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

Analysis News

Israeli forces raid Palestinian NGO's office in Ramallah

Stop the Wall, a Palestinian grassroots organization, reports that Israeli forces raided the group’s offices, which are located in Palestinian Authority-controlled Area A, early this morning. The move points to Israel’s total intolerance of Palestinian resistance to the occupation.

Stop the Wall, a 10-year-old organization that advocates for non-violent resistance to the Israeli occupation, reports:

At 1.30am this morning ten armoured jeeps of the Israeli occupation forces and intelligence surrounded and raided the offices of Stop the Wall in Ramallah. Israeli military stole 2 laptops, 3 hard drives and 10 memory cards containing files and photos as well as archive material relating to the work that the organisation does in opposition to Israel’s apartheid wall and the attack on Palestinian human rights that the wall and the settlement represent. This is a renewed attack upon Palestinian civil society and their struggle against the physical and psychological oppression, land confiscation and ethnic cleansing policies of the Israel.

It is no coincidence that the Israeli authorities have chosen this moment to escalate their repression against the Stop the Wall grassroots network of civil resistance against the Wall and the settlements, choosing to act on the same day that the Israeli High Court rejected the appeals of Palestinian hunger strikers Bilal Diab and Tha’’ir Halahleh, imprisoned without charge and without trial, effectively condemning them to death. Israel is fearing popular resistance and at the same time prepares for confrontation and more repression, clearly showing that it is not ready to relinquish any of the international sanctioned rights the Palestinian people are struggling for.

Area A is supposed to be under the control of the Palestinian Authority. So, Israeli forces either got permission from the PA to enter the area–another indication that the PA is just a puppet of Israel–or Israeli forces entered by their own volition. Either way, the raid shows that there is no place where Palestinians are fully in control of their lives. It also reminds that Israel will not tolerate any form of Palestinian resistance, even non-violent resistance.

Addendum: Israeli forces enter Area A frequently. The Israeli army admits to this, stating it conducts about six raids in Area A every night.

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. Jack

      Where are all those hypocrites in west to condemn this? Namely Merkel, Clinton, Cameron?
      Just imagine if the military in the U.S. raided a human rights office in america? Its beyond the spectra.

      Reply to Comment
    2. the other joe

      Do the IDF need permission to go into Area A? Seems unlikely.

      Reply to Comment
    3. aristeides

      This illustrates the hollowness of the “two state solution.” Does anyone think anything would stop the IDF from raiding anywhere in a so-called “demilitarized Palestinian state?”

      Reply to Comment
    4. The Other Joe: I didn’t say that Israel *needs* permissions to enter Area A. I simply said that the fact that they went into the PA-controlled area means one of two things: 1) that they did so with the PA’s permission or 2) that they just went in on their own. Either way, it reminds that Palestinians are not fully in control of even the “Palestinian Authority controlled” areas and that the Palestinians who live there are not in control of their own lives.

      Reply to Comment
    5. The Other Joe: But to better address the question I think is implicitly underlying the use of the word “needs”… Does the Israeli military, under the Oslo Accords have the right to enter Area A? It depends on who you ask. For example, when Israel raided a TV station in Ramallah in February, Marwan Barghouti said it was a violation of the Oslo Accords. I’ve seen some people interpret Oslo in such a way that they then argue that Israel has a right, under certain circumstances, to enter Area A.

      Reply to Comment
    6. ya3cov

      The IOF raid A areas on a nightly basis with PA collaboration. When the army wants to go in it tells the PA and they have their forces move out of sight. There is nothing exceptional about this story.

      Reply to Comment
    7. Danny

      The IDF/IOF has in the past raided a community theater, so this raid is not all that shocking. Just another raid meant to send a message that ANY Palestinian activity, peaceful as it might be, is under the direct scrutiny of the occupation regime. The name of the game is control, control, control.

      Reply to Comment
    8. Gm

      Disturbing.

      Reply to Comment
    9. Kolumn9

      The NGO in question is non-violent in its means, but its goal, as is the goal of many similar non-violent organizations, is the destruction of Israel. It shouldn’t expect to be friendly with the forces of the country it is trying to destroy.

      Reply to Comment
    10. Jack

      Kolumn9,
      Must ridiculous and farfetched reason ever. With that argument you could justify killings of all palestinians I assume.
      In fact, reverse it and you have what Israel is doing to the palestinians. In fact Palestine have already been destructed.

      Reply to Comment
    11. Kolumn9

      Jack, there has never been a Palestine. This is a fact that only playing with British terminology can overcome. The NGO in question most certainly wants to destroy Israel. It is hardly farfetched to assume that Israel will take measures against it. Do all Palestinians want to destroy Israel?

      Reply to Comment
    12. mya guarnieri

      kolumn9: i feel your comment is off-topic and i don’t believe in reinforcing off-topic comments by answering them. HOWEVER, i had to share this link with you… ever heard of the palestinian talmud? http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/the-dreaded-p-word-palestine-1.425610

      as far as your claim that the NGO wants to destroy israel… how does demanding one’s human rights a threat to israel’s existence?

      Reply to Comment
    13. Kolumn9

      Mya, I have already read that article. I must point out that a geographic description does not a country make.
      .

      Demanding perceived human rights within the context of a struggle to destroy a state, is still a struggle to destroy a state. The concepts of human rights, justice and peace have been corrupted in the same struggle. For example, the BDS movement makes no secret that it is pursuing the destruction of Israel, while justifying it under the guise of all three concepts listed above. Neither does al-Awda hide this, nor does ISM. I have no idea how you could even ask that question sincerely.

      Reply to Comment
    14. Jack

      Kolumn9,
      Just great, first the argument that palestinians bent on genocide and thus could be legally targeted, literally, now you are saying there is no palestinians.
      As I said and as you ignored, who have destructed Palestine, cleansed its people and still bombard them every now and then is clear….
      Your argument belongs to a time some 80 years ago.

      Reply to Comment
    15. Kolumn9

      Jack, you are misrepresenting what I said. The existence and destruction of Palestine is most certainly a myth. Yet, I never argued that the Palestinians do not exist. Their identity as Palestinians is less than 70 years old, but they certainly exist. Nor did I argue that all Palestinians are bent on genocide. That is a position that you seem to be pushing upon me. My position is that whether Palestinian organizations are bent on genocide or on a process with the explicit or implied goal of the extinction of Jewish self-determination is not relevant and such organizations should most certainly expect opposition from the Jewish state.

      Reply to Comment
    16. Jack

      Kolumn9,
      You see you are just repeating the propagada any state that have engaged in ethnic cleansing. The documented ehtnic cleansing, the destruction of mosques, villages whole land has been destructed. So its funny you accept that destruction but spread the propaganda until you get blue in the face about the evil palestinians setting out to destroy the same state that destructed Palestine.
      Yes you are saying palestinians in majority looking for the destruction.
      You said.
      -
      “The NGO in question is non-violent in its means, but its goal, as is the goal of many similar non-violent organizations, is the destruction of Israel. It shouldn’t expect to be friendly with the forces of the country it is trying to destroy.”
      -
      Matter of fact make that ALL palestinians, ALL palestinians are looking for human rights being respected. You argument doesnt belong here at all.

      Reply to Comment
    17. The Israeli State has yet to learn that the most effective way to prevent violence is to allow nonviolent resistence to occur. The raid is designed to chill any response to up coming events, and likely to allow sweeping arrests given the data taken.
      .
      It is absurd to think this NGO is dedicated to the eradication of Israel. They want to stop what the Wall has done to them. But by phrasing things as Kolumn9 has done, all sense of lived wrongs and hardships under the Wall is quashed. As in the Jim Crow American South, darkie had better be quiet if he wants to get by. But sooner or later, life will come back. Israel cannot win this, no matter how much money, how many personnel they employ. Life will continue to be.

      Reply to Comment
    18. Leen

      Why do pro-Israelis act like destruction of the Zionist regime automatically means the annihilation of all Israelis and the ‘worst possible outcome ever’ in the conflict?

      I mean Yugoslavia was a communist state and it was technically ‘destroyed’. It doesn’t mean that people ceased to exist. The USSR was also a communist state and it was destroyed, it doesn’t mean all the Russians were annihilated. East Germany and West Germany were all together different regimes it does not mean that when they become a new state, all Germans died.
      All of these states one way or another were ‘destroyed’.

      There are many states and countries that no longer exist but it does not mean that the people altogether disappeared with them.

      The real problem is when you value regime security over human rights.

      Reply to Comment
    19. the other joe

      @Kolumn9 – please explain how you know that a peaceful wall protest group is out to destroy the Israeli state. I think you are full of shite.

      Reply to Comment
    20. Cortez

      “. My position is that whether Palestinian organizations are bent on genocide or on a process with the explicit or implied goal of the extinction of Jewish self-determination is not relevant and such organizations should most certainly expect opposition from the Jewish state.”
      .
      Maybe Palestinians wouldnt have a problem if they were treated at minimum as humans and maybe if the Jewish state included the indigenous descendants of Israelites, the Palestinians, as Jewish despite having a different religion, that maybe thy would care about state that excludes them in an openly racist way. The Jewish state can work, a exclusionary racist state is the problem and will be doomed to failure. Israel can fix the security problem it created.

      Reply to Comment
    21. aristeides

      What K9 means by “destroying Israel” is changing Israel. So Israel has already been destroyed, because it has been profoundly changed from the state envisioned by Herzl and established by Ben Gurion. If these people had been able to see K9′s vision of Israel, they would declare, “You have destroyed it.”

      .
      Further, every Israeli party wants to destroy Israel by changing it further. The haredim want to destroy Israel and turn it into a Torah state. The Likud want to destroy Israel and turn it into an apartheid police state – in which they have largely succeeded.

      .
      Many Palestinians want to destroy Israel and turn it into a just state – a process that K9 opposes. But this is no different than the goals of any other Israeli political organization.

      .
      The difference is that only the Palestinian political organizations are confronted with such armed force, meant to eradicate them. The state wants the monopoly of destroying itself.

      Reply to Comment
    22. Piotr Berman

      “The NGO in question is non-violent in its means, but its goal, as is the goal of many similar non-violent organizations, is the destruction of Israel.”

      The goal of Ghost Dance was undoing expansion of White Man (mostly by dancing). “Practice of the Ghost Dance movement was believed to have contributed to Lakota resistance. In the Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890, U.S. Army forces killed at least 153 Lakota Sioux.”

      Would rituals of Ghost Dance have the intended effect, there will be no USA as we know it (although a bit smaller version could survive). Thus the stern measures were justified. Or not?

      Reply to Comment
    23. Rafael

      There’s nothing that hasbarists won’t say to excuse away every abuse Israel subjects Palestinians to. Parochialist, jingoistic chiens, that’s what they are.

      Reply to Comment
    24. max

      Either the raid was aiming at disturbing the activities of a non-violent organization, in which case it’s reprehensible, or it was due to information about other activities conducted under the guise of the organization’s declared goals.
      .
      Given the balance between the little disturbing effect of the raid and the negative press it will generate, and the need to coordinate this raid with the PA, I see little logic in considering the former.
      .
      Given the history of using e.g. red-crescent vehicles to carry arms, I have no doubt that the latter option is a valid one.
      .
      I cannot understand K9′s logic…

      Reply to Comment
    25. the other joe

      I’d just go with the ‘reprehensible’ option.

      The logic is crystal clear and expressed well by @Kolumn9: anything the IDF decides is against the law is against the law. It doesn’t need a reason to label absolutely any activity that is undertaken by Palestinians, however trivial or obviously non-violent, as a threat.

      Reply to Comment
    26. max

      TOJ, you’ll have to try harder, for example state that the collaborating PA shares the same view as the IDF, or that you’re not aware of the major disguise actions of Palestinian organizations.
      In short, you have to state that by definition Israel is wrong and Palestinians right

      Reply to Comment
    27. aristeides

      OK, Max, to take your position: say the IDF contacts the PA and says, we’re going to raid the Stop the Wall office. The PA replies, “That’s reprehensible, we won’t allow it.”

      .
      You think the IDF will turn around and go home?

      .
      There’s plenty of evidence to show that the IDF is determined to repress legitimate and nonviolent opposition to the wall. This raid is just one more case.

      Reply to Comment
    28. max

      To take my position means: given the abundant evidences, the IDF has obtained indications – maybe even via the PA – that the NGO is supporting additional activities, and has therefore decided to raid their location to validate the suspicions

      Reply to Comment
    29. the other joe

      @Max – I’m not assuming anything. Why would the PA co-operate with an IDF raid on a local activist group even if it knew it was a front for some kind of armed resistance?
      .
      Your explanation is at best bizarre. The simplest explanation is that the IDF told the PA that they were coming in and to get the fuck out of the way (if they told them at all). No collaboration or agreement necessary.
      .
      Israel is wrong because a) it attacked a non-violent group b) because it holds people without charge c) because it illegally sweeps into Area A, where it is not supposed to be responsible for the security.
      .
      As has been proved time and again, the anti-wall co-ordinating committees are non-violent. Many do not even return IDF violence with stones. In that circumstance, it is down to you to show that there is good reason to believe that there was a good reason to disregard the Oslo designations and to arrest people involved in peaceful protest in an area which is not even under IDF control.
      .
      Of course you can’t because you are so full of shit. In your crazy batshit world, the IDF can do anything it likes because it is the ‘most moral’ army in the world and because some Palestinians at some point in the past did something which might have been morally dubious. Makes no odds to you that who these people are or what they’re doing, they’re just generic anti-Israeli babykillers.

      Reply to Comment
    30. Jack

      Max,
      Is there any crime, action by Israel that you wouldnt support? Even if Israel dropped nukes on someone you would label it defense.

      Reply to Comment
    31. max

      As I wrote, I don’t know whether or not the IDF had a reason, you know that they didn’t.
      I think that “some Palestinians at some point in the past did something which might have been morally dubious” explains the gap

      Reply to Comment
    32. the other joe

      @Max, I think you need to go and look up the word ‘Justice’ in a dictionary. Arresting someone for something that someone else did is not just.

      Reply to Comment
    33. max

      I can’t refute your dictionary definition :)
      what ‘arresting’ are you referring to?

      Reply to Comment
    34. Jack

      Max,
      “I think that “some Palestinians at some point in the past did something which might have been morally dubious” explains the gap”
      -
      Generalizing ALL palestinians from you THINK some palestinians have done in the past?
      Although we know Israel on the other hand strike first, tell a reason and then the case its buried. Thats systematic and empirical.

      Reply to Comment
    35. max

      @Jack, it’s sometimes good to read through a thread before you type in your ignorance

      Reply to Comment
    36. Jack

      Max,
      Instead of personal insults lets address my reply to you.

      Reply to Comment
    37. max

      Jack, it’s nothing personal, I’d write the same to anyone who doesn’t care to read and claims to answer

      Reply to Comment
    38. aristeides

      The problem is that the IDF is answerable to no legal authority. Under the rule of law, if the IDF did have evidence of a crime [as opposed to activity it just doesn't like going on] it would have to present this to a judge, who would then issue -or refuse to issue- a warrant. This requirement is to prevent police from going on exactly the same sort of fishing expedition that we see the IDF constantly engaging in – raiding on the slightest or no suspicion in the hope of finding evidence that someone might be doing something they don’t like, justifying another raid on another victim.

      .
      Or else they arrest someone on no charges and interrogate, torture, threaten, intimidate or blackmail them into making an incriminating statement which then goes into their evidence folder to justify more raids, etc ad infinitum.

      .
      “Mowing the grass.”

      Reply to Comment
    39. Jack

      Max,
      Of course you do, personal insults is used when arguments are nowhere to be found.

      Reply to Comment
    40. max

      I like “etc ad infinitum” but for the rest I think that you’re ahead of our time.
      One day, army and police will follow the same rules, armies will be required to get authorization for every move (and an open declaration, of course), moles will be banned, and the knowledge of the rule of law a prerequisite for accessing 972mag. Note that I hear that part of this future is already here, as IDF units – no idea at what level – have to consult legal authority before they act.
      Until then, and as I wrote that I don’t know whether or not the IDF acted ‘correctly’ – and trust that you know not better, this all is rather speculative and based on preconceptions

      Reply to Comment
    41. Jack

      Max,
      There is already rules and as I told you earlier the israeli always use the same measures.
      1. Attack
      2. Give a reason, for this case it would be like “The NGO having connection with people that planned to commit terror in Israel”.
      3. The case is buried
      -
      These are standard, empirical trajectory Israel follow.

      Reply to Comment
    42. aristeides

      It is all speculative, but there are observable patterns, and the pattern followed by the IDF is pretty clear. As I have said, however, the IDF has no real constraints on its activity, and if it wants to engage in groundless harrassment of Palestinians, there is nothing to stop them.

      .
      Certainly you can’t point to the collaboration of the PA as evidence that there were grounds for the raid, as the PA can do nothing to stop the IDF.

      Reply to Comment
    43. max

      you really think that the PA, which goes to the international tribunal, to the UN, to the UNHRC, to the NYT… would let the Israeli forces into its main city without accepting the explanation, and not make its discontent heard?
      You’re joking, right?

      Reply to Comment
    44. aristeides

      Max, learn to read. I didn’t say “making its discontent heard,” I said, “Stop them.” Do you really think the PA could stop any operation of the IDF? It doesn’t “let” Israeli forces into Ramallah. They go wherever they please.

      .
      The objections or lack of objections on the part of the PA have no bearing on the question of whether the IDF had any justification for its raid – even assuming that it has any legitimacy for entering Palestinian territory in force.

      Reply to Comment
    45. max

      ARISTEIDES, learn to think: the question is whether the IDF had a valid reasons for the incursion, and my argument is that whatever reason it had was probably accepted by the PA.
      That the PA collaborates for its own reasons is a fact; that it can’t stop the IDF is known; and the fact that you reason that since the PA couldn’t stop the IDF we can’t talk of collaboration, should have been a sign for me that reasoning is futile

      Reply to Comment
    46. the other joe

      @Max – daft argument. As I showed above, there is no reason to believe that the IDF logic for the incursion was accepted by the PA. You are projecting.

      Reply to Comment
    47. max

      TOJ, if you answer my question above I may be able to understand your comment.
      In parallel, I’d be very interested to know where you got your knowledge about responsibilities and accountability of the IDF, or the lack of legal counseling for its operations.
      At the moment I consider the proposition that the IDF makes incursion for no valid reason a baseless projection of a preconceived ideology: Israel is wrong, Palestinians are right, regardless of actions

      Reply to Comment
    48. the other joe

      @Max, I’m tired of responding to your shit. if you think the IDF a) discusses their actions with the PA b) seeks agreement from the PA c) only raids offices they believe have done something/anything wrong, you must be the only person on this website and possibly the only person in the whole of Israel and Palestine that thinks that.
      .
      I know people whose roof was used by the IDF as a lookout post. Do you think the IDF asked politely? Do you think they get permission from the PA to turn up to peoples’ houses in the middle of the night to search them? Do you think they need permission from the Israeli courts to do whatever they think is neccessary?
      .
      If you’ve answered any of those questions as ‘yes’ then you are either lying, totally ignorant of the real situation in the West Bank or not bothering to read the regular articles on this website.

      Reply to Comment
    49. max

      “I know people whose roof was used by the IDF as a lookout post”
      “I know people in London whose roof is used by the British army as a lookout post for the Olympics”
      That’s as much as your diatribe is worth; ever thought of addressing my specific questions instead of asking on my behalf, or is this against your principles?

      Reply to Comment
    50. 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