East J'lem residents file more war crimes complaints in U.K

[Scurrilous]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/625346.html

<snip>

"Residents of East Jerusalem whose homes were demolished by the municipality on the grounds they did not obtain the proper construction permits have decided to file complaints in the United Kingdom against inspectors, for alleged war crimes.

Building inspectors from the Jerusalem municipality may want to think twice before vacationing in Europe after criminal complaints have been sworn out in the U.K. against Major General (res.) Doron Almog and the current and former chiefs of staff, Major General Dan Halutz and Major General (res.) Moshe Ya'alon. Each year, the Interior Ministry and the Jerusalem municipality destroy dozens of buildings in East Jerusalem that were built illegally, after obtaining judicial demolition orders.

The idea of filing complaints abroad against municipal employees was first raised about six months ago in talks between the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) and a British law firm specializing in human rights law. The focus is on Micha Ben-Nun, the head of the municipality's licensing department, and Zvi Schneider, who oversees construction in the Jerusalem District for the Interior Ministry. Complaints against them have been filed in Britain, but no court date has been set. ICAHD intends to expand the scope of its activities and file complaints against more senior officials or lower-ranked city inspectors.

"We've been planning this move for half a year now," said Meir Margalit of ICAHD yesterday. "We approached British solicitor Daniel Machover, whose office specializes in human rights. Our main charge is that the demolition of the homes of an innocent civilian population is a violation of international law, specifically of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying state from harming the civilian population except in the course of a military operation," Margalit said. "We believe that in a few more years, all of the European Union member states will be closed to those people ," Margalit said."

[pelsar]

1. and the party begins.....

war crimes against palestenain organizations for aiding and abetting terrorism....including but not exclusive to the PA, Jihad, Hizballa, ISM, etc.....

[Englander]

2. What has that got to do with alleged Israeli war crimes?

Fa.

As the subject of the thread is the destruction of East
Jerusalem homes, & the possibility that the destruction of
the homes of an innocent civilian population qualifies as a
'war crime'. Maybe Jabba should have read his copy of the
IV Geneva Convention?

[pelsar]

4. war crimes..

well if the destruction of illegal built homes can be a war crime...seems anything can...like I said..let the party begin..and since were discussing house desctruction crimes in the past...how far can we to back?..werent the brits involved in house/neighborhood destruction during their period here? (that would make them as having a historical part of the conflict)

[Englander]

5. It's 'apartheid'.

A differing set of rules for one group as opposed
to another group.

How many construction permits are issued to any
Palestinian families wanting to build a home in
E. Jerusalem? How many homes contructed are defined
as 'legal'?

Isn't that how the process works? The Occupying power
decides that any construction needs a permit, no permit
is issued, therefore the homes are 'illegal'.

--"since were discussing house desctruction crimes in the past"

No we're not,this is current events,homes are still being
demolished.

btw,I'm British. I find it rather odd that you feel the
need to make comments about the actions of the 'brits' in
*every*single*post* that you make in reply to mine. I realise
that it must be rough, as an Israeli, to have to read about
'Israeli war crimes', & 'apartheid' & the like,but I'm not
clear as to why I get repeated mentions of the perceived
villainy of the perfidious 'brits'? I'm very unlikely to
defend the actions of HM Government,past & present,& I find
it very curious that I'm treated to such mentions.

[pelsar]

6. destruction of homes...

yes there as bias in there..i'm not arguing that...but a "war crime"?.....a city inspector can now be tried for war crimes?....pretty far fetched. But if that is the case...it goes both ways and it wouldnt be very difficult to find others on other side guilt of the same....

If a city inspector can be guilty...so too can the 14 yr old palestenain kid who collects information which is then used to blow up an israeli bus...

as far as bring in the English...i think the hypocrasy should be noted when appropriate. This conflict doesnt exist in a vacuum, though many would like that. If our city inspectors are guily of war crimes...it wont be hard to do the same to brits who served in N.Ireland

seems to me one should demand consistency....if the brits and americans are blowing up buildings that hide alleged terrorists or kill people in the street..and promise there may be more of it ...well that does put into a different perspective when israel targets a terrorist in his death bystanders are also killed-meaning the kettle shouldnt be calling the pot black (or however it goes...). Sometimes....just sometimes...when accuasations to others are then turned around and "your accused of the same (or your country)...and it turns out you're doing the same or worse.....there then is a chance for a better understanding of what we do and why..not always...but sometimes.

btw....calling israel an apartheid country is like calling me a man from mars....its just used to demonize....simply shows ignorence of whats going on...just more of the same old 2,000 yr old sh¡t....

[Violet_Crumble]

41. He didn't say Israel was an apartheid country...

He mentioned that for you as an Israeli, it must be hard to read about 'Israeli war crimes' and 'apartheid', but you have no qualms about painting the British as the big bad guys.

What Israel does in the West Bank is reminiscent of apartheid, pelsar. That isn't used to demonise - that's a blatantly obvious fact...


Violet...

[Englander]

43. Haven't you heard? That's the new name for this forum, Violet.

The Big Bad Brits Forum. ;-)

[Violet_Crumble]

44. I'm now jumping on the Big Bad Brits bandwagon...

Stuff everything else! This is irrefutable proof that the Brits are Big Bad Brits!

Using a cunning mixture of weather and tricking our team into playing really badly, the Big Bad Brits stole the Ashes from us, the nation that is Master Of The Cricket Universe!

What's more the Big Bad Brits gloated about it and made fun of us!!

They are sooooo baaaad ;)

Violet...

[Andromeda]

51. Apartheid???

You have a rather loose interpretation of the meaning of the word apartheid.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. Yes, Apartheid!!!

Israel's policies in occupied territory is very reminiscent of Apartheid. I didn't realise there was an invisible clause somewhere that said it's not reminiscent of Apartheid if Israel's doing it...

btw, some very high profile victims of South African Apartheid disagree with you. Somehow I think they're way better equipped than you to know what apartheid is...


Violet...

[eyl]

54. Well, suppose

you could call it apartheid if you stretch the definition of the word past all reason.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. No, there's no stretching involved...

In the occupied territories Israel uses a discriminatory system where the Palestinians are excluded from Jewish only settlements and bypass roads. A similar system worked in South Africa. Given that there are so many similarities between the two situations, how can it be called stretching to say that Israel's policies in the West Bank are reminiscent of apartheid?

Violet...

[eyl]

56. Depends what you mean by "reminiscent"

1st of all, "apartheid" is a legal system of racial seperation/discrimination. There is no law preventing an Israeli Arab from moving into a settlement* or driving on a bypass road**.

2nd of all, besides being defined along racial lines, apartheid is also defined with a racial motive. The bypass roads, let me remind you, did not even exist before Oslo, and were created as part of that agreements - they were intended to allow settlers to move without entering Palestinian towns. Also, there was no restriction on Palestinian movement along those roads, except on the stretch directly leading to a settlement (where Palestinians had to be escorted by a local resident). Restrictions only started after ISraelis started getting shot up on those roads. Now, is this perfectly just? Probably not. However, unfortunately we don't have enough telepaths to station one at each road and identify those Palestinian vehicles which have ill intent***.

So yes, you could say that the situation is "reminiscent" of apartheid, in the same way as you could say that since both the concentration camps and the IAF use dogs for perimeter security, the IAF is reminiscent of the Nazis.

*I'll grant you, I doubt the residents would make them feel welcome - but that's not a legal restriction, and thus not apartheid
**For example, the College of Judea and Samaria in Ariel has several hundred Israeli Arab students. At least some of them live in student housing there, and the others don't teleport into the college each day.
***That is, the passengers have ill intent - I'm not implying some local version of Christine.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. Definately not the example of "reminiscent" you used...

Yr argument is that in South Africa it was a legal system, and in the Occupied Territories, it isn't. Considering Israeli civil law isn't applied to the Palestinians, who are subject to Israeli military law, I'd argue back that a bunch of laws work to ensure that the apartheid-style system stays in place...

What is done in the West Bank is done along racial/cultural/religious lines. The settlements are for Jews only. Palestinians are only there as lowly-paid workers, if at all. One of the most bizarre parts of Oslo was this arrangement about bypass roads. I can't see anything in it that was of any benefit at all to the Palestinians...

There's no 'probably' about the settlements and the bypass roads being unjust. They shouldn't be there in the first place, as the West Bank is not part of Israel...

Desmond Tutu is someone who lived under apartheid in South Africa. He sees Israel's policies in the Occupied Territories for what they are...

Apartheid in the Holy Land

In our struggle against apartheid, the great supporters were Jewish people. They almost instinctively had to be on the side of the disenfranchised, of the voiceless ones, fighting injustice, oppression and evil. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders.
What is not so understandable, not justified, is what it did to another people to guarantee its existence. I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about.

On one of my visits to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. I could hear tears in his voice as he pointed to Jewish settlements. I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes?

I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek (the head of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre) in Jerusalem. He pointed and said: "Our home was over there. We were driven out of our home; it is now occupied by Israeli Jews."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,706911,00.html


Violet...

[eyl]

63. uh

Yr argument is that in South Africa it was a legal system, and in the Occupied Territories, it isn't. Considering Israeli civil law isn't applied to the Palestinians, who are subject to Israeli military law, I'd argue back that a bunch of laws work to ensure that the apartheid-style system stays in place...

You're assuming your conclusion here. My argument is that an apartheid system doesn't exist in the first place. (and if you want to cite the two different law systems as proof of apartheid, take up your argument with the framers of GC4)

What is done in the West Bank is done along racial/cultural/religious lines. The settlements are for Jews only. Palestinians are only there as lowly-paid workers, if at all. One of the most bizarre parts of Oslo was this arrangement about bypass roads. I can't see anything in it that was of any benefit at all to the Palestinians...

Again - there is no law preventing an Israeli Arab from living in the settlemetns. I refer you again to my example of Ariel. As for the bypass roads, I believe the intent was to prevent problems occuring from settlers moving in Palestinian-controlled territory - which could be problematical for both sides.

And yes, I'm aware who Desmond Tutu is - I also think he's flat-out wrong, even if he did live under apartheid.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. I'm not assuming my conclusion...

Yr argument that an apartheid style system doesn't exist is dead wrong. Yr using law systems as an attempt to prove that Israels actions in the West Bank aren't reminiscent of apartheid, yet I haven't seen anything to back up any argument that if Israel's legal manoeverings aren't the same as South Africa's was then it can't be apartheid...

The trusty Oxford (Rolls-Royce of dictionaries) defines apartheid as:

1. a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race. 2. segregation in other contexts.

What was done to the indigenous people here in the earlier part of last century is imo akin to apartheid. And what Israel has done in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is also akin to apartheid. What Israel does in Israel isn't akin to apartheid, btw...

The argument that just because a specific law doesn't exist means something isn't happening is flawed. I can think of plenty of examples where something hasn't been specifically enshrined in law, yet is still carried out with the encouragement of the govts involved....

Also, you speak only of Israeli-Arabs. What about Palestinians?

I think at this point we'll have to agree to disagree, because I think Desmond Tutu was dead right...

Violet...

[eyl]

73. If there's no law or official policy

than it's not apartheid (it might be racist, mind you, but not all racism is apartheid)

[Andromeda]

70. No invisible clause, just a dictionary definition

that in no way resembles your newer more "modern" definition of apartheid.

[Violet_Crumble]

72. Here's a dictionary definition that proves you wrong...

From the Oxford:

1. a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race. 2. segregation in other contexts.

Violet...

[Andromeda]

74. It proves nothing.

All you have is a generic definition. That definition could fit hundreds of situations yet still not be apartheid. All discrimination is not apartheid. Discrimination is subjective and and is not legislated.

Let's just agree to disagree, shall we?

[Englander]

62. No,not at all.

But thanks for playing!!!

Here, have a look at a book;

"Apartheid Israel : Possibilities for the Struggle Within"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1842773399/qid=1127297264/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-6028109-3039909?v=glance&s=books

[Behind the Aegis]

67. And yet...

We get stories like this...High level Saudis removed from 9/11 lawsuit. So terrorists and their enablers are free from prosecution, but....

Yes, I know this story is about the US and not the UK, but I won't be surprised if I see the same thing soon relating to the London bombings...will you?

[Englander]

69. How does that story support what pelsar said?

They haven't been charged with 'war crimes',and they're not
"palestenain organizations" (sic).

Dude,are you related to Nostradamus,or something? What forthcoming
events can you predict, & not be surprised by?

[Coastie for Truth]

3. What about war crimes trials

by descendants of residents of the Lodz Ghetto against the Brits for the 1939 White Paper.

That was a war crime.

[Scurrilous]

7. Palestinian: Settlers are war criminals

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3143104,00.html

Palestinian Center for Human Rights Director Raji Sourani says arrest warrant issued by British authorities against former Southern Command Chief Doron Almog similar to arrest of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet; adds that his organization plans to file similar complaints against the settlers, as ‘the settlements are a war crime, and the settlers are criminals of war. This is not a Palestinian definition; this is what international law states

<snip>

"According to Sourani, the PCHR is gathering evidence regarding the alleged war crimes the IDF had committed over the years. The complaint against Almog was only a “small example” of the crimes the IDF had committed during the intifada and the occupation, he said.

Sourani said his organization plans to file similar complaints against the settlers.

“The settlements are a war crime, and the settlers are criminals of war. This is not a Palestinian definition; this is what international law states,” he said.

“The settlements were set up on confiscated lands; the natural resources of these lands were exploited and Palestinian homes were destroyed. We must remain loyal to the pain and tortures our nation has suffered from and we will track down each and every settler war criminal.”

[pelsar]

9. we can do better than that.....

palestenain organizations that target civilians are war criminals and so are those that aid and abet them..i.e. give them money to support their activities:

islamic jihad, hamas, hizballa, al aska brigades, PA, PLO,Fatah, Tanzim, .....

this includes but not all inclusive:
Syrians dictator, PAs cabinet and various officials (including abbas), Lebanons officials who let hizballa have a free reign in S. Lebanon. ISM, Intel Red Cross, UN officials, ...I could go on and on if we want to get into this....

I'm sure you agree with me.... lets bring in all those criminals for was crimes..those that have aided and abetted people who target and attack civilians...

or is there a double standard?

[Englander]

10. No,just a comprehension of what *war crime* means.

But thanks for the entertainment,in these troubled times,
anything that provokes laughter is always welcome,& the
concept that non-State actors could be *war criminals*
certainly made me laugh....

[pelsar]

13. "non state actors"....

sure they can be war criminals...if a clerk in the jerusalem municipality can for designating houses that are illegal can...why cant a palestenian who gets the info on busses to blow them up?...an ISM person who hides a war criminal....laws are really fun...we can stretch them as far as we want....just ask an international lawyer and the right judge...

any ways once we charge the amercans and brits in iraq with war crimes, the whole thing will fade away....picking on israel is fun...until it "comes home".......

[Englander]

14. Ho-hum.

Comprehension, reading & understanding what you're reading are
Good Things.

*War crime* in this instance,is short-hand for a violation of
the Geneva Conventions; any signatory of the Conventions is liable
to prosecution if they violate those Conventions. Have a guess
which *country* signed & ratified the agreement, way back in 1951?

Hint; it wasn't the ISM.

[Coastie for Truth]

16. Only signatories?

any signatory of the Conventions is liable
to prosecution if they violate those Conventions.

Non binding on nonsignatories?

[idontwantaname]

17. ISM hiding war criminals?

curious you bring this up as i would like to know more about it... perhaps i will learn something new or can shed some light on a misunderstanding...

[Englander]

11. Misleading headline from Ynet, there.

Sourani says the *settlements* are a war crime,he does
not say that the *settlers* are. There's a distinction
between the two.

[Coastie for Truth]

8. Are financial backers war criminals?

Are Americans who contribute money to the JNF or AIPAC "war crimials" for aiding, abetting, being accessories before the fact, and co-conspirators? Would they at least have the inconvenience of being arrested, hiring a Barrister, appearing in court, and moving for dismissal?

Would they then have a cause of action for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, false arrest?

How is the case against Sir Phillip Wall, OBE and former (resigned in disgrace) Chairman of Shell Oil going. He has been charged inter alia with diverting corporate funds to terrorist organization. Does that make Sir Phillip a war criminal?

Of course, Sir Phillip's "Legal Team" includes James "Jim" Baker, who is also the attorney for the Bush family and the Saudi Royals, and a former US Secretary of State and Bush I Cief of Staff. Oh the incest.

[Englander]

12. No, no , no & no.

I think you mean Sir Philip *Watts*. btw,he's just a Knight,
not a recipient of the Order of the British Empire.

--"He has been charged inter alia with diverting corporate funds to terrorist organization"

Link, please? Which "terrorist organisation"?

[Englander]

33. As I thought.

Since no link is provided, I'd say that this case against
the ex-Chairman of Shell is non-existant, that he hasn't
been charged with anything, that there is no court case
pending against him.

[Coastie for Truth]

66. Solicitor

Do your own SOLICITOR work--- here's a link to the search tool, SOLICITOR, . The issue involved payments an Indonesian terrorist group re: a refinery in the Philippines, SOLICITOR. A good British SOLICITOR should know how to use US legal materials - like and Lexis.

[Englander]

68. Who are you talking to?

:shrug:

Still no evidence to support yer claim, I see.

[Colorado Blue]

15. This is ridiculous on several counts. Let's start with #1 -

the nature of the "crime" in this instance - asserting a municipality's right to eminent domain: this has been upheld by the LIBERALS on the US supreme court, who have said that a political entity can seize private property in order to sell or turn it over to another private entity which would "make better use of it" (I paraphrase). It has long been held that any municipality has the right of eminent domain for other purposes, such as zoning code violations etc. National security would certainly fall into this category (in spades).

Secondly - the idea that terrorists AREN'T war criminals is absurd. Misusing the Geneva Conventions in this cynical fashion and trying to wriggle off the hook by claiming that Hamas, et.al., aren't signatories of the Geneva Conventions and therefore can't be charged with war crimes is cynical in the extreme.

Thirdly - yes Mr. Englander, Pelsar is right when he mentions similar deeds committed by the British. It is helpful to see events in historical perspective and if the British weren't charged with war crimes for certain deeds during the Irish struggles then the Israelis shouldn't be either. The law is dependent upon historical precedent.

What next - neighborhoods in Chicago, scheduled for demolition to create a new highway, charge the aldermen with war crimes?

[Englander]

36. Paragraph 1;

This is not America. E.Jerusalem does not fall under
the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court. Funny, that.
Although, thanks for the explanation of 'eminent domain',
it's not what I would have expected to find in the i/p
forum, it's still informative.

And utterly irrelevant.

[Colorado Blue]

46. It isn't utterly irrelevant. The same real property concepts

apply throughout much of western world and they originated in British common law. They seek in part to establish rules for individual ownership of property, rules for the conveyance of same, regulations governing what can be built where, when and how - and most significantly in this instance, the relationship between the individual and the community.

The concept of "eminent domain" establishes the principle that the good of the community does trump that of the individual property owner, and it's been upheld in LIBERAL courts.

I think the principle applies. Zoning laws, building permits, home ownership and the rights of householders vs. the rights of the city all seem to have some bearing on the matter under discussion.

[Englander]

57. No,it's utterly irrelevant.

It's utterly irrelevant because it has nothing to do with
this subject,& I'm completely baffled as to why anyone would
think that it does. Believing that it's relevant shows a distinct
lack of understanding, a misreading of the situation & I'm at
a loss as to why you've mentioned 'eminent domain'.
aka Compulsory Purchase.

And what on earth is a "LIBERAL court"?

[Englander]

37. Paragraph 2;

As I said, comprehension is a Good Thing. It's helpful to
understand what the phrase 'war crimes' refers to, & to
understand the relevance & meaning of the Geneva Conventions,
& to understand the meaning of & difference between, such
phrases as 'sovereign state','paramilitary group', 'non-state
actor', 'terrorist', &tc, &tc. They are not just words, y'know.

[Colorado Blue]

47. Duh. I think that dragging housing matters into a war crimes

tribunal is absurd and it's a misuse of the war crimes tribunal - Geneva Conventions or no Geneva Conventions.

War itself is such a crime, we reserve the concept of WAR CRIME for something really catastrophic - mass rape, genocide, terrorism. Words DO matter. So do ideas. And it is IDEAS which I am trying to discuss here, and the concept that a terrorist blowing up a bus is A WAR CRIMINAL, a mass rapist is a WAR CRIMINAL, using gas on helpless civilians is a WAR CRIME; whereas a housing inspector dragging his heels on permit issues, or a zoning dispute is NOT a war criminal and shouldn't be dragged into a war crimes tribunal.

[eyl]

58. Why not

if you can find a sympathetic court, and your willing to damage the system in pursuit of your own ends....

After all, while as you say, we usually think of "war crimes" as these great and terrible crimes, some of them can be quite petty. For example, GC3 requires POWs recieve a stipend of a certain amount. A POW camp commander who gives them half that stipend has, by definition, committed a war crime.

[Englander]

59. "Housing matters"?

Good.Grief. Just...*shakes head*

:wtf:

[Englander]

64. Again with the comprehension -

Who said anything about a 'war crimes tribunal'? You've
just plucked one out of thin air - that's a absurd idea,
& a blatantly obvious 'straw man'. No-one mentioned anything
about a 'tribunal', there is no 'tribunal', & any suggestion
that there is one, really is absurd.

More 'housing matters';

"Israelis Act to Encircle East Jerusalem

By John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, February 7, 2005; Page A15

JERUSALEM -- The Israeli government and private Jewish groups are working in concert to build a human cordon around Jerusalem's Old City and its disputed holy sites, moving Jewish residents into Arab neighborhoods to consolidate their grip on strategic locations, according to critics of the effort and a Washington Post investigation.

The goal is to establish Jewish enclaves in and around Arab-dominated East Jerusalem and eventually link them to form a ring around the city, a key battleground in the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict because of its Jewish and Muslim holy sites, according to activists involved in the effort and critics of the campaign.

The Israeli government has sometimes violated its own laws and regulations to advance the encircling effort, the Post investigation found. Critics of the plan charge that the government is subsidizing and protecting Jewish groups that are deliberately scuttling peace efforts by establishing Jewish enclaves in overwhelmingly Palestinian neighborhoods

More at;
The Washington Post

_____________________________


Legal status of East Jerusalem and its residents

Between 1948 and June of 1967, Jerusalem was divided in two: West Jerusalem, which covered an area of about 38 square kilometers was under Israeli control, and East Jerusalem, which contained an area of some 6 sq. km, was ruled by Jordan. In June 1967, following the Six-Day War, Israel annexed some 70 sq. km to the municipal boundaries of West Jerusalem, and imposed Israeli law there. These annexed territories included not only the part of Jerusalem that had been under Jordanian rule, but also an additional 64 square kilometers, most of which had belonged to 28 villages in the West Bank, and part of which belonged to the municipalities of Bethlehem and Beit Jala. Following their annexation, the area of West Jerusalem tripled, and Jerusalem became the largest city in Israel.

Prior to 1967, therefore, most of the area comprising present-day Jerusalem was not part of the city (West or East), but rather part of the West Bank. The new borders, set by a committee headed by General Rehavam Ze'evi, then-assistant to the head of the Operations Branch of the Israel Defense Forces' General Staff, were approved by Israel's government.

In setting the borders, the committee's objective was to strengthen Israeli sovereignty over the city by creating a Jewish majority. Thus, demographic considerations were decisive, and planning considerations were only of secondary importance. In order to ensure a significant Jewish majority, the primary consideration was to prevent the inclusion of heavily-populated Palestinian areas within Jerusalem. Whereas several Palestinian villages were placed outside the city, some of their lands were included within the city's new borders, examples being Beit Iksa and Beit Hanina, in the north, and detached areas lying in the municipalities of Bethlehem and Beit Sahur, in the south. Villages and neighborhoods were, therefore, divided; one part remained in the West Bank, and the other part was annexed by Israel.

After the annexation, Israel conducted a census in these areas, and granted permanent residency status to residents in the annexed areas present at the time the census was taken. Persons not present in the city for whatever reason forever lost their right to reside in Jerusalem. Permanent residents were permitted, if they wished and met certain conditions, to receive Israeli citizenship. These conditions included swearing allegiance to the State, proving that they are not citizens of any other country, and showing some knowledge of Hebrew. For political reasons, most of the residents did not request Israeli citizenship. Setting the municipal boundary to run through neighborhoods and villages also created a distinction between Palestinians regarding their rights, since residents living in the unannexed area continued to be residents of the West Bank, and were subject to military rule.

Palestinians hold the status of "permanent resident" of the State of Israel. This is the same status granted to foreign citizens who have freely chosen to come to Israel and want to live there. Israel treats Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem as immigrants, who live in their homes at the beneficence of the authorities and not by right. The authorities maintain this policy although these Palestinians were born in Jerusalem, lived in the city, and have no other home. Treating these Palestinians as foreigners who entered Israel is astonishing, since it was Israel that entered East Jerusalem in 1967.

Permanent residency differs substantially from citizenship. The primary right granted to permanent residents is to live and work in Israel without the necessity of special permits. Permanent residents are also entitled to social benefits provided by the National Insurance Institute and to health insurance. Permanent residents have the right to vote in local elections, but not in elections to Knesset . Unlike citizenship, permanent residency is only passed on to the holder's children where the holder meets certain conditions. A permanent resident with a non-resident spouse must submit, on behalf of the spouse, a request for family unification. Only citizens are granted the right to return to Israel at any time.

B'tselem

[Englander]

38. Paragraph 3;

"..similar deeds.."? Examples, please. That's an irrelevant
point,imo. And, again, I have to ask why the example of
British illegality is raised in connection with my username?
Try & forget that I'm British, & concentrate on the subject
of the thread.

Also, it would be helpful, if you are responding to one
of my posts, to actually reply to the post. That way,I'll
know that you are talking to me,& I'll be able to try &
answer your points. If you just reply to the OP, then how
am I to know that the post is intended for myself?

[Colorado Blue]

48. I wasn't talking to you, I was speaking to the op & to the forum.

And I am NOT singling you out because you're British. We use the example of the British because so much common law throughout the Western world depends from British common law, and in this case because there are similarities between what happened in Northern Ireland and with this situation. We share a language and are familiar with each other's history. Israel itself is a child of the British Empire, in a sense, and its history has been affected by English history. There is no question but what discourse on Israel and the Arabs has been and is being, affected by thought, speech and action in the UK. So it is hardly inappropriate to discuss Britain in relation to Israel.

Also I suppose Pelsar and I ARE trying to use examples of things you, as an English person, might be able to relate to in an attempt to create some empathy. The Israelis are human beings, not demons, they're in a difficult position, they make mistakes - sometimes horrible ones. What they do NOT deserve, however, is the endless isolation, marginalization, attempted delegitimization of their nation and their history and their purpose, that is such a feature of thought both in the Middle East and in factions of the Left - ESPECIALLY in Europe. So we're trying to build some bridges.

[Englander]

60. Yes you were.

Unless the "op &... the forum" are called 'Mr Englander'.

As I said, try & forget that I'm British, & concentrate on the
main subject of the thread, & comment on the alleged Israeli war
crimes, the destruction of civilian homes by an occupying power.

Where's the empathy? How does suggesting that the British army
committed 'war crimes' in Ulster,& directing that comment at myself,
'create some empathy'? Antipathy, more like.

[barb162]

18. So the houses were "built illegally" in the first place and the

municipality got demo orders, etc. So if a neighbor is a little off on a fence or a shed and my municipality doesn't want to push the issue, I should go to London and get the municipal workers nailed as war criminals.

And if there are serious safety housing violations in these same dwellings, like bad electrical causing fire hazard, the municipality better not do anything about it, because the "innocent civilian population" is having its human rights violated. Yep, just let people build whatever they want illegally, maybe have all kinds of other building code safety violations, just let them do it because no one better violate their rights to do what they want. And then if the illegal structure burns down, blame the same city workers for not inspecting the building and sue them as war criminals on that basis too . Imagine if every city operated that way. Sounds R-E-A-L-L-Y smart. Uh-huh.

[idontwantaname]

19. this is not israel. it is occupied territory.

and israel DOES NOT approve building permits within the occupied territory.

if the IDF shells a building or bulldozes a home badly damaging neighboring homes the palestinians have no "legal" way to repair or rebuild their homes/shops.

[barb162]

20. from the article

"that were built illegally, after obtaining judicial demolition orders"

[idontwantaname]

21. did you read my post??? n/t

[barb162]

22. yes, I am responding to the material contained in the OP article

[idontwantaname]

23. you seem to know very little about how this conflict works...

so please dont be vague because it just wastes time.

[barb162]

24. If you have a problem with me quoting from the OP's article

and then calling my comments vague, that's fine with me. I don't see it as vague. You also "seem to know very little about how this conflict works..." and it just wastes both of our time.

Maybe Israelis should go into the same London court for human rights violations when terrorists blow things up Tel Aviv.

[Andromeda]

50. I think barb knows a great deal about ....

"how this conflict works" and I don't see anything "vague" in her statement.

Nice try though. Always try to confuse and malign somebody else to hide your own ignorance.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. You think everyone who agrees with you knows a great deal about...

"how this conflict works". It doesn't work that way. Some people, some of them pro-Israeli and some of them pro-Palestinian, know a great deal about how this conflict works. Others don't. I find it incredible that you'd say that someone who said in an earlier thread: "Extremist settler is a misnomer" and then refused to read any of the many examples of settler extremism "knows a great deal about how this conflict works"...

Violet...

[eyl]

34. Even under GC4

the occupier is still responsible for maintaining law and order - and that includes building codes. Or are you saying that once a territory is occupied, international law demands anarchy reign?

[Scurrilous]

25. Jerusalem: Building to Resist

http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2124.cfm#down

<snip>

"Both Shawamreh and Hamdan believe that the “Kafka-esque system” (as Shawamreh puts it) of destroying houses for lack of never-granted permits is “just an excuse to take the land,” as Hamdan puts it. Figures from the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem show that between 1999 and 2004, 343 houses in East Jerusalem were destroyed by the Jerusalem municipality or the Israeli interior ministry because they lacked a permit.

Ziad Hammoury, general director of the Jerusalem Center for Social and Economic Rights, says that because of this system, “most people build without a license, because they have no other options. The Israelis push them into a corner.”

To build, Hammoury explains, “you need to submit for a permit, takes three to five years. And it will cost $25,000 to $30,000 just to obtain such a license to build. Of course, in these hard conditions, it is difficult for people .” And very few people actually receive building permits.

Palestinian East Jerusalemites, with their ever-growing population, could build outside Israel’s Jerusalem boundaries, Hammoury continues, but then “they are threatened with confiscation of their ID cards.” This is because, according to Israeli law, East Jerusalemites must prove that their “center of life” is in the city to keep their IDs. Thus, building in Jerusalem without a permit “is the only way to continue their existence in East Jerusalem.”

[Coastie for Truth]

26. MY DAD WAS A WAR CRIMES INVESTIGATOR IN THE PHILIPPINES

AND - BASED ON THE TRADITIONAL "LIVE COWARD VERSUS DEAD HERO -- NEVER VOLUNTEER --- WAR REALLY IS HELL" DISCUSSION BETWEEN A FATHER AND A SON (OUR DISCUSSION WAS IN 1966) - AND MY OWN 30 HOUR GENEVA CONVENTION COURSE AT OFFICER CANDIDATE SCHOOL -- I HAVE INTERPRETED "WAR CRIMES" TO BE

1. WHEN IT COMES TO PROSECUTING THE CONDUCT OF OTHERS -- SOMETHING ON A PAR WITH WHAT OUR CRIMINAL CODE CALLS "CAPITAL MURDER" OR "MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE WITH AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES"

AND I APPLY THE STANDARD OF PROOF THAT I WOULD APPLY IF EMPANELED ON A CAPITAL JURY

2. WHEN IT COMES TO MY CONDUCT -- ANY COMMON LAW FELONY (HOMICIDE, ASSAULT AND BATTERY, RAPE, LARCENY, ARSON) WHERE THERE IS NO MILITARY JUSTIFICATION.

AND I THINK THIS CHARADE IS "ABUSE OF PROCESS" AND "ABUSE OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM" AND "FALSE ARREST" AND IS CLEARLY DISBARRABLE TO THE BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS INVOLVED.

[idontwantaname]

27. tell this to the people who lose their homes...

who lose their farmland which theyve had for generations...

who lose sons and daughters to israeli weapons(live ammunition/tank shells ect)...

i understand an isolated incident could be considered a cry for wolf but thisis not an isolated incident.

[Coastie for Truth]

28. You're saying that these offenses should be capital offenses

(which means life imprisonment or death) ---- wow!

[idontwantaname]

29. if such punishment would be greater deterrent against crimes committed...

the IDF *assassinates* palestinians for doing far less...

[Coastie for Truth]

30. On a liberal, progressive, site

with "Democratic" in it's name --- a defense of capital punishment.

And for non-capital offenses yet.

[idontwantaname]

31. i am no advocate of the death penalty...

nor am i the one filing the charges or one who has had crimes committed to...

although i was shot at and had a number of non-violent associates beaten not 1/2 mile from where i was 3 min. before. we had broken no rules or committed any crimes...

ps- i doubt theres need to worry seeing israels position towards capital punishment.

[Coastie for Truth]

32. " i doubt theres need to worry seeing israels position towards capital..."

With the exception of a very limited class of Holocaust related crimes - Israel has no capital punishment law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment)

[Violet_Crumble]

40. What da hell?

Yr going to have to point out where this defense of capital punishment is, Coastie, because I'm not seeing it. I wasn't aware that everyone charged with and/or convicted of war crimes was sentenced to death....

Violet...

[eyl]

35. It might surprise you to know

that Jews in Israel can also wait similar periods for permits (I know someone who waited five years for a permit to build a house).

[Scurrilous]

39. Any idea...

...why it takes so long?

[eyl]

45. No idea

at a guess, I'd say an inefficient bureaucracy

[Colorado Blue]

49. Getting permits in THIS city is such a pain that architects,

builders, etc, actually hire "expediters" to walk their permits through City Hall. Nor is this limited to my city but is quite common in big cities throughout the US.

Fees for this service can run into the thousands. It's a vital service and knowing whom to see about what is as much art as science - PARTICULARLY is one desires a "variance" - ie, wants to build something that actually violates some code or other:)

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Some more on demolitions and building restrictions...

Jerusalem represents perhaps the most contentious issue in the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinians hope to establish their capital in East Jerusalem, while Israel claims that it will not relinquish control over any part of what it considers its eternal, indivisible capital. The process of resolving these conflicting claims will be central to the negotiations on the permanent status of the occupied territories. In the meantime, in the five year interim period between the Declaration of Principles and the permanent status arrangement, both Israel and the PLO agree not to "initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations" (Article XXXI of the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip).
Despite this agreement, Israel continues to construct Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. In May, B'Tselem released A Policy of Discrimination: Land Expropriation, Planning and Building in East Jerusalem. This comprehensive report details the systematic and deliberate discrimination against the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem in all matters relating to land, development and housing construction.

A Policy of Discrimination: Land Expropriation, Planning and Building

Despite being a major city of international importance with an elected municipal council, the municipality seeks to conceal its planning policies, in so far as they affect East Jerusalem. Notwithstanding the legal requirement, there is no overall plan approved for the city and there never has been. Nor has a planning appraisal or policy statement for East Jerusalem ever been published. Nor has there ever been a published assessment of the housing needs of the annexed (Palestinian) population of the city. Nor have the criteria and priorities for conserving the visual setting of the Old City been published, although they are of crucial importance in deciding where development in East Jerusalem ought to be allowed.

The main policy (indeed, the only policy) on Palestinian development has been to restrict it - and thereby to minimise the Palestinian population. The means of doing this has been to operate a 'quota' for new Palestinian housing: this is the maximum number of new Palestinian houses to be permitted within East Jerusalem - a 'Palestinian house' in this context being any house to which the Jewish leasing requirement noted above does not apply. The amount of the quota has never been published. Nor was there any public knowledge of the quota until 1993 when its existence was inadvertently revealed at a meeting of the local planning commission.

<snip>

Zoning Restrictions. Whereas in the rest of the West Bank the Israeli authorities have cited ancient plans which give no opportunity for development, in East Jerusalem they have done the opposite. In 1974 the Israeli authorities cancelled the (Jordanian) development plan which had been approved in 1966 and which gave extensive opportunity for development. It was not until the late 1970s that work started on an outline plan for some Palestinian neighbourhoods. The first such plan was not approved until 1984 and at the present time four of the 18 neighbourhoods still have no approved plan 32 years after occupation. In contrast, the time scale for preparing plans for the Jewish settlements has been a matter of months.

Separate 'outline' plans are issued for Jewish settlements and for Palestinian 'neighbourhoods'. This allows different standards and procedures to be adopted for the parts of the city to be inhabited by the two ethnic groups. The plans for Palestinian neighbourhoods have three main deficiencies: They are geographically restrictive, they have insufficient capacity, and the procedures are unsatisfactory.

Demolition and dispossession: the destruction of Palestinian homes

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.