IOF and Jewish Settlers Participate in Seizing Palestinian Land

[Resistance]

conservatives, go ahead and cry about the source, we are by now used to your methods of ignoring reality. For the rest of us, there are some important issues here worth discussion.

http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_News/news2003/2003-07/029.html

HEBRON, Palestine, July 08, 2003, (IPC + Agencies)- - Israeli occupation forces participated Tuesday with the armed Jewish settlers in seizing vast areas of Palestinian arable land in the West Bank city of Hebron.

Israeli military bulldozers have been razing, for the second day, Palestinian land near the (illegitimate) Jewish settlement of "Kiriat Araba’", east of Hebron, Mr. Abdelhadi Hantash, a member of the Arab Committee to Protect Land, said.

Armed Jewish settlers have stolen about 100 olive trees, owned by Jaber family. Then they replaced the trees with three nets as new illegitimate settling post, Palestinian farmers said.

“The Jewish settlers are terrorists and killers. We are afraid even to walk near our land, if we do they will shoot us,” Abdelhaleem Jaber told IPC in a phone call.

[papau]

1. How can Hebron be PA land when it was stolen from the Jews in 1834

It is that old right of return problem.

(which I do not agree with and therefore I do feel the settlements not near the green line should be placed under PA rule and no expansion permitted without PA agreement - but I do object to the phrase "Palestinian arable land in the West Bank city of Hebron")

Hebron is called in Arabic áéú àì çìéì Beth al Chalil, "The House of the Beloved," because Isaac, the beloved son of Abraham, was born and educated here, and, as appears from Genesis 22:1, resided also here a long time. It is situated in the portion of Judah, 20 English miles south from Jerusalem, in a valley (Gen. 37:14). The mountains which surround it are the highest points of the mountains of Judah, and are 2664 feet above the surface of the Mediterranean Sea. It is a small town, or, more correctly speaking, a very large village, which consists of several divisions, each, so to say, constituting a village by itself. It contains several thousand Arabic inhabitants. On its eastern end is the cave of Machpelach îòøú äîëôìä, Arabic, Al Magr, i. e. the cave. It is also called the Fort of David, and is a very handsome and most ancient structure, built of immense stones, and surrounded with strong and high walls. It forms, in a measure, a fortress. Beneath the surface of the earth is the celebrated cave where the patriarchs lie buried. It is covered over with masonry, having a small opening on the top, through which the Mahomedans constantly lower burning lamps, and maintain there a perpetual light. Above this cavern is a mosque, built at a later date.

When Benjamin of Tudela travelled through Palestine in 4930 (1170), Hebron was entirely destroyed,and an abandoned "church" - St. Abraham - the former Jewish Synagogue. Small numbers of Jewish families lived there off and on till, in 5300 (1540), the celebrated Rabbi Jechiel Ashkenazi went to Hebron, founded there a Jewish congregation and purchased a Synagogue, which exists to this day, and belongs to the Sephardin (Portuguese), from the Caraites. Since the time of R. Jechiel to our own day, Hebron was uninterruptedly inhabited by Jews.

In 5594 (1834), Hebron was taken by storm on the 28th day of Tamuz (July) by Arabs under Abraim Pacha, and given up to his soldiers for several days. Despite hundreds of years as good citizens of an Arab controlled area, and despite not being considered rebels by Pacha, five Jews were purposely murdered, and all their property was either stolen or destroyed, sinking the comunity into poverty. When the government of Abraim came to an end, in 5601 (1841), Abd al Rachman became again the Sheich of the whole district - so the Jews were poorer but "safe", as the rules were other Arabs and Bedouins were strictly prohibited from robbing or extracting "tolls" as this right belonged to the Sheich alone - and no day passed without which some demand is made, which, though not presented as an extortion, coming as a "request or petition", with an understanding that a threat may be added to enforce compliance... causing more than half of the Jews to leave and settled in Jerusalem. Abd al Rachman in the month of Sivan, 5606 (June, 1846)took all remaining Jewish property.

[Tinoire]

2. Very interesting but there's some history missing here

Hebron was founded by both Jews and Arabs who were fleeing the Inquisitions in Europe. The Jewish population in Hebron wasn't large until the 20th century with the arrival of hundreds of Hasidim fleeing Poland. It's easy to say that Hebron was uninterruptedly inhabitated by Jews- it's disingenious though to leave out that it was also uninterruptedly inhabitated by Palestinians (not accusing you- accusing revised history with an agenda).

Even then, from what I've read, they all lived peacefully, harmoniously together. Jewish women went as far as to cover their faces when they went out out of respect for the Arab inhabitants.

Except for the period under Crusader rule, when the Jews of Hebron were expelled, there has always been a small Jewish presence in the city. By 1333, the Jews of Hebron were involved in cotton and glass production. In the 1500s, Jews and Muslims fleeing from the Spanish Inquisition settled in Hebron, the former founding the Jewish Quarter.

The old Jewish presence in Hebron was described as peaceful. The equilibrium was broken in the early 1900s, when the Jews started to immigrate in large numbers to the area.


Palestinians and Jews had frequent clashes, escalating in 1929 with the Hebron riots. 67 Jews were killed in the massacre, and 60 more were wounded. Many were hidden by their Palestinian neighbors, and thus saved. The British Mandate Authorities evacuated the survivors in fear of more attacks, and closed the city to Jews in 1936.
http://www.tiph.org/Page.asp?title=Modern%20History%20of%20Hebron

The many saved were over 400! It seems the Jews and Arabs had no problems living together and even joined forces for a bi-national state free of colonial control from the British who were pursuing a "divide and conquer" policy. Seems the problem, once again is the extremists on both sides and not the average person who just wants to raise his/her children and live in peace without hating their neighbour.


I paraphrased a little from the following article which follows the history I learned in school and from talking to my Left-wing Jewish friends. This particular paragraph made me very sad.


...talked to an old man in Hebron who was 13 at the time of the Hebron massacre. He had served as a "shabbos goy" to a family living in the community (i.e., he came into the house to turn the lights on and off on during the Sabbath.) On the morning of the massacre, he watched British soldiers among the Arab mob open the gates and tell the mob to "get the Jews."

Hebronites claim that the mob was entirely composed of riff-raff from the outside. There is no way to prove this assertion, of course, but it is true that Arab families in Hebron whose grandparents and great grandparents sheltered Jews from the mob consider these actions a point of honor for their family. None of the Palestinians in Hebron to whom CPT talked speak about the 1929 massacre in terms other than of horror and grief.

http://leb.net/~bcome/palestine/cpt1.html

I also have a question for you. Is Hebron not the place where both Isaac and Ishmael lovingly buried their father Abraham together? Should not Hebron be the place where their descendants peacefully live together as they used to?

Papau- none of this fighting makes any sense. It's just a continuation of Britain's colonial policy of "Divide and Conquer" which has gotten too old.

[The Magistrate]

3. A Little Supplementary Material, Ma'am

The largest proportion of the Jewish inhabitants of Hebron at that time remained descendants of the old community; most of the new arrivals were elderly pietists, and not Zionists.

The claim the mob consisted of people from the country round, and not Hebron itself, is certainly true. There was a concerted mobilization of villagers by the Arab Nationalist leadership, as part of a campaign begun after an attempt by a small group of Jews to hold a service at the Western Wall in Jerusalem the previous year, which was tricked up into an attempted desecration of the Noble Sanctuary.

What are recalled as English soldiers were not soldiers, but undoubtedly police constables: the constables of Hebron were all Arabs under English officers, and there were only eighteen of them. Virtually all took part in the mobbing: the English police commissioner, a fellow with the unlikely name of Cafferreta, shot one of his own constables dead as he murdered a Jew. Mr. Cafferreta, some years later, was subject of an unsuccessful assassination attempt by the Irgun.

It is also certainly true, and well attested, that many Jews of Hebron were saved by their Arab neighbors, and some of these were beaten and killed by the mob for doing so. The eventual barring of Jews from Hebron by the Mandatory authorities came on the heels of the Arab Revolt, and was part of an attempted appeasement of the Nationalists as that was being broken.

This history, both the propaganda versions, and the facts of it, is of some importance: it is no accident Hebron is both the location of some of the earliest settlements after the '67 war, and of some of the most fanatic among the settler movement.

[Tinoire]

8. Very interesting & thanks

There are so many stories I'm not aware of. So much sadness. So much hate. And especially, it seems, so much agitation.

[papau]

4. Tinoire - I agree - and PA rule over Hebron is the way to go - with Jews

remaining.

It is just the right of return is a deal killer - and indeed in 1973-74 the PA adopted the idea of concessions but continued war until right of return was agree to and their greater population allowed them to run the Jews intro the sea. It is one of many PA adopted resolutions that they have never formally rejected.

My little history is just to show that if Jews have a right of return, the game gets complicated. Their can not be any right of return to anything other than the West Bank (I like the suggestion that Sharon be offerred settlements in the West Bank under Israel control but only to the extent that, in a population based one to one ratio, Sharon gives PA folks the right of return to Israel on the west side of the green line.)

Tonight we hope that the PA PM does not resign and that the private armies of Hamas and the others bow to his authority.

The PA life style sucks - and I hope that unlike other unchecked rulers, Arafat wants to improve that life during this generation. Maybe we can get back to the Taba agreement without Barak - or at least close enough that Arafat will not again pull the rug out from it.

[Tinoire]

7. Papau- you surprise me. Thanks

We've never really talked before and I must tell you that was a great post!

I understand and agree with your point- the right of return is so horribly complicated now that I don't see how to fairly resolve the issue; the right of return is what finally made me lean to the one state solution but then I understand there are other concerns.

I like the suggestion you brought up but how exactly would that work and is that under a 2-state scenario? My old Jewish boss used to advocate that- people living in both states as long as they were willing to come under the jurisdiction of that state. From there, it's only a short leap, for me at least, to one state. But even with 2 states, I agree. There's no reason Jews shouldn't live in the Palestinian state and vice-versa with equal rights and no armies coming in to build them special roads etc...

I think I just read that Abbas has already resigned. If Israel and the PA could get back to the point of the Taba talks, that would be terrific. I think I've just gotten too cynical to believe that they ever will- not until the Israeli right-wing is chased out and I don't see the Israeli or the US right wing agreeing to go anywhere.

[The Magistrate]

9. In My View, Ma'am

The only practicable solution to the question of dispossession during the '48 war is cash compensation. This should be lavish, at current market rates, and there should be no close and pettifogging investigation into whether a claim reasonable on its face is properly documented. Those who owned nothing, but lost livelihoods as tenant farmers, should receive some lump sum calculated from lost "wages" plus interest. The effect of this would be to create a sizeable propertied class among the people of Arab Palestine where none exists today: nothing could be more conducive to peace than that, as persons who have something to lose generally take care not to lose it, and war invariably is injurious to property.

As to compensation for Jews driven out of the Jordan valley in '48, or out of Arab contries after that war, there does not seem any practical likelihood of restitution. This may seem unjust to some, but any attempt to levy such a payment on the new state of Arab Palestine, or on the other Arab states, will not be agreed to, and would likely be viewed as an off-set, reducing what was given to the disspossed Arab Palestinians.

While it would be ideal if Jews could remain in an Arab Palestinian state, this does not seem practical to me, as matters stand now. Even if settlers accepted Arab Palestinian citizenship, they would remain fellow Jews in the eyes of the Israeli state. There would certainly be incidents of vengeance and murder against them, and it is likely the police of Arab Palestine would provide little effective protection. There would result in tremendous agitation for action to protect them in Israel. It is necessary to remove such a potential source of sparks from the tinder-box here. The Israeli government must offer financial inducements for these people to move back west, and those who will not avail themselves of these must be forcibly removed by state agency.

[Darranar]

5. I take offense...

on being called a conservative because I make accusations of bias. I am a liberal, you know. I do not support the Iraq war, I do not support Bush, and I do not support the corporate takeover of our government.

I ignore reality? I do not. I can tell the difference between reality and fabrications, and I call a report biased when it ignores reality or writes fabrications.

[Tinoire]

6. Who do you think that?

I do not think that comment applied to you. No, not at all.

If, by any stretch of the imagination, it could be applied to anyone here, it would certainly not be you.

People can sincerely disagree while still supporting the same ultimate goal. Your sincerity and willingness to discuss things honestly is quite obvious and refreshing.