Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

Police brings down Palestinian outpost, activists resist peacefully

The “Bab Al-Shams” camp, E1 area, January 12, 2013. (photo: Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

UPDATE, 8:30 a.m.: Mass police and army forces evacuated Bab Al-Shams overnight, following a statement made by the prosecuter general stating that the outpost is an immediate threat to the security of the region. Hundreds of soldiers and police detained the dozens of activists present, who resisted the eviction non-violently, and put them on busses to Qalandiya checkpoint. The tents have remained in Bab Al-Shams, and authorities are waiting on the High Court to rule on whether or not they too can be brought down. The heart of the legal controversy is whether or not Bab Al-Shams was built on private lands (which would make the immediate eviction illegal), or on state lands. According to Haaretz, most of the lands where Bab Al-Shams was built are owned by Palestinians.

Original report from last night:

Less than two days after the new Palestinian outpost-village, Bab Al-Shams, was set up in the E1 area outside Jerusalem, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered authorities to evict the activists and dismantle the tents.

Following Netanyahu’s order, police forces arrived on the scene and told activists that the High Court injunction actually only protects the tents from dismantling, but does not forbid eviction of their residents. The activists, who were warned to leave before force would be used against them, vowed to stay put, stating that they would resist eviction non-violently. The state is also expected to ask the High Court to reconsider its temporary injunction, on the premise that the land where Bab Al-Shams was erected is privately owned by Palestinians, and that the village is meant to serve as a tourist attraction which teaches visitors about Bedouin culture. The court is likely to look into the case tomorrow.

Furthermore, journalists have been barred from entering Bab Al-Shams by Israeli security forces. Haaretz is planning to appeal the decision to the High Court of Justice.

Bab Al-Shams has been at the center of the news in Israel– an event which is quite out of the ordinary considering the Israeli media’s treatment of Palestinian popular non-violent resistance. Netanyahu’s swift call to action on the matter has also gained much attention, and has been described by critics as racist due to the government’s ongoing support for settlement building.

Facebook persona John Brown has illustrated the bias inherent to Israel’s official policy by posting this picture, with following caption: “Today: PM orders to evict the Palestinian outpost in E1. Tuesday: PM visits illegal ‘Rachelim’ outpost after legalizing it to compensate settlers for another theft gone wrong.”

“Today: PM orders to evict the Palestinian outpost in E1. Tuesday: PM visits illegal ‘Rachelim’ outpost after legalizing it to compensate settlers for another theft gone wrong.” (Meme by John Brown)

At around 10:00 p.m. security forces were reportedly assembling outside Bab Al-Shams. Activists fear a nightly attack.

Read more:

Palestinians build ‘settlement’ near Jerusalem, receive eviction orders from Border Police

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. aristeides

      Evil loves the cover of darkness.

      Reply to Comment
    2. directrob

      How can this be an outpost or a settlement (even when you use quotes)?

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        Because it IS outpost and settlement, disregarding of how some people would prefer to call it.

        Exactly as Israeli Arabs are Israeli Arabs, and not Israeli Palestinians.

        Reply to Comment
        • directrob

          Just now BBC World was sending a documentary about the sports boycot of South Africa, under it the rollig banner showed this news.

          On their web site the BBC does not use “settlement” or “outpost”, the same is true for CNN. They call it “Palestinian protest camp”.

          I think Haggai should avoid the terms “settlements” or “outposts” precisely because you think those are correct.

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            BBC and CNN can use whatever terms they please – it is of a very little interest and even lesser consequences.

            >I think Haggai should avoid the terms “settlements” or “outposts” precisely because you think those are correct.

            Hilarious.

            Reply to Comment
        • Er

          Israeli Palestinians decide how they will be referred to. No one else’s opinion counts. Get over it.

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            “Israeli Palestinian” is an oxymoron, like “Netherlander Batavian” or “Moldovan Bessarabian”

            You see, Palestine is toponym – name of place, there was/is no “Palestinian People” in a sense of homogenous nation.

            Before 1948 EVERYONE who resided within Palestine, including Jews, Arabs, Druze, Armenians, Circassians, Samaritans and others were referred to as “Palestinian”

            After 1948 those who received Israeli citizenship turned into Israeli Jews, Arabs, Druze, Armenians, Circassians, Samaritans etc. while those who were unlucky enough to live in territories not included into Israel remained Palestinian Arabs, Druze, Samaritans and such.

            Reply to Comment
          • rsgengland

            Before 1948, to call an Arab a Palestinian was a mortal sin.
            As far as the Arabs were concerned, they were Arabs, and wanted to be a
            part of, or province, of Syria.
            When my father served or visited Palestine during the Second World War, he was always warned on entering the area never to address the Arabs as Palestian.
            The only Palestinians then were Jewish.

            Reply to Comment
          • Levi

            >“Israeli Palestinian” is an oxymoron, like “Netherlander Batavian” or “Moldovan Bessarabian”

            You mean oymoron like in “thinking Trespasser”?
            True

            Reply to Comment
    3. One point of actions like this is to test the boundaries of Israeli jurisprudence. While the Court injunction might have refered solely to the structures, I suspect the Justice(s) ordering it presumed this meant action against the residents therein as well. What Bibi is doing is saying the Executive determines matters of population control in the Bank. A night raid, if it eventuates, removing residents is a direct presumption of Court authority; the rational path would be to ask clarification of the order. (Perhaps a relatively liberal Justice or set of same happened to get the case initially).

      Similarly, the IDF, by preventing reporters to enter the tent area, is demarcating the boundary of journalistic freedom, and so free speech and press overall.

      I hope Palestinian activists understand that their actions, if well devised, can create constitutional battles within Israel, and such are necessary to ever change the present socio-political landscape. From what 972 has reported, this action is indeed well devised, especially so if those holding title to the land assent to the tent residence. You will be “wrong” in Israeli constitutional law until you are not; that not will require Justices who are fed up with unilateral action by the Executive.

      I hope faith in nonviolence endures. Losing is part of nonviolence, but losing while uphold nonviolence can open new possibilities of action later. Whatever happens, I pray that some advance will be discerned from this remarkable step.

      I cannot really fathom what it must be like to live ones life wonder what resistence is and how it can be activated. You have to live with the opponent. This isn’t a video game. Adulthood is reached in this world of wondering what one is and can be. Refusing to see all this as a conflict of races, I instead see people facing a mean reality and saying they will make it better. Outside aid from the world cannot replace the lived understanding within that world. When change comes, it will be from you, not those looking in.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Berl

      They are Palestinians of Israeli citizenship. So they are 100% Israeli-Palestinians, no matter what you or your politicians wish for.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        They can call themselves Martian gerbils for all I care. They are Arabs and never have been Palestinians, so they can’t actually be Palestinians.

        Reply to Comment
    5. David

      When Israeli Jews create illegal camps there is almost endless procrastination by the authorities enabling these outposts often to become permanent. Quite the contrast with the swift evacuation of the Palestinians. May the Palestinians continue with many more bab al shams. Massive non violent civil disobedience can clearly display the ugliness of Israel’s colonial occupation and demonstrate which side is obstructing the possibility of a two state solution.

      Reply to Comment
    6. aristeides

      Once again, Israel demonstrates that nonviolence will never be effective in the Palestinian struggle.

      Reply to Comment
      • Haifawi

        No, what’s effective is nonviolence with the THREAT of violence (good cop, bad cop). That’s why Palestinian unity is so important. Fatah can be to Israel, “listen, help me collaborate with you or else my partner is gonna odrob odrob Tel Aviv”

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          You are obviously right. Ariesteidies apparently forgot that 20+ years of violence yielded only negative results.

          The problem is with the unity of course.

          Why is it a problems?
          The main reason IMO is the lack of clear goal.
          You guys and gals have to decide what is the ultimate goal of the Palestinian struggle.

          Is it to establish the Palestinian state? Or to liberate entire Palestine?

          I do personally believe that it is the latter.
          Which one do you believe it is?

          Reply to Comment
        • rsgengland

          Besides the targeting of Tel Aviv by Hamas, which is a WAR CRIME, Iron Dome intercepted and protected Israel.
          If it were not for Iron Domes’ success, there would have had to be a land war.
          Happily Iron Dome saved Israel from the costs and dangers of a land war.
          If it makes you happy, continue to think that Hamas won.
          In the real world Israel did not lose.
          Financially, Humanitarianly, Diplomaticly

          Reply to Comment
          • Bryan Bastille

            Truly, it is nothing short of delusional to think that Hamas “won” the latest conflagration in Gaza, and I (unlike others here) say this as a firm supporter of the Palestinian struggle.

            It’s also true that a lack of unity on the Palestinian side is a major problem. Israel has been quite successful in promoting Palestinian disunity, and the leaderships of both Fatah and Hamas have obliged them in this.

            Reply to Comment
    7. berl

      Kolumn they are more Palestinians than you Israeli

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        Since they have never been Palestinians and I am most certainly Israeli, I find this hard difficult to imagine. They are Israelis and they are Arabs. They can reject Israeli citizenship and still remain Arabs. They can eventually receive Palestinian citizenship at which point they can be Palestinian. Until then, they are not.

        Reply to Comment
    8. berl

      kolumn, again, they are more Palestinians than you Israeli. They are from this region. You are from another continent

      Reply to Comment
      • Arieh

        Berl
        “They are from this region. You are from another continent”

        The Jew is always the outsider, right?

        Prior to Israel, the antisemites used to say: “Go back to Palestine”. Now they say, like you, go back to another continent.

        By the way, how many generations does one have to be in Israel before you will consider us too to be natives? Just asking Berl.

        Reply to Comment
        • berl

          Arieh, I found it strange that you focus on my sentence instead of explaining to Kolumn that to write that “they have never been Palestinians” is problematic.
          .
          As for your question, the Jews that were already here before Zionism were from this region. The one that arrived and are still arriving from other continents can live on this land if they respect the other, if they don’t justify the colonization of the last piece of land that is in the hand of the population that until the first decade of the XX century represented the 9/10th of the total population, and, most of all, if they don’t try to claim that they have more rights then the persons that were already on the spot. Clear now?

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >if they respect the other

            And what if “other” does not respect them?

            Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        And I repeat. Israeli Arabs have never been Palestinians. Until the late 1960s even the ‘Palestinians’ didn’t call themselves ‘Palestinians’. It makes absolutely no sense for Israeli Arabs to retroactively be classified as Palestinians.

        Reply to Comment
    9. berl

      If you would be able to read arabic you could find thousands of expressions such as “the Palestinian nation” (al-umma al-Filistiniyya) in Filastin and on the other Palestinian journals of the first years of the XX century.
      You can find the same terms in official documents produced by many international jurists in that very same years: “….Palestinians and Trans-Jordanians are foreigners and therefore Trans-Jordan must be regarded as a foreign state in relation to Palestine” (18 april 1925, Eugène Borel).
      .
      Moreover it does not matter how the local people called itself. They knew that they were from this land. It was a problem of the people that were coming from other continents and not of the local population to define borders, names, flags…ect…
      .
      Again Kolumn, you are from another continent, they are from here.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        Berl, of course it matters what the local people called themselves because that is precisely what we are arguing about. If until 1948 the Arabs that now live in Israel didn’t think of themselves as Palestinians and they didn’t because that would be horrible treason when the prevailing tide was pan-Arabist (as was Filastin the newspaper itself) until 1967, and they were Israeli citizens from 1948 until now, then at what point does it make any sense to retroactively define them as Palestinians except in the very limited and modern narrative that is promulgated by various Palestinian authors?

        Your issue with continents is problematic too, because a very large number of Israeli Arabs came from Egypt or the Sudan in the early 20th century and you don’t seem to have a problem with assigning them local status. For example, the entire village of Jisr al-Zarqa is of Sudanese origin as are many Bedouin. So, what you are really saying has nothing to do with continents. You are just saying that Jews, unlike Arabs, have no place here.

        Reply to Comment
        • berl

          Kolum,
          “of course it matters what the local people called themselves because that is precisely what we are arguing about”: no, it is irrelevant. They knew that they were part of al-umma al-Filistiniyya but they didn’t have as a priority to create clear-cut borders or to yell: “I am a Palestinian!”. Let me quote Haim Gerber:
          “little used sources from the 17th and 18th centuries indicate some remarkable traces of awarness of territorial consciousness that deserve closer scrutiny. […] While I am fully aware that some may claim that such territorial concepts may simply refer to one’s native home, place of birth, a close reading of [Khayr al-Din] al-Ramli may suggest that there is something more to it, and that we are in fact looking at something that can only be called embryonic territorial awarness, though the referente is to social awarness rather than to a political one”
          .
          never ever pan-Arabist excluded the possibility of having other ways of selfpercetion. there had many overlapping ways of selfperciving themselves. no one excluded the other.
          .

          Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            They knew they were Arab-speaking Muslim or Christian citizens of the Ottoman Empire living in the villayet of Damascus in the Sanjak of Nablus or Jaffa or Gaza or Beer Sheva or whatever. The only people that had an idea, territorial or otherwise, of Palestine were Europeans and European missionaries who came in the 19th century. Their Greek Orthodox or Protestant students created pan-Arabism and Baathism, neither of which has much room for particularistic nationalisms for the Palestinians. Palestinian nationalism makes no sense under the Turks given the absence of ‘Palestine’ within any geographic borders and the definition of citizens based on religious grounds. Palestinian nationalism makes even less sense under the British given that ‘Palestine’ under the British contained both Zionist Jews and Arabs and the mobilization on the basis of particularly ‘Palestinian’ grounds would have made no sense given the absence of an existing ‘Palestinian’ ideology and ready appeal of pan-Arabism which ideologically ruled the Arab world up until 1967.

            The idea of a movement for an independent Palestinian state would have been considered treasonous by pan-Arabist ideology.

            Reply to Comment
    10. Berl

      Kolums,
      “because a very large number of Israeli Arabs came from Egypt or the Sudan in the early 20th century and you don’t seem to have a problem with assigning them local status”:
      this is basic propaganda. perhaps it works with your friends, not with me:
      .
      There were small groups of immigrants from areas outside Palestine. Among them, a group of Egyptians who settled in Palestine during the years when the region was under the rule of Muhammad Ali. Shortly after they arrived on site a small number of Bosnian immigrants, Algerian and Circassians, who you went to settle mainly in Galilee and the “border” with Lebanon. Unlike the Jews who arrived a few decades later with the Second and Third Aliyah – which through practices such as Avodah Ivrit opted for the exclusion and then the lack of integration with the local Arab population – these groups almost immediately went to integrate themselves with the natives
      .
      A Palestinian who moved to south Lebanon or a Lebanese who moved to Palestine – or a Syrian or a Jordanian, for that matter – is surely not a foreigner because he is part of the culture of the society of Bilad-al-Sham, or Greater Syria, where there were no borders between countries. Other minorities, even though they were neither Muslim nor Arab, were nonetheless part of that Arabo-Islamic culture. Jews, for instance, spoke Arabic. The same was true for Jews living in other Arab Islamic countries. Therefore, there is a big difference between them and foreigners who came from Europe, wether Christians or Jews. Its was common and natural for a Palestinian to go study in Al Azhar for instance, and remain there; or for a Hebronite merchant to go to Cairo and live there; or go to Damascus or other places, whether to study or to live..This was a natural phenomenon.
      .
      Again Kolumn, you are from another continent, they are from here.

      Reply to Comment
      • Arieh

        “Again Kolumn, you are from another continent”

        How do you know, Berl? Are you personally acquainted with Kolumn?

        Just asking.

        Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >Again Kolumn, you are from another continent, they are from here.

        Number of continents is depending on your educational system, silly.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Number_of_continents

        Argument dismissed. Come up with something more scientific. Like “You are not from this tectonic plate”

        Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        You wrote a long response, but really the active ingredient in your point of view is that this area is somehow inherently ‘Arabo-Islamic’ and Jews have no place here except under Arab/Muslim domination. You really could have written a much shorter response and demanded that all non-Arabs and non-Muslims be driven from the area to make it correspond to the way you wish it to be. I do wonder however how acording to your understanding of history this area got to be so exclusively ‘Arabo-Muslim’ in the first place.

        Reply to Comment
    11. berl

      Yes Trespasser, you dismissed the argument providing a lot of knowledge:-)
      .
      Arieh, how I know, is not your business. Again, I continue to find it very strange that you focus on my sentence instead of explaining to Kolumn that to write that “they have never been Palestinians” is problematic.
      .
      Contrary to Kolumn, I never claimed that Jews don’t have all the right to be here. I pointed out, providing arguments (like trespasser:-), that even people whose origins are from other continents can have the right to live on this land if they respect the other, if they don’t justify the colonization of the last piece of land that is in the hand of the population that until the first decade of the XX century represented the 9/10th of the total population, and, most of all, if they don’t try to claim that they have more rights then the persons that were already on the spot.

      Reply to Comment
      • Arieh

        Berl: “I pointed out giving arguments…”

        What you did not point out by giving arguments is why you consider column to be an outsider?

        Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        You are actually making an argument exclusively claiming ownership for the land for the Arabs or the ‘Arabo-Muslim’ culture, meaning that the only people that have the ‘right’ to live here according to you are those that submit to the diktats of whoever it is you choose as the expression of ‘Arabo-Muslim’ power. You do actually make the claim that Jews do not have all the rights here because you subjugate those rights to some vague standard determined by others who you have given exclusive right of ownership. In other words, you have relegated Jews to being guests in Judea. That is a fascinating argument indeed.

        Reply to Comment
    12. berl

      Kolumn don’t play the card of the victim with me. You are the person that does not recognize the rights, the history, the traditions and the identity of the other. Then, after that you wrote about “a very large number of Israeli Arabs” that came from abroad and other things that you know very superficially, you decided to play the card of the dove.
      If there is something that I dislike more than extremists pro-settlers like you are people that try to behave as a victim after that they realize that that is the only way that the have to say something convincing.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        Haha. You don’t like the implications of your own logic and decided to make a personal attack instead of putting up a defense. Look, if the implications of your own argument bother you, the problem is with your argument, not with me.

        Fact is that a large number of Arabs did come to the region in the 18th and 19th century. You practically admitted as much though you quibbled over the numbers. So, in order to accept them as ‘natives’ you were forced to grant exclusive ownership to the ‘Arabo-Muslim’ culture over the region. The logical implication of this is that anyone not a part of the ‘Arabo-Muslim’ culture is always going to be a foreigner who is only granted guest rights as long as they know ‘their’ place.

        Reply to Comment
    13. berl

      Arieh, again, I continue to find it very strange that you focus on my sentence instead of explaining to Kolumn that to write that “they have never been Palestinians” is problematic.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >writing that “they have never been Palestinians” is problematic.

        Not as problematic as claiming that the only true Palestinians are Palestinian Arabs.

        Reply to Comment
    14. berl

      “Haha”: happy that finally you have something to laugh about
      .
      “Fact is that a large number of Arabs did come to the region in the 18th and 19th century”:
      great, you understood perfectly what I wrote you:-)
      .
      “to grant exclusive ownership to the ‘Arabo-Muslim’ culture over the region”:
      never said that in my life. You know that you are weaker, so you put in my mouth your sentences.
      Jews have all the right to be here. The one that were already here have exactly the same rights than the local majority of the time. The one that came and are coming from other continents can live here, but only if they don’t justify the colonization of the last piece of land that is in the hand of the population that until the first decade of the XX century represented the 9/10th of the total population, and, most of all, if they don’t try to claim that they have more rights then the persons that were already on the spot.
      .
      now try again to put your words in my mouth.
      .
      in the role of a victim you look ridicolous. You are the person that wrote:
      - “They are Arabs and never have been Palestinians, so they can’t actually be Palestinians.”
      - “I don’t think there is anything wrong about them [settlements]”
      - “that is what happens when the tenants don’t realize it is time to share the land with the returning landlords”.
      - about pals in Israeli jail: “There is decent food and they are not eating it, so they are choosing to die for PR purposes. It is their choice and probably the only realistic way to remove this as a tactic in the future.”
      ..
      These are just few of your open-minded “thesis”. The fact that you try to portray me as an hawk is simply hilarious. You don’t have arguments and most of your comments show a superficial preparation; that’s the reason you try to make me appear as I am not.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        I never said I was open-minded. I am in fact highly insensitive, likely a racist and possibly a fascist and yet that has no bearing on the implications of your underlying argument. Notice that unlike you I am not making a personal attack on you. I am just pointing out the quite obvious logical ramifications. If you believe that these ramifications are unflattering to you personally, the fault lies with your positions, not with me. So, back to this:

        “Jews have all the right to be here. The one that were already here have exactly the same rights than the local majority of the time. The one that came and are coming from other continents can live here, but only if they don’t justify the colonization of the last piece of land that is in the hand of the population that until the first decade of the XX century represented the 9/10th of the total population, and, most of all, if they don’t try to claim that they have more rights then the persons that were already on the spot.”

        This again suggests that there is group in which you include some Jews, that is ‘the ones that were already here’, which by itself is a rather interesting and vague designation. In any case, this larger group according to whatever criteria you have determined has been assigned ownership status by you and in the same group you accept Arabs that arrived from Egypt and Syria on the basis of some kind of shared culture. In other words, you have granted exclusive ownership to a specific culture and you have done so above explicitly when referencing ‘Arabo-Muslim’ culture in rejecting newcomers from Arab countries as being ‘foreign’. Those that are not sufficiently of ‘Arabo-Muslim’ culture are then ‘foreigners’ whose rights are subject to being sufficiently subservient to the existing ‘Arabo-Muslim’ order. This is the gist of that paragraph.

        If there is an exclusive owner of a territory, which in your approach is Arabo-Muslim, then any other group is both foreign and can not possibly have the same rights since you have a priori assigned ownership already. So, everyone that isn’t a sufficiently subservient part of the Arabo-Muslim culture is a foreigner and their rights are subject to the approval of their Arabo-Muslim masters or whoever you deem legitimate representatives thereof. Everything here flows naturally from the arguments you have made above.

        In other words, your argument is practically identical to the one that a fanatic Zionist, maybe even like me, would make just from the other side. So, you aren’t particularly different in your basic approach from that which you claim to despise.

        I am done with this discussion since you have introduced nothing new to your argument other than an attempt to attack me personally which I presume once again derives from an inability to actually defend your position which is understandable since its obvious implications are problematic for you to digest.

        Reply to Comment
    15. Arieh

      You are the person that wrote:
      “They are Arabs and never have been Palestinians, so they can’t actually be Palestinians.”

      Actually that is not how I understood what Kolumn said.

      What he did say is that prior to the creation of Israel, the Arabs of Palestine did not identify themselves as exclusively Palestinians. In fact, they considered being identified as Palestinians to be an insult because Jews were identified as Palestinians while the Arabs preferred to be identified as Southern Syrians or Arabs.

      He also said that not all the Arabs in Palestine were long time natives. Many immigrated from surrounding Arab countries.

      Thats what I understood Kolumn to say. And it does not add up to what you attribute to him in your above sentence Berl.

      Reply to Comment
    16. berl

      Kolumn,
      “I never said I was open-minded. I am in fact highly insensitive, likely a racist and possibly a fascist…”:
      You described yourselves better than I could do. For the values and the education that I received in my life, a person that self-portray himself like you do deserves contempt, but also compassion.
      .
      “This again suggests that there is group in which you include some Jews, that is ‘the ones that were already here’, which by itself is a rather interesting and vague designation”:
      Not vague at all.
      .
      “this larger group according to whatever criteria you have determined has been assigned ownership status by you and in the same group you accept Arabs that arrived from Egypt and Syria on the basis of some kind of shared culture. In other words, you have granted exclusive ownership to a specific culture”:
      Again you put your words in my mouth in an attempt to shift the topic. I wrote:
      .
      1) The one that came and are coming from other continents can live here; in your strange words; “they have the right of ownership”. But this “right of ownership” has a meaning only if they don’t justify the colonization of the last piece of land that is in the hand of the population that until the first decade of the XX century represented the 9/10th of the total population, and, most of all, if they don’t try to claim that they have more rights then the persons that were already on the spot. Try now again to mixed up what I am telling you.
      .
      2)
      Unlike the Jews who arrived with the Second and Third Aliyah – which through practices such as Avodah Ivrit opted for the exclusion and then the lack of integration with the local Arab population – the few “arab immigrants” almost immediately went to integrate themselves with the natives.
      Moreover it was common and natural for a Palestinian to go study in Al Azhar for instance, and remain there; or for a Hebronite merchant to go to Cairo and live there; or go to Damascus or other places, whether to study or to live..This was a natural phenomenon.
      To compare this little amount of people with million of immigrants from other continents is too childish to deserve attention.
      .
      “This is the gist of that paragraph”:
      the gift of the paragraphs is not that there is an exclusive owner of a territory, but instead that the attempt to justify the settlements and to erase the Palestinian identity/history/traditions (like you do) is morally and legally reprehensible, not least due to the fact that very same persons that you always smear paid a huge price so that the legitimate dream of millions of immigrants from other parts of the world could become a reality.
      .
      “everyone that isn’t a sufficiently subservient part of the Arabo-Muslim culture is a foreigner”:
      That’s not what I claim, that’s what you want to understand.
      .
      ..”your argument is practically identical to the one that a fanatic Zionist, “:
      I don’t think so at all. I, contrary to you in respect of the Pals, don’t claim that Jews don’t have all the right to live here. Even accepting your strange parallelism, the difference is that this hypotetical fanatic Zionist is probably an immigrant from NY or Moscow, while that people were already part of Bilad as-Asham. Irrelevant from the point of view of a person from the US, relevant for a person from here.
      .
      “an attempt to attack me personally”:
      You don’t need my attacks, you already defined yourselves a fascist.
      .
      “obvious implications are problematic for you to digest”:
      .
      To me what is really problematic to digest is only the fact that a person that should be at least grateful to the former local majority – or at least aware of what the “Zionist dream” meant for them – write instead sentences like the following:
      - “They are Arabs and never have been Palestinians, so they can’t actually be Palestinians.”
      - “I don’t think there is anything wrong about them [settlements]”
      - “that is what happens when the tenants don’t realize it is time to share the land with the returning landlords”.
      - about pals in Israeli jail: “There is decent food and they are not eating it, so they are choosing to die for PR purposes. It is their choice and probably the only realistic way to remove this as a tactic in the future.”

      Reply to Comment
    17. berl

      Arieh,
      “Actually that is not how I understood what Kolumn said”:
      That’s because you read only what you want.
      .
      “What he did say is that prior to the creation of Israel, the Arabs of Palestine did not identify themselves as exclusively Palestinians”:
      No, he wrote “They are Arabs and never have been Palestinians, so they can’t actually be Palestinians….Israeli Arabs have never been Palestinians. Until the late 1960s even the ‘Palestinians’ didn’t call themselves ‘Palestinians’”.
      .
      .
      “He also said that not all the Arabs in Palestine were long time natives”:
      No, he said that “a very large number of Israeli Arabs came from Egypt or the Sudan in the early 20th century”. As I explaneid you/him, this is historically inaccurate.
      .
      As this post should suggest you, you read just what you want. You put in my mouth your words and you invent what Kolumn (assuming that you and him are not the same person) really claims. The fact that you feel comfortable with the following sentences should suggest you something.
      .
      “…that you attribute to him in your above sentence”:
      I don’t attribute anything to him, I simply paste and copy the absurd things that he writes:
      - “I never said I was open-minded. I am in fact highly insensitive, likely a racist and possibly a fascist…”:
      - “They are Arabs and never have been Palestinians, so they can’t actually be Palestinians.”
      - “I don’t think there is anything wrong about them [settlements]”
      - “that is what happens when the tenants don’t realize it is time to share the land with the returning landlords”.
      - about pals in Israeli jail: “There is decent food and they are not eating it, so they are choosing to die for PR purposes. It is their choice and probably the only realistic way to remove this as a tactic in the future.”

      PS
      “they considered being identified as Palestinians…the Arabs preferred to be identified as Southern Syrians”:
      I don’t have time to elaborate, but you have a very superficial knowledge of these arguments.

      Reply to Comment
      • Arieh

        “(assuming that you and him are not the same person)”

        ROFL. Do we sound the same?

        Reply to Comment
        • berl

          pretty much.
          once again you focused on one single sentence, the one that your settler mentality considered useful

          Reply to Comment
          • Arieh

            Settler mentality, Berl? Is that what I sound like?

            Reply to Comment
    18. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel