Jewish settlers expand West Bank enclave -spokesman

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"A group of Jewish settlers moved into a new building on Thursday in the West Bank town of Hebron, a spokesman for the settlers said, effectively expanding their enclave in the conflict-ridden area.

"We purchased a building in Hebron and have moved in after final legal matters were concluded. People are moving in tonight," David Wilder, a spokesman for settlers in Hebron, a largely Palestinian city and hotbed of conflict, told Reuters.

The settlers' action was a test for Israeli interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who won a March 28 election on a pledge to remove many Jewish settlements and set a border unilaterally with the Palestinians, in the absence of peace talks.

Wilder said an unspecified number of Israeli families were moving into the structure next to the Jewish settlement in Hebron which numbers about 400, in the city of 130,000 Palestinians.

The building in question had been unoccupied for some years but apparently was once the home of Palestinians, he said."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06251508.htm

[barb162]

1. THE ARTICLE ISN'T POPPING UP

why don't you give the link for the actual article if it's still there

But from what little is here, if they bought the building, what's the problem with living there?

[not systems]

2. Because...

it is illegal for an area under military occupation
to be colonized by the citizens of the occupying nation.

[barb162]

7. what law? link?

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Article 4 of the Geneva Convention...

A word of caution here. Supporting in any way the Hebron settlers, who are renowned for being amongst the most violent and extreme of settlers is not all that wise a move in a progressive forum...

Violet...

[Phx_Dem]

10. some Pal leaders like the settlements

The most farsighted among the Palestinians now understand that settlements are good for their cause. Michael Tarazi, a Palestinian-American and Harvard-trained legal adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team, told me, “Settlements are the vanguard of binationalism”—a single state that would soon have an Arab majority. “I don’t care if they build more,” Tarazi said. “The longer they stay out there, the more Israel will appear to the world to be essentially an apartheid state.”

He went on, “The settlements mean that the egg is hopelessly scrambled. Basically, it is already one state. There are no signs saying ‘Welcome to Occupied Territory.’ It’s one country, the same electricity grid, the same aquifers. Except that the three million Christians and Muslims in Gaza and the West Bank don’t have the same rights as the five million Jews in Israel, and the Arabs in Israel are second-class citizens compared with the Jews. Now the cause is justice and equality.”

By justice and equality, he meant the dissolution of Israel as a haven for Jews. “This is something very fundamental,” he said. “Zionism in practice is about taking the land and getting rid of the people.”

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/040531fa_fact2_d

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Well, yeah. The settlements are an obstacle to a 2 state solution...

..and a precursor to Israel becoming an apartheid state. Not a future I think many people want to see eventuate...

Violet...

[barb162]

11. I think you're wrong about the Geneva Convention applicability

as there's nothing in it about buying property legally in a normal real estate transaction betweeen willing sellers and willing buyers that I found. And I don't know what your views about the Hebron settlers have to do with someone buying a piece of real estate. Now if they don't have legal title to that building, then they should definitely get out. And I will agree with another person here that the area may be too hard to protect.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Barb, the West Bank is OCCUPIED...

There's nothing very difficult to understand about that, is there? Who did they 'buy' this real estate from anyway? The Israeli govt? Surely you can see that this is nowhere close to being a normal real estate transaction...

The Hebron settlers should get out as they're vicious, murderous thugs and terrorists. Or don't you see them that way?

Violet...

[barb162]

16. Violet, are you avoiding the Geneva Convention point I made?

Is there something you are reading in the GC 4 that isn't there? Because if it's there maybe you'd like to point out the chapter and verse. BTW the article (New Yorker) you posted in another thread talked about Pal snipers killing a little Jewish girl in Hebron so it looks like BOTH sides would be appropriately termed as vicious, murdering thugs, etc, etc, etc.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. You didn't make any sort of point...

The Geneva Conventions specifically refer to occupied territory, which is what the West Bank is. The reason it wouldn't go chapter and verse into the do's and dont's of real estate is that an occupying power and citizens of the occupying power moved into the territory do not have the right to buy and sell land that belongs to an occupied people. The only way you could argue this would be to claim that the West Bank isn't occupied...

Yes, I read that bit in the article. I think vicious, murdering thugs applies to both the settlers and to those snipers. I'm sure you agree on that, right?

Violet...

[barb162]

19. I made the point that a valid real estate transaction isn't affected

by the GC. And that point is valid unless you can point out somewhere in the GC that it isn't correct.
As to that second paragraph, some Palestinians and some settlers are vicious and/ or murdering thugs.

Non-exhaustive list of incidents through 1995 as found in:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/hebron.html

ANNEX I: TERRORIST ATTACKS AND VIOLENT INCIDENTS IN HEBRON SINCE 1929
(The following list is intended to provide a representative -- not exhaustive -- summary of terrorist attacks and violent incidents which have occurred in Hebron since 1929.)



23.08.29 67 Jews (including women, children, and the elderly) were murdered, and 60 injured in a vicious pogrom which had been well-planned by Arab rioters. In the course of the pogrom, women were raped, homes and synagogues were plundered and burned, and Torah scrolls were desecrated and burned.
09.10.68 A 17 year-old Arab youth threw a grenade at Jews praying on the steps of the Tomb's main gate. 47 Jews, including an eight month-old baby, were injured.
05.11.68 A Jewish man and his son, an elderly Arab man, and three Arab children were injured by an explosive charge near the Tomb.
29.12.68 Terrorists attack a security post near the Tomb. One terrorist was killed; the others fled. No Israeli soldiers were injured.
07.08.76 Two Jews were wounded when terrorists shot at a tour bus in the city.
03.10.76 On the eve of Yom Kippur, a mob of Arab youths burst into the Tomb and desecrated several Torah scrolls. Three soldiers fired in the air in an attempt to prevent their entry. 61 rioters were arrested in the Tomb.
02.05.80 Arab terrorists ambushed a group of Jews returning from the Tomb to Beit Hadassah. Six Jews were murdered and 20 wounded.
21.05.80 A Molotov cocktail was thrown at an Israeli vehicle in Hebron. A Jewish woman was wounded.
02.06.80 11 Arabs, including four schoolchildren, were injured when a booby-trapped grenade exploded in the Hebron market.
16.12.80 An Arab resident of Hebron was wounded by a bomb at Glass Junction in Hebron.
10.02.81 A Jewish resident of Kiryat Arba was stabbed and wounded in the Hebron casbah.
07.07.83 Beit Romano Yeshiva student Aharon Gross was attacked and stabbed by three Arab youths in the market area. He later died of his wounds.
25.07.83 Jewish terrorists opened fire at the Islamic College in Hebron. Three students were murdered and approximately 30 wounded.
10.08.85 A Jewish resident of Kiryat Arba was stabbed and wounded in the Hebron casbah.
25.04.86 A 16-year old Jewish youth was stabbed and lightly wounded in the casbah.
06.06.86 A Jewish resident of Kiryat Arba was stabbed and wounded in the casbah.
14.09.86 A young Arab woman, the daughter of a local mukhtar, stabbed a soldier at the entrance to the Tomb. She was shot and killed.
16.10.86 A Jewish resident of Kiryat Arba was stabbed in the city.
25.10.92 Three Arab terrorists shot at soldiers guarding the Tomb's generator. One reserve soldier was murdered; two were wounded.
28.05.93 Yeshiva student Erez Shmuel was stabbed to death approximately 500 meters from from the Tomb, while on his way to Friday evening prayers at the Tomb.
06.12.93 Mordechai Lapid and his son Shalom were shot to death near Glass Junction in Hebron. Hamas claimed responsibility.
25.02.94 Kiryat Arba resident Baruch Goldstein opened fire on Muslim worshippers inside the Tomb, murdering 29 and wounding 125.
07.07.94 Sarit Prigal (17) was shot to death in a drive-by shooting, when terrorists opened fire from a passing car near the entrance to Kiryat Arba.
19.03.95 Nahum Hoss (31) of Hebron, and Yehuda Partus (34) of Kiryat Arba, were murdered by shots fired at their bus from a terrorist ambush near Glass Junction in Hebron. Six others were injured.

[not systems]

20. It is not possible for...

citizens of a occupying power to gain legal title to
property in an occupied land.

Only nations can regulate the legal selling of property
there is no nation to oversee a legal transaction so the
laws of occupation are the governing ones.

Don't you find it interesting that your list of attacks
in Hebron starts in 1968 when the illegal colonization
began?

[Phx_Dem]

21. So all the Pals in hebron

have deeds to their property? What nation issued those deeds of title?

[not systems]

24. That is up to...

a future Palestinian state to decide.

[barb162]

29. So you are indicating that if they don't set up a state any time

soon no one knows who owns what? No one pays real property taxes? That no one there can sell to whomever they wish until such time as a state is enacted?

[not systems]

35. A 40 year occupation is an anomaly...

in the history of nations.

The future Palestinian state will decide what titles
are valid and legal.

No citizen of an occupying power can emigrate to conquered land
legally.

[Lithos]

37. Not really

A 40 year occupation is an anomaly...

Depends on who you ask. You could say that Armenia was occupied from 1922 to 1992, or Tibet from 1949 until today. Technically Ahwazi has been occupied since 1925.

L-

[not systems]

38. I think Armenia was a Soviet Republic and Tibet...

is considered the equivalent of a state in China.

I'm not suggesting that the people of Armenia or Tibet
chose to be annex into the USSR or China but an equivalent
situation would mean the West Bank was annexed and the
people living in it considered citizens of Israel.

That is not the case and Israel to the best of my knowledge
has not had any intention of making the Palestinians
in the West Bank citizens of Israel.

Armenians were and Tibetans are considered citizens of the
respective states involved.

I'm not up on the Ahwazi but from what I see they are considered
citizens of Iran by the government of Iran.

I stand by my statement.

[idontwantaname]

56. actually

when the british occupied palestine palestinians had their own currency and house titles.

[barb162]

28. "List" of Hebron attacks starts August 23, 1929; 67 Jews dead

"23.08.29 67 Jews (including women, children, and the elderly) were murdered, and 60 injured in a vicious pogrom which had been well-planned by Arab rioters. In the course of the pogrom, women were raped, homes and synagogues were plundered and burned, and Torah scrolls were desecrated and burned."

Do you have a legal citation for support of your first sentence. Because you are apparently indicating no person in Hebron can sell to an Israeli even if the Israeli is the highest buyer. Also you imply there is no government body regulating real estate transactions in the Hebron area, that no deeds get recorded, no taxes get collected, etc.

And what are the laws of occupation? Is it Israel's law since it is the so-called occupying power?? Or do the Palestinians have a government body controlling real estate transactions? Do they have laws that indicate no Jews can buy?

The link I provided which was rather lengthy had many paragraphs showing Arab on Jew violence prior to 1929 and also showed how Jews have lived in that area continuously for thousands of years.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. 'so-called occupying power'??

Barb, Israel IS the occupying power. That's an undisputable fact. Pretending that the West Bank isn't under a military occupation and trying to treat it like it's part of Israel where Israelis can buy real estate just like citizens of other countries can in their own countries is totally ignoring the fact that GC4 says an occupying power cannot transfer its own population into occupied territory. Hebron is not part of Israel. What part of that is hard to understand?

Also, Arabs had lived in parts of what is now Israel that now has few or no Arabs for ages. What was yr point in saying that about Jews? If yr trying to defend the right of those extremist settlers in Hebron to remain there, it's a very weak argument. Why would you want people who thrive on terrorising the local population to stay there?

Violet...

[Tom Joad]

45. Not a nation on earth that does not call Israel an occupying power

except Israel.

[not systems]

18. They and several hundred thousand other illegal...

colonists should get out.

Or maybe a single state solution with one person one vote
is a more to your liking?

Not believing in laws because they counter ones nationalistic goals
is never an excuse.

[Phx_Dem]

22. Don't think I'm defending the current settlers

but why shouldn't a jew be able to live in Hebron? They have lived there continuously for over 2000 years.

[not systems]

23. End the occupation then...

emigrate to Palestine in a way that conforms to the future states laws.

[Phx_Dem]

25. why should they emigrate

when they have been living there for 2200+ years. Or maybe what you are saying is that you support ethnic cleansing of jews in arab land? After all 850,000 jews have already been ethnically cleansed so what's a few more?

[not systems]

27. First...

can an Arab American citizen buy land in and emigrate to Israel?

If so has it ever happened?

Why are you being obtuse about the meaning of the word emigrate?

It is obvious that when one moves from one state to another they
are emigrating from one and immigrating to the other.

Do you seriously expect me to believe that the 850000 Jews that
moved to Israel from other states in the area have a special claim
to Hebron because of being from Baghdad or Cairo?

What about Kiev?

Don't you think that Palestinians who were originally from Israel
and have not been allowed to return since 1948 have at least as valid
claim to live in Israel as the one you are asserting Israelis
have to live in occupied Palestine?

Why don't you argue for the free immigration of displaced Palestinians to Israel?

[Phx_Dem]

42. all I'm saying

is that if a group of people live in a certain area they should be able to continue to do so unless there is a compelling interest not to. For example, I have been asserting that settlers should be able to stay in Hebron, I don't expect that the city will ever become part of Israel, so the people who live there will need to obey the laws of the future Palestine.

"Do you seriously expect me to believe that the 850000 Jews that
moved to Israel from other states in the area have a special claim
to Hebron because of being from Baghdad or Cairo?"

No I don't. I'm just pointing out that a lot of people in the region, not just arabs have been relocated for nationalistic reasons.


"Don't you think that Palestinians who were originally from Israel
and have not been allowed to return since 1948 have at least as valid
claim to live in Israel as the one you are asserting Israelis
have to live in occupied Palestine?"

No I don't. The British controlled the area at that time, it was never the Pals property to begin with. The Pals were offered a country of there own and they declined.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Because they're criminals and thugs...

There are Israelis who would be willing to live in a future Palestinian state and abide by the laws of the country they're in. What the Palestinians don't need is racist extremists like the Hebron settlers to remain there...

Just curious, but do you consider what happened to the Palestinians in 1948 to be ethnic cleansing?

Violet...

[pelsar]

46. so if a country doesnt like the politics of its residents....

it can throw them out?....perhaps the jews in Hebron are willing to live under the palestenain govt until such time in the future when the jews take over the middle east?

much like many israeli arabs who believe the time will come when the arab nation removes israel...in the meantime they remain residents of israel...

or is this a "dont like your politics you cant stay" kind of thing just for the jews in hebron?

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Don't even go there, pelsar...

Didn't you notice I was talking about the extremist settlers in Hebron? They're the folk who violently oppose any future Palestinian state, who engage in violence, and who believe that anyone not like them is inferior. So why are you trying to compare them with Israeli Arabs when you should be comparing them with their mirror image of Hamas or IJ? fyi, many Israeli Arabs love their country every bit as much as you do and trying to paint them as folk who want to see their own country destroyed is casting a negative and false stereotype about them...

As I've seen you in the past express yr views about yr low opinion of extremist settlers like the ones in Hebron, why are you now behaving as though me pointing out that they're not the sort of people who are interested in coexisting peacefully with Palestinians is just being mean and picking on them coz of their politics? Their politics is every bit as unacceptable as that of groups like Hamas...

Violet...

[pelsar]

50. there is a principle involved

of course the hebron settlers have no interest in co existing with the palestenains...i just prefer they stay there within the palestenain state....


ok....because they have a right to live there, if the house were bought legally etc..just as all extremists and non extremists have that right, be it hamas, islamic jihad, israeli arabs (northern branch of the muslim brotherhood to be exact....), kahna jews.....same principle exists for all. It doesnt matter what my personal opinion of them are.

(however a palestenain state with its laws would do them some good)

[Violet_Crumble]

51. What principle??

The exact same principle that'd apply if it were Hamas members living in illegal settlements in Israel? You've got to be joking....

Violet...

[pelsar]

52. the confusion.....

if those homes in hebron were bought via legal means...then they have the right to live there no matter who the governing power is. I actually dont know the games they played to buy the homes, it may have been legal, maybe not.

and that would apply to hamasnikim...if they bought homes in Tel Aviv and the hostilities ended...and went through the immigration procedures or whatever the legal/negotiations ended with, then they stay.

the settlers cant be tossed out on the basis of their political view.......thats all.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Pelsar, the West Bank is occupied by Israel...

This isn't a case of a normal real estate transaction. And I think you'd better rethink this claim of yrs that if homes are legally purchased then people have a right to live there no matter who the governing power is, coz there's a lot of Palestinians who had homes that were legally purchased in what became Israel who were not allowed to return to their homes....

"and that would apply to hamasnikim...if they bought homes in Tel Aviv and the hostilities ended...and went through the immigration procedures or whatever the legal/negotiations ended with, then they stay."

Yr applying completely different standards now. *If, if, if* when it comes to the reverse situation ever occurring, but you don't supply those same ifs when it comes to the Hebron settlers. They are violent people who attack and terrorise the Palestinians of Hebron, and if they behaved that way in any country, they'd be deported so quick they wouldn't have time to blink....

Personally I find this whole thing amusing as if the situations were reversed and this was a bunch of Palestinian extremists in an Israel that was occupied by the Palestinians, I'm 110% certain that there'd be no attempts to argue that they have any right to be there, let alone 'purchasing' real estate from the people who are under occupation....

Violet...

[pelsar]

58. the difference between the legal right and the political right....

if the settlers bought the homes, they have the right, so to do the palestenians who lost their homes in 48. If and when a settlement is reached those palestenians who lost their homes should be compensated. So too with the settlers (i'm talking hebron, not those settlements that were built from nothing).

Sure they are violent people....and if the PA wants to deport them they can using whatever legal means they have. I would argue the same if the situation was reversed.

the problem with "playing with rights"....as in the cartoons and now in property rights of "violent people"..is that one gets to bend the rules depending upon a certain political viewpoint, and theres no end to those "bends"

[idontwantaname]

57. legal maybe... fair no.

legally under oslo the IDF is "suppose to" control (whatever that means) part of historic downtwon hebron. for matters few know, they dont. they give way to personal religious interests... political interests or general disconcern for "the other race".

the settlers who live in hebron are THE most extreme of the extreme. ariel is a preschool compared to these folks. additionally the fact of the matter is that the state of israel would never allow a muslim religious zealot to enter the state of israel let along own property. it would never happen.

as it stands in my book(if it mattered) there are good settlers and there are bad ones. the good ones make peaceful coexistance possible... theyre not a myth, theyre out there and their palestinian neighbors know who is hostile and who is not.

the bad settlers, those who live in the southern west bank region, and near nablus are the kind which will make coexistance impossible. on a dialy basis they actively do their part to make peace impossible. those who support or make excuses of this activity need to be aware of what and who they are supporting.

ps-it just happens pelsar im replying to your post but this is really directed towards everyone else. i hope they read it.

[pelsar]

59. muslims zealots own property in israel....

they're israelis and have the rights...whether or not a "foreign muslim extremist" owns property I dont know. One could argue the temple mount is owned by extremists. No doubt if it happened say by a hamasnik foreigner buying land in TA it would cause an uproar and the ensuing debate would go to the supreme court...but thats is exactly the process that the PA should be going through with the settlers...assuming a settlement etc.


and i would argue that they have the right...

btw its easy playing "liberal" on the computer...the reality of the hebron settlers i know is far uglier ...and i do believe my opinion about them is pretty clear.

[barb162]

31. How do you know if the people who bought this house are not

conforming to the current laws?

[not systems]

33. They are Israeli and...

Israel is militarily occupying the area so the are
not conforming with law.

I'm not interested in giving remedial international law lesion to
ultra-nationalists who don't recognize the rule of law when it is
counter to their nationalistic aims so trust me it is not legal to
conqueror an area and then colonize it.

[barb162]

30. Well that's exactly it. Jews were there continuously for thousands

of years except from the violent 1929 Arab pogrom to 1967 apparently. Is it colonization if people have historic claims to the land; that's like saying the Native American people would be colonizing Los Angeles if they bought a house there.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/hebron.html
snip"Hebron is the site of the oldest Jewish community in the world, which dates back to Biblical times. The Book of Genesis relates that Abraham purchased the field where the Tomb of the Patriarchs is located as a burial place for his wife Sarah. According to Jewish tradition, the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the Matriarchs Sarah, Rebekah, and Leah are buried in the Tomb.

Hebron has a long and rich Jewish history. It was one of the first places where the Patriarch Abraham resided after his arrival in Canaan. King David was anointed in Hebron, where he reigned for seven years. One thousand years later, during the first Jewish revolt against the Romans, the city was the scene of extensive fighting. Jews lived in Hebron almost continuously throughout the Byzantine, Arab, Mameluke, and Ottoman periods. It was only in 1929 — as a result of a murderous Arab pogrom in which 67 Jews were murdered and the remainder were forced to flee — that the city became temporarily "free" of Jews. After the 1967 Six-Day War, the Jewish community of Hebron was re-established. It has grown to include a range of religious and educational institutions."snip

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Last time I checked Native Americans were citizens of America...

Palestinians aren't citizens of Israel which is the occupying power...

Not sure why yr copying and pasting stuff from the jewish virtual library as it has nothing to do with the fact that the West Bank is occupied by Israel and nothing justifies the continued presence and behaviour of the Hebron settlers...

Violet...

[Phx_Dem]

44. I think the poster was referring to the fact

that many NAs buy property off the reservation, does not mean that they are extending the boundaries of the res. Most NAs are citizens of the US but also members of a sovereign tribe.

EDIT: PS I really liked the article from the New Yorker, thanks for posting it.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. But those reservations are part of the US...

And barb is trying to use some sort of argument where we're supposed to ignore or deny that the West Bank is occupied by Israel, and not worry that the Palestinians under occupation aren't Israeli citizens. And it's the matter of the West Bank being occupied by Israel that makes barb's attempts to draw analogies with real estate deals between indigenous citizens of a state and other citizens of the same state an analogy that doesn't work...

Glad you liked the article. Those settlers in Hebron are a completely different breed of people than many settlers in the larger settlement blocs who are motivated by things that motivate most folk, like cheap housing and subsidies. The Hebron settlers are motivated by religious fundamentalism and hatred (those two things go hand in hand so often)...

Violet...

[Phx_Dem]

53. Yea, she makes an interesting argument.

Obviously if the current settlers in Hebron are moving into another building the intent is pretty clear. Still, it is a strange world we live in when economic activity like this is considered a "bad thing". IMO, People should be able to live where they want, assuming that they follow the local laws.


"Glad you liked the article. Those settlers in Hebron are a completely different breed of people than many settlers in the larger settlement blocs who are motivated by things that motivate most folk, like cheap housing and subsidies. The Hebron settlers are motivated by religious fundamentalism and hatred (those two things go hand in hand so often)..."


The Settlers in Hebron are racists, they were racists when they lived in NY and they are racists still. They represent a minority of settlers, as you said, most setters are there for economic reasons.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. Nah, she made no argument at all...

Just a pointed ignoring of the fact that the West Bank is under Israeli occupation and that normal doesn't apply to what citizens of an occupying power do there. Occupying powers have always carried out economic activity in areas they occupy, and much of that economic activity wasn't a good thing at all as it more often than not involved exploiting the resources and people of the occupied territory. The 'local laws' that apply in the West Bank are Israeli military law. That law doesn't respect the right of Palestinians to live where they want as the longstanding practice of destroying their homes attests to...

Violet...

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[not systems]

34. Generally supporting radical illegal settlers is ...

not a progressive action.

But it is obvious that blind nationalism overtakes
respect for international law in many Americans with
ethnic factional loyalties. Raising money for extremists
then defending their illegal actions is not a very good
thing to do.

Yet many Americans do just that.

[Scurrilous]

3. Violet's link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=119955&mesg_id=120456


AMONG THE SETTLERS

<snip>

"A group of yeshiva students appeared, walking in the direction of the Tomb of the Patriarchs, a two-thousand-year-old stone palace. It sits atop the cave in which, tradition holds, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their wives are buried. It is because of the tomb that Hebron is considered a holy city. The yeshiva boys wore flannel shirts and jeans. They had the wispy beards of young men who have never shaved.

Two Arab girls, their heads covered by scarves, books clutched to their chests, left the Córdoba School, and were walking toward the yeshiva boys.

“Cunts!” one of the boys yelled, in Arabic.

“Do you let your brothers fuck you?” another one yelled. I stopped one of the students and asked why he was cursing the girls. He was red-faced, and his black hair was covered with a blue knit skullcap.

“What are you, a goy?” he asked.

The girls fled down the street, and the boys disappeared. I asked the soldier guarding Hadassah House why he hadn’t intervened. “They didn’t hurt them,” he said."

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/040531fa_fact2_a


What's the problem...noone's getting hurt. Right?

[Coastie for Truth]

4. That's the way the Haredi talk to Jews too

They called my wife a harlot- said "Cover your elbows and calves, Harlot."

A bunch of Ycchs.

But when I was a kid, the Irish kids on the next block called us "Christ killers" during Holy Week.

Sticks and stones may break my bones
But names will never hurt me

[cali]

5. There's a lot wrong with it.

It's a deliberately provocative act. All Israelis in Hebron should be relocated back to Israel.

[Coastie for Truth]

6. I have always felt that the IDF should quit protecting them.

Settling in Hebron is just plain provocative.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. They see the IDF as their own personal security company...

I'm sure it must cross the mind of some troops that they're having their lives put at risk to protect people who have a vision of an Israeli state that does not include democracy or secularism. Those settlers are as much an enemy of Israel as any Palestinian militant...

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

14. That is why there is a growing number of refuseniks,

a growing number of conscripts seeking "conscientious objector" status, and a growing level of "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" in the IDF.

The incidence of PTSD is extremely high among conscripts, veterans, Palestinian kids, and Israeli kids -- all sides, all communities, and all segments of society. A lot of the reported studies have been carried out by Bleich (Sackler School of Medicine of Tel Aviv Univ) and by Solomon (Shappel School of Social Work of Tel Aviv University).

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Yeah, that's been going on for a few years....

I remember reading an article posted not long after I first joined DU back in 2002 about this. If I get time I'll dig up my link to the old DU and try and track it down so you can read it....

Violet...

p.s. found it.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5762&forum=DCForumID30&archive=yes

[Phx_Dem]

26. so it's relocation eh?

does not matter to you that jews have been living in Hebron continuously for 2000 plus years? Why is it "relocation" and not "ethnic cleansing"

[Lithos]

36. Hebron

I think has not been continuously inhabited by Jews for 2000 years, I think there was a critical gap during 1929 to well past 1967 where Jews did not live in the city either because of threats or because they were simply not permitted. .

There was a rather violent massacre in 1929 where most of the inhabitants were killed. The survivors resettled elsewhere. When tensions started rising again in 1936, the British evicted those few who had returned. After 1948, the Jordanians prohibited Jews from living in the city. After 1967, this restriction was maintained by the Israeli government. So, it is probably easy to say that most, if not all, of the settlers who now live in Hebron are not descended from the original settlers of 1929 and have recently moved into the area.

L-

[Phx_Dem]

43. I realize that

but the jews living there were killed. If they hadn't they and their decendents whould still be there. I should have been more concise.

[Lithos]

47. I believe there is a difference

Most of the new, extremist, settlers are probably Ashkenazi and not Sephardi who are the people who lived in Hebron during the time frame you talked about above and probably formed the bulk of those murdered. (Note: for honesty's sake, there were Askhenazi who settled between in Hebron in the first few Aliyah prior to 1929, but these few families likely only settled there a handful of years at best and I think are the exception to the rule).

[Scurrilous]

60. IDF to settlers: Evacuate Hebron building

Settlers claim they rented abandoned building in city, but security forces discover rental documents illegal

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3245628,00.html

<snip>

"The IDF on Sunday notified settlers who entered an abandoned building near the Hebron neighborhood of Avraham Avinu that they must evacuate the place within ten days or be evacuated by security forces.

Two weeks ago, nine settlers entered an abandoned building in the city after presenting documents indicating that they are renting the
place. The settlers presented the army and civil administration representatives who arrived at the site with permits claiming that they rented the place.

In the past few days, the documents were examined both by the police and the State Prosecutor's Office. Defense establishment officials later claimed that the documents were illegal and that the settlers invaded the building. Simultaneously, a number of Palestinians approached security forces and claimed that the house belonged to them."