israel.asp

 

So, according to the source Chris uses, Israel is an illegal entity.

 

Now let’s look at the blatant lie his source tells.

 

“Dr Wallace concludes: “In sum, the conflict is not a traditional conflict over borders – that is not even really the issue, as demonstrated by the fact that national boundaries have gone so long undetermined.”

http://www.christiansforzion.com/comment-mike-fryer/2013/10/3/apartheid-a-lie

 

Erm, no. That’s a lie. Here’s what Israel actually declared to the USA, the first nation to recognize Israel based on the below quote.

 

“MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

 

These crazed Zionists tell so many lies it’s no surprise that from time to time they trip themselves up.

 

One must wonder if these people really are advocates for Israel and Jews.

 

Ps If you read the declaration in full you can spot the Zionist lies. Here’s what the USA said just prior to Israel’s declaration,

 

“The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to

 the Secretary of State

 SECRET US URGENT NEW YORK, May 9, 1948-6: 43 p. m.:

 Parodi called meeting of British, Belgian, American, French representatives last night to discuss situation regarding truce and possible action which SC may be called to take following May 15. Hare and I attended. Parodi said time fast running out and essential to make up minds now regarding certain problems.

 

He said that as of May 15 we would be faced by declarations two states of Palestine coupled with entrance of Abdullah. Regarding latter two ideas are current. The first is that if Abdullah moved beyond own frontier it might constitute an”act of aggression”. The second idea was that if he entered on invitation of Arab population of Palestine his act might not constitute aggression. Parodi said he was inclined to second theory and thought conclusion to that effect would avoid endless argument.

 – Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, page 946

 

Memorandum by the Director of the Office of United Nations

 Affairs (Rusk) to the Under Secretary of State (Lovett)

 SECRET [WASHINGTON,] May 4, 1948:

 

 “The Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership. The question which will confront the Security Council in scarcely ten days’ time will be whether Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council. The situation may be made more difficult and less clear-cut if, as is probable, Arab armies from outside Palestine cross the frontier to aid their disorganized and demoralized brethren who will be the objects of Jewish attack. In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside Palestine which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.”

 

The internal memo was published in the Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa , Volume V, Part 2, page 848

 

 

 

 

 

 

14 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized