Al-Sayafa: A Case Study In Dispossession

[Violet_Crumble]

By Jacob Pace,
writing from Gaza City, occupied Palestine


Electronic Intifada
08 October 2003

3 October 2003 -- We were sitting outside a small shack at the edge of a Bedouin community in the Northern Gaza Strip region of Al-Sayafa. Abu Housa, one of the Bedouin elders, sat with us speaking in quick, expressive Arabic phrases, spreading his arms and flinging his hands about, the gestures adding emotional context to words that, for the most part, I could not understand. When we first arrived at the community we were quickly invited to sit in the shade of the shack and offered tea, as is customary here. There were five of us visitors -- myself, another international worker, two other staff members from our organization (the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights), and our taxi driver from Gaza City.

As we interviewed Abu Housa, we sat with our backs to the shack and gazed directly across a small depression at a massive Israeli army base about 150 meters in front of us. On our left, to the West, the dirt track fell away to an electrified gate at the bottom of the hill, again, about 150 meters away. The gate is the only entrance in a fence that runs north-east from the illegal Israeli settlement of Dugit, south of the gate. The fence cuts across Palestinian land, eventually reaching Nissanit, another illegal Israeli settlement in the center of Gaza's northern border.

The land around us was dry and bare. To the everyday observer it would appear to be an extension of coastal sand dunes, barren and inhospitable. However, this area used to be one of the most fertile in Northern Gaza. Strawberries and other crops once covered the rolling hills. In fact, Al-Sayafa was home to a successful agricultural development project during the Egyptian occupation of Gaza from 1948-1967. The Palestinian refugees who came here sought to rebuild their lives after they were forced to flee their homes in what is now Israel (see www.palestineremembered.com or www.alnakba.org). However, since Israel took control of Gaza in 1967, life in Al-Sayafa has become increasingly difficult.

http://www.countercurrents.org/pa-pace081003.htm

[mddemo]

1. israel

what no mention of the million or so jews expelled from the arab nations. No mention of the arabs pulling back from the israelis, whilst they hovered like vultures waiting for the arab armies to push the jews into the sea. nothing to see here, move along just palescumian propaganda.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. If you want articles like that...

Y'know, the ones that obsessively overlook what is being done to the Palestinians in favour of fermenting anti-Arab/Muslim hatred, go and read LGF or Aretz Sheva. As it is, I see plently of articles posted here that focus on all aspects of the I/P conflict. If you have a problem with one being posted that doesn't fit in with yr incredibly biased views, then others aren't that hard to find, though I doubt anyone will see you popping up in them whining about there not being any mention of the dispossession of Palestinian land....

Violet...

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Equinox]

10. Would anyone care for the sauteed racist remark covered in...

...a nice creamy sauce with a nice side dish of generalizations?

I do recommend a nice Bigoted Merlot with this choice.

Bon Appetite!

[Equinox]

9. Palescumian? Is this allowed?

Oh my.

[Lithos]

14. No it is not

(n/t)

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground

[rini]

7. truth is not a Palestinian apologist forte

n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

8. No point replying to a tombstoned disruptor...

Is there a chance that you'd actually be able to point out the untruths in the article?

Violet...

[Equinox]

11. Rini, babe...we are all Palestinians.....

and truth will set us all free!


Yippeeeee!

:toast:

[rini]

37. Hey

watch the babe bit! I thought this was a secret relationship.:-)

[Equinox]

41. LOL...

mums the word.

;-)

[Gimel]

12. Narrow focus

Indeed there is a very narrow focus to this article. The author appears to be in great sympathy with the Palestinains and their insistance on balmaing Israel for their plight. No thought is given to why the IDF has built security fences and bulldozed land areas. With this kind of limited awareness, anyone could believe that the Israelis are a very powerful aggressor and the Palestinian people porr and oppressed innocents.

Who are the Palestinians? Are they Bedouins? no Not all Bedouins are Palestinians. Some are Palestinians and some are IDF soldiers. It becomes increasingly difficult to understand the politics if this article is in any way tuned to the current Intifada and it's role in creating chaos for the people of Gaza.

18% of Israelis are non-Jews. They are not forced off their land, like the Palestinians wish to force Jews off land they have settled for generations. I ask of Mr. Pace, if I could, just what he really thinks is going on here, and why he hasn't brought up some of these major injustices.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Which translates as:

'If an article doesn't sing Israel's praises about the wondrous treatment of the Palestinians and make endless excuses why it's okay to deny another group of people the right of self-determination, then I will accuse the article of being narrowly focused and the author of having only a limited awareness. If they do for whatever reason decide to discuss aspects of the I/P conflict the article's not about, but not cast Israel in the role of victim just doing what it has to do to survive, then I will repeat the above mantra and accuse them of ignorance.' ;)

Huh? A Bedoin was interviewed in the article. There was no attempt made to say that all Palestinians are Bedoins, so maybe you should actually read the entire article before trying to go off bizarre diversionary tangents that make no sense....

If yr referring to Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories when you speak of Palestinians wanting to force Jews off land, maybe you should stop and consider the fact that the Occcupied Territories aren't part of Israel and it's to be expected that an occupied people will want the occupiers to bugger off back where they came from. Interesting though that you appear to only care about what you see as dispossessed people when they're Israeli. I would have thought anyone who was sincerely concerned about it would have cared about it no matter what group of people it applied to and wouldn't just selectively pick out one group only while supporting the very real dispossession of the Palestinians...

Violet...

[Gimel]

15. Again a poor translation

Where did I ever say anything about praising Israel?


"I would have thought anyone who was sincerely concerned about it would have cared about it no matter what group of people it applied to and wouldn't just selectively pick out one group only while supporting the very real dispossession of the Palestinians..."

Perhaps you would also consider the collective punishment that Israelis receive from the Palestinian "righteous" if you were sincere. You claim that there is "a very real dispossession of the Palestinians". This "dispossession" allows them to create their own national identity. Isn't that exactly what Arafat wants? Or is it true that he wants to drive out the Jews first?

[Violet_Crumble]

16. It was very apt, but I expected you'd disagree...

Where did I ever say anything about praising Israel?

Where did I ever say you said anything about praising Israel? I pointed out what yr mindset is based on reading yr posts in this forum, and the intent of the post I replied to...

Perhaps you would also consider the collective punishment that Israelis receive from the Palestinian "righteous" if you were sincere. You claim that there is "a very real dispossession of the Palestinians". This "dispossession" allows them to create their own national identity. Isn't that exactly what Arafat wants? Or is it true that he wants to drive out the Jews first?

The problem is that you have either no understanding of what the term collective punishment means, or willfully try to twist it's meaning, like the one where you claimed insurance companies carry out collective punishment. The word to describe what's done in attacks on civilians, no matter who they are, is terrorism. Collective punishment applies to the actions of an occupying power when it dishes out punishment for the actions of one person on others. Examples of it is Germany during WWII where it held entire towns responsible for any resistance that would happen, and more recently Israels demolition of Palestinian homes in retaliation for the acts of a family member. During WWII, the Allies weren't occupying Japan when they dropped the big one on Hiroshima, otherwise I'd expect that'd be described by some as collective punishment too. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention refers to collective punishment:

"No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited."

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Are you claiming that Palestinians aren't being dispossessed of their land? You put the word dispossession in dit-dits, so feel free to explain why you think it's not the case if you think it's not happening...

Violet...

[Gimel]

17. OK. Then stick to accepted terminology

Stop calling IDF terrorists, and I'll stop claiming that a suicide bomber who targets civilians because of the death of a brother and cousin is a military arm of Hamas militant collective punishment policy.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Whose accepted terminology?

Whose terminology is it that defines terrorism as not being applicable to states?

*sigh* I explained to you why yr attempt to twist the meaning of collective punishment was incorrect. Do you want to try arguing why what I posted about collective punishment isn't correct or do you just want to continue with yr 'It is because *I* say so' approach?

Violet...

[Gimel]

22. Go explain it again.

You are not my teacher. You are incorrect in my view.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. I don't need to...

All I need to do is copy'n'paste of my original explanation of why yr incorrect in yr use of the term collective punishment and live in hope that instead of getting a snide retort from you, that you might actually read it and point out where what I've said is wrong. See, the thing is with terms like collective punishment, collateral damage, ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc, that you can't just use the excuse that it's yr view that one or more of these words mean what *you* choose to define them as, regardless of how different from the meaning it is...

So feel free to point out what I've gotten wrong when it comes to defining collective punishment in what I said:

The problem is that you have either no understanding of what the term collective punishment means, or willfully try to twist it's meaning, like the one where you claimed insurance companies carry out collective punishment. The word to describe what's done in attacks on civilians, no matter who they are, is terrorism. Collective punishment applies to the actions of an occupying power when it dishes out punishment for the actions of one person on others. Examples of it is Germany during WWII where it held entire towns responsible for any resistance that would happen, and more recently Israels demolition of Palestinian homes in retaliation for the acts of a family member. During WWII, the Allies weren't occupying Japan when they dropped the big one on Hiroshima, otherwise I'd expect that'd be described by some as collective punishment too. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention refers to collective punishment:

"No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited."

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Violet...

[Gimel]

42. You are wrong on both items

Persons who harbor terrorists, or benifit from their actions ($10,000 checks) are also terrorists.

Collective punishment by a member of a terrorist organization is still collective punishment. Get it right next time, V.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. And you still don't explain how...

Apart from the authoritarian 'because *I* say it's so!' approach. Really, there's no need to get nasty about it, Gimel :)

Collective punishment - from all I've read about collective punishment, it's a term used to describe the actions of an occupying power when it punishes members of the territory it's occupying for actions of another individual. It was first used to describe the actions of the Nazis during WWII in areas of Europe they occupied, and what I posted from the 4th Geneva Convention is there because of what they did. And because collective punishment is used to describe a specific action of an occupying power, that would explain why the firebombing of Dresden or Hiroshima weren't called collective punishment. If a suicide bombing is seen by you as collective punishment, do you also think 9/11 and the Bali Bombings were acts of collective punishment? I tend to think terms like terrorism and atrocity describe them and suicide bombings in Israel. Anyway, if you have any credible sources on why terrorist attacks are acts of collective punishment, I'd be interested to see them...

People who benefit from the actions of terrorists (and you still haven't given me the accepted definition of the word) are terrorists? Wow. Considering how the IR field has benefitted greatly from terrorism, thanks for filling me in on the fact that my teachers are nothing but damn terrorists! ;)

Violet...

[Equinox]

19. The IDF in the OTs are the IOF....

That's how they should be referred to.

I don't care much else how you define terrorism. That word could mean almost anything by now.

[bluesoul]

20. Crimes

It doesn't matter how you name it, a CRIME is a CRIME! There's non-state terrorism, there's state terrorism, war crimes committed by paramilitaries, "proper" militaries, civilians, non-civilians, no one is immune to it. And certainly no one committing such acts can ever claim the higher moral ground or say that it's just self defense. The self-defense term has gotten so abused it is sickening. We all know Bush said attacking Iraq and bombing the hell out of them is only self-defense from the supposed imminent Iraqi threat that could detonate any minute. Please spare me with such excuses for what are war crimes (either committed by US, Palestinians or Israelis). I rest my case

[Gimel]

23. but Israel is not the US

Can you deny that over 500 Israeli civilians have been killed by Palestinian bombs? If that fact is ignored then you can claim that self-defense is inapplicable. But the well known fact is, that the bombs are a recurring threat and have destroyed over a thousand civilian lives, by death or severe injury.

[bluesoul]

24. And Palestinian civilians?

And how many Palestinian civilians have been killed Gimel? And I am not just talking about the last three years, but well back to 1987..

[Gimel]

25. What came first? Attack or reprisal?

They should not stage a violent uprising if they don't want to put their lives in danger. The innocent deaths that have occurred are indead a tragedy, as they are in Israel. Yet the total deaths are not all of innocents. Can't emphasize that enough. Israel would be glad to errect a fence and be separated from the Palestinians, but even that is a sin in the eyes of "civil rights" movements.

Fortuantely, the fence strayed into PA territory. If not, the dispute would have been over building it and not where. You must admit that it is a good idea. A barrier to prevent deaths and to stop a war.

[bluesoul]

26. no

No. Not a barrier that stands on Palestinian territory. I don't care if Israel puts a 250 meter high wall around Israel, but cutting out Palestinians of their land and access to other parts of Palestine is not something I would support..

[Equinox]

29. Gimel.....

Are you saying that the occupation would have ended and all those settlements would have been dismantled? All the Palestinians had to do was be good little Arabs and continue to move east?

Your post is quite funny....

[Gimel]

43. "Would have..."

I know that those who now say the fence is wrong because it goes too far over an imaginary "Green Line" are the same ones who previously objected to any fence at all. It's some improvement, from my point of view.

[Equinox]

44. What are you talking about?

That has no bearing on my post.

:eyes:

[Gimel]

47. You ask if the Palestinians have to...

You speak in patronizing tones. Israelis know the Palestinian people well. No one is asking them to move east. If the fence takes up a certain land area, both sides have to up a few meters. If a Jewish settlement in included, the Palestinians supporters go crazy. It's okay to make the Jewish population suffer. That's the name of the game.

[Equinox]

28. Are you arguing with me?

I agree with you...

:shrug:

[bluesoul]

31. No quarrel between us

I know! It was for Gimel ;-)

[Equinox]

33. LOL...

I thought you were accusing me of being on the "wrong" side!

:toast:

[Darranar]

21. No, they're the IDF...

Just like the PATRIOT Act is the PATRIOT Act, even though supporting it has nothing to do with true patriotism.

However inaccurate their names might be, they should be called them.

[Equinox]

30. Darranar...

they are an occupation army. They are the IOF in the OTs....

[Darranar]

32. Not officially...

I don't mind if people call the IDF the IOF, regardless of location, as long as it's clear what they're talking about, but I would simply call them the IDF for clarity.

[Equinox]

34. In my view they are the IOF in the OTs....

The territories are occupied. The army is there. Hence, they are the Israeli Occupation Forces.

[Gimel]

45. Then my terminology stands as well. eom

[Equinox]

46. Do you want a cookie?

n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Not the same thing at all...

Equinox used those magic words in my view, something that you haven't done when you've talked about collective punishment. Also I doubt Equinox would be half as patchy in their application of the name they use and would label any occupying force no matter which nation it was from the same. Yr selective application of the term collective punishment doesn't make any sense. You've claimed that a rise in insurance premiums is collective punishment, that suicide bombings are collective punishment, but when it comes to the Palestinians, there's no collective punishment being carried out towards them. It'd seem to me that if someone is going to play fast and loose with a term and stretch it to apply to things it isn't applied to, then there's something bizarre going on when they refuse to apply the term to actions that it's officially applied to...


Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

50. That's how I see it too...

I always call them the IDF because it's very clear they're carrying out an occupation regardless of what anyone chooses to call them. Plus I assume while they've got a lot of resources tied up in the occupation, the IDF does also carry out its role of providing legitimate defence to Israel...

Violet...

[LevChernyi]

27. this isn't so..

18% of Israelis are non-Jews. They are not forced off their land, like the Palestinians wish to force Jews off land they have settled for generations

Israel is still running Bedouin's off areas they want to settle. They have been doing it since the 48 war where they got "their" land by running off the natives and have never stopped hounding those that remained.

[rini]

36. How many times do I have to tell you

there is not and never has been a country named Palestine. Your idea is a riduclous as occupying Shangra-La. It (Palestine) does not exist!

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[rini]

39. Bless your heart

the truth hurts doesn't it.

[bluesoul]

40. Yes?

What truth? That there are no Palestinians? That there is no Palestinian land, territory? That illegal settlements are being built? That Israel is occupying land that is not theirs to start with? That they have been and are violating numerous UN resolutions, conventions, international law? Yes the truth does hurt. It hurts those historical revisionists that say that there were no people living before Israel was created, that there are no Palestinians, that there is no Palestinian land. You are one of them. Don't bother...

[Violet_Crumble]

51. Are you talking to me or the author of the article?

Whoever it is, yr wrong yet again. Palestine existed despite yr incessant repetition of extremist talking points to the contrary. Palestine exists in the same way East Timor existed prior to its independence. Neither was a state, but that didn't mean they didn't exist. Ask the inhabitants of either what they were, and they'd tell you they were Palestinian and East Timorese...

Violet...