Avskaffa Israel?

The Israeli Police’s internal affairs unit plans to close its investigation into the officer who was filmed shooting and killing Kheir Hamdan in Kafr Kanna last year, according to a Channel 10 report.

The shooting led to days of rioting and clashes with police last November when video of the incident surfaced hours after police put out a short statement saying they had fired a warning shot and believed their lives were in danger. The video showed Hamdan attempting to flee when he was shot, and appeared to show no warning shot.

http://972mag.com/justice-unlikely-in-deadly-kafr-kanna-police-shooting/105506/

The 74-page report, “Ripe for Abuse: Palestinian Child Labor in Israeli Agricultural Settlements in the West Bank,” documents that children as young as 11 work on some settlement farms, often in high temperatures. The children carry heavy loads, are exposed to hazardous pesticides, and in some cases have to pay themselves for medical treatment for work-related injuries or illness.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/13/israel-settlement-agriculture-harms-palestinian-children-0

Another factor underlying abuses against Palestinian children in settlements are Israel’s policies that severely restrict the traditional Palestinian economic activity in the Jordan Valley – agriculture – while supporting settlement agriculture. An Israeli military order revoked Palestinians’ role in planning and zoning in the 61 percent of the West Bank under exclusive Israeli control, including most of the Jordan Valley, but settlers enjoy a different, preferential zoning regime and are represented on planning bodies. (About 30 percent of the land area of the West Bank lies in the Jordan Valley and Dead Sea areas.) About 80,000 Palestinians live in the Jordan Valley, comprising almost 90 percent of its population, but Israeli restrictions on the movement of Palestinians mean that more than 94 percent of the Jordan Valley is off-limits to Palestinian land use. By contrast, Israel has allocated about 86 percent of the land in the Jordan Valley to the jurisdiction of settlement regional councils, which look after the interests of the 9,500 settlers who reside in the Valley.

An Israeli group critical of land use by Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Kerem Navot, documented that even after Israel had allocated large tracts of land to agricultural settlements in the Jordan Valley in the 1970s and 80s, the amount of land cultivated by those settlements grew by an additional 16 percent from 1997 to 2012; meanwhile, some Palestinians in the Jordan Valley pay rent to settlers to use farmland that Israel unlawfully appropriated without compensation and transferred to the settlements for free.

The amount of water provided to the Israeli settlers in the Jordan Valley by Israeli wells there, operated by the Israeli national water carrier, is one-quarter of the water supply of the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank. The World Bank reported in 2013 that Israeli restrictions on Palestinians’ ability to irrigate agricultural land and to export crops cost the Palestinian economy US $704 million per year, and that the Palestinian agricultural sector in the West Bank in 2013 employed fewer people and generated less revenue than it had 15 years previously. According to World Bank data, poverty rates in Palestinian localities in the Jordan Valley are among the highest in the West Bank, at between 28.2 and 33.5 percent.

Israeli restrictions on Palestinian land-use, freedom of movement, and market access, have generated unemployment and poverty in the Jordan Valley and the rest of the occupied West Bank, and left few opportunities for hundreds of Palestinian families other than to send their children to work on the farms of illegal settlements, where many of their parents also work. Knowing that families rely on the work, Israeli settler employers exploit Palestinian workers, including children, while Israel turns a blind eye.

“I’m not seeking the solution, I am looking for a way to manage the conflict and the relations in a way that strengthens our interests,” Ya’alon said in an interview with Israel Hayom. “We need to free ourselves of the conception that everything will enter the framework of a state. From my perspective, let them call it the Palestinian empire. What do I care? It’s autonomy — if it ends up being a demilitarized area. It’s not the status quo, it’s creating a tolerable modus vivendi that will serve our interests.”

Asked about the phrase “two-state solution,” Ya’alon said: “Call it what you will.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/yaalon-palestinians-will-have-autonomy-not-statehood/

I believe this is the view of most of the Israeli establishment right now. But Ya’alon, as Secretary Kerry learned last year, has a habit of saying what others around him are thinking.

---

What is interesting in the above quote is the light it sheds on the idea of a Palestinian state: Netanyahu and his government were willing to sign onto something that would be called a state (they can call it the Palestinian Empire for all Ya’alon cares), but never an independent state, the way the world understand this term. So even if the Kerry process would have ended with an agreement, it could not have ended the occupation. And nothing the Palestinians say or do can change that.

Yariv Oppenheimer, the head of Peace Now, has called the move a “stab in the back … proving again that violence delivers Israeli concessions while nonviolence results in settlement expansion.”

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/land-grab-shows-netanyahu-unbowed-after-gaza-1400705115

Beinart: Yes, this is a problem, though we must note that while there has been a decline of violence from the West Bank, there does continue to be violence toward southern Israel coming from Gaza, which has been traumatic for people who live there. I agree with you that it is worrisome that the Netanyahu government’s unwillingness to negotiate toward a Palestinian state or to stop settlement construction to make negotiations possible contributes to undermining Abbas and does make it easier for Hamas to say “the Israeli only understand violence.” That is a tragic logic that can only make things worse for both sides. I still take some hope from the fact that Olmert, raised in the revisionist movement and deeply infused with its worldview, was able to make the generous offers that he made to Abbas which in some respects went considerably further than the Labor Party was prepared to go in the 1990s.

http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/building-a-jewish-and-democratic-state-a-conversation-with-peter-beinart

When asked whether the state of Israel should privilege its Jewish identity or its democratic one, only 24 percent of Israeli Jews said "both." That is a precipitous decline from 48 percent in 2010. Israeli Jews, then, increasingly see those two ideas as in tension. The idea that Israel can be both is now held by less than a quarter of Israeli Jews. They know a choice is coming.

---

In other words, Jewish Israelis express an abstract desire for democracy, but do not support enacting it in practice. Rather, they want a state that gives Jews greater political rights and authority.

---

While most Israeli voters oppose anything as extreme as annexation, they by and large support Netanyahu's approach of maintaining the status quo. About one-third of Israelis voted in 2014 for a political party that officially rejects a Palestinian state. While large numbers of Israelis say they desire a peace deal in theory, most oppose the most basic concessions that would be necessary to achieve one.

---

"This is something the Palestinians had been saying for a long time: it's actually irrational for the Israelis to change anything right now," Nathan Thrall, a Jerusalem-based analyst with the International Crisis Group, told me. "The costs of the occupation are very low."

---

"Perpetuating the status quo is the most frightening of the possibilities," Thrall said. "The status quo isn't stasis — it's steadily making it more difficult to withdraw in the future, and certainly making it more costly to withdraw."

---

"Among Palestinians, the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority is at a real nadir," Thrall said. He warned that rapidly growing numbers of Palestinians are questioning the "entire Oslo structure" of partial Palestinian self-rule under the Israeli occupation. "More are arguing that it's not worth it," he said. "Their voices are getting louder."

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/13/8390387/israel-dark-future

--- I've said before and I'll simply repeat: Prime Minister Netanyahu, in the election run-up, stated that a Palestinian state would not occur while he was Prime Minister. And I took him at his word that that's what he meant, and I think that a lot of voters inside of Israel understood him to be saying that fairly unequivocally.

Afterwards, he pointed out that he didn’t say “never,” but that there would be a series of conditions in which a Palestinian state could potentially be created. But, of course, the conditions were such that they would be impossible to meet anytime soon. So even if you accepted, I think, the corrective of Prime Minister Netanyahu in subsequent days, there still does not appear to be a prospect of a meaningful framework established that would lead to a Palestinian state even if there were a whole range of conditions and security requirements that might be phased in over a long period of time -- which was always the presumption.

---

And I think -- it's not just my estimation -- I think it’s hard to envision how that happens based on the Prime Minister’s statements. And so, when I said that we have to now do an evaluation of where we are, it's not in reference to our commitment to Israel’s military edge in the region, Israel’s security, our intelligence cooperation, our military cooperation. That continues unabated. And I will continue to do whatever I need to do to make sure that our friends in Israel are safe. That's what I've done since I've been President, and that's not going to stop. And so the Israeli people need to know that.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/24/remarks-president-obama-and-president-ghani-afghanistan-joint-press-conf

Leading figures in Washington's pro-Israel community are calling on the Obama administration to turn down the temperature.

---

"The fact that the outcome of a Democratic election in Israel seems to be of great concern" to the Obama administration, said David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, "is cause for deep anxiety and puzzlement."

"Whatever the failings of the prime minister, the way this is unfolding runs completely contrary to the spirit of US-Israel relations," Harris said. "The US appears to have a reasoned interest in prolonging the crisis."

---

"As someone who was critical of several steps by [Netanyahu] during the campaign leading up to his re-election," said Abe Foxman, longtime national director of the Anti-Defamation League, "I am even more troubled by statements now coming out of the White House."

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Jewish-establishment-sounds-alarm-as-White-House-rhetoric-intensifies-394978

Var de kommer från är knappast relevant. Det finns en halv miljon bosättare på ockuperad mark. Bosättarnas motiv är religiösa, det är som sagt inte rationellt av andra skäl att bosätta sig nära fienden där det dessutom saknas infrastruktur. Staten godkänner bosättningarna och har kontinuerligt gjort så sedan 1967. Israel är dessutom demokratiskt vilket innebär att besluten generellt har förankring hos en majoritet av befolkningen, oavsett om majoriteten är religiösa extremister eller inte.

Bosättningarna har funnits åtminstone sedan 1967 men Hamas har inte suttit vid makten så länge. Resten av världen ser med avsmak på bosättarrörelsen, men inte USA. Vad kan det bero på tror du?

För att Tyskland startade kriget förstås. Det vore en rimlig eftergift av det land som var skyldigt till förintelsen, mycket bättre än att skapa en konflikthärd i mellanöstern. Inga av dödslägren fanns i Tyskland. Dessutom har Tyskland sedan kriget haft mycket goda relationer till Israel.

Varför skulle de redan bofasta acceptera att någon annan kommer dit och fördriver dem? Om en samisk stat skulle utropas i ett visst område måste naturligtvis icke-samer boende i sagda område ha precis lika mycket makt över åtgärden som samerna. En folkomröstning hos de redan bofasta är det enda rimliga i en sådan situation, och ett utropande av en stat måste i så fall inkludera alla som redan bor där.

Det fetmarkerade får du gärna utveckla. Att israels karaktär som judisk stat skulle hotas av återvändande araber har, vad jag vet, inte med att de är just araber att göra utan det faktum att de inte är judar. Om jag, som är etniskt svensk och icke-jude, skulle invandra till israel försvagar jag denna "judiska karaktär".

Vad gäller din semantiska lek så är det skillnad på ett område som saknar eget styre och ett land som faktiskt har ett styre.

Området beboddes av Araber och Judar.

Först delades Palestina längs med jordanfloden och transjordanien skapades för araber, nuvarande Jordan. Väster om Jordanfloden var judarnas.

Vad gäller mord och fördrivning.
I staten Israel har araberna inte förföljts som du kan tolkas ha sagt. De är fullvärdiga medborgare och sitter i Israels regering.

Vad gäller det du kallar förföljelse av araber, handlar det enbart om terrorister som fört aktioner mot
Israel.

OM du påstår att Israel inte överlämnat Gaza och Västbanken till ett arabiskt självstyre efter de avhyste okupanterna som tagit området, då drömmer du rejält.

En stor skillnad i området. Araberna förföljde och jagade ut judar ur arabiska delarna av Palestina. Judarna har inte förföljt araber som bor i Israeliska delen av palestina.Visar rätt klart vilken sida som bör ha kontroll på området, araberna har diskvalificerat sig själva gång på gång.

För att USA kommer ihåg hur det såg ut innan 1967 när arabledarna kunde gå runt och säga att de skulle slakta alla judar och skratta gott när de frågades om varför de inte erkände staten Israel. Jag fattar att du tycker att Israel är roten till allt ont men om du fördjupar dig i ämnet så ser du att araberna inte började acceptera Israel förrän det började framgå att de inte kunde utplåna dem.

Tyskland startade kriget p.g.a uppföljelsen till första världskriget som behandlade Tyskland som aggressionsparten vilket Tyskland inte var. Så att straffa Tyskland för AVK när det var Storbritannien som nästan enhälligt provocerade fram första världskriget är något som de flesta historiker fattar är vanskligt. Hört talas om Marshall-hjälpen?

Det handlar inte om att fördriva personer som redan bor där som accepterar invandrare, det handlar om att fördriva personer som INTE accepterar invandrare. I fallet Israel är det enkelt, arabvärlden ger upp ett område motsvarande ungefär Skåne och Blekinge i utbyte mot internationell prestige. Det är ungefär som att USA ger upp en tiondels av Dakotas till urinvånarna som inte har någon annanstans att ta vägen. Varför måste allt vara så jävla skitnödigt hela tiden, varför kan folk inte anpassa sig lite? Om det finns en folkgrupp som är utsatta för förföljelser och folkmord, varför inte låta dem bo på samma ställe där de kan försvara sig? Vad är det du inte begriper? Och vad är så fel med att tvinga araberna att upplåta ett par kvadratkilometer till Israel när de äger tusentals gånger mer?

Fast det är bara så för att arabvärlden har en assimileringsstruktur motsvarande Borg i Star Trek. Israels policys är i högsta grad satta som motpoler till de allmäna arabiska sätten att försöka utplåna Israel och assimilering är en del av det. Palestinier har i många år skaffat fler barn än vad de behöver i syfte att använda dem som självmordsbombare. De uppfostrar dem från start att bli självmordsbombare. De använder barnsoldater från omkring fem års ålder. När man har att göra med personer som hatar Israel och kanske inte ens kommer ihåg namnen på sina ungar kan man inte låta dem komma in i landet med förbivändningen att "de bodde här en gång i tiden men kan inte bevisa det".