Why Does Israel Target Civilian Water Infrastructure?

[kyleb]

blah, these people simply a way for egypt, syria, et al. to fight a proxy war against israel because they are too cowardly to confront them head-on.

Egypt's tin-pot dictatorship is propped up by billions in US aid to keep the population suppressed as they are increasingly enraged by Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Furthermore, the entire Arab legal backs the peaceful resolution to the conflict on the basis of international law as outlined in the Saudi Initiative and as they constantly vote for at the UN along with the rest of the world every year, with only US veto power allowing Israel's conquest of Palestine to continue.

as for trying to extort israel into rebuilding gaza, i doubt that is going to happen.

It won't, but it would be the just thing to do.

and i do wonder what we would lose in the process. probably a lot valuable middle-east intelligence that we rely on the israelis for.

This is like looking for intelligence in the bottom of a bottle, and drinking more to cure the hangover.

 

[tiny-tim]

As we did to native americans, they sent the Palestinians to a small piece of stinking desert …

Most of the desert of Palestine was given to Israel by the UN (the Negev desert, that large triangle that goes down to Eilat).

The West Bank and the Gaza strip are (mostly) not desert … the Gaza strip in particular is a reasonably fertile coastal plain.

Even the small desert part could be made fertile if the Palestinians wanted … the Israeli settlers did so, but the Palestinians destroyed everything and allowed the cultivated area to return to desert, when the settlers left.

UNWRA handouts have propped up the Gaza economy, apparently giving no incentive for agricultural development.

It is tragic that European and US taxpayers in providing humanitarian relief to Palestinians, …

Why don't the very rich Arab countries provide such relief?

Unfortunately, they like their Palestinian neighbours even less than the Americans do.

Furthermore, the entire Arab legal backs the peaceful resolution to the conflict on the basis of international law as outlined in the Saudi Initiative …

(i assume you mean the Arab League)

They don't back it with money.

And they back a peaceful resolution, as you say, so they are against the military efforts of Hamas

blah, these people simply a way for egypt, syria, et al. to fight a proxy war against israel because they are too cowardly to confront them head-on.

Egypt are not cowards. Egypt fought an honourable war in 1973, and has made and kept an honourable peace ever since Anwar Sadat.

Egypt has no intention whatever of fighting Israel.

Egypt is anti-Hamas, and the economic sanctions against the Gaza strip are a joint Egyptian-Israeli affair.

 

[kyleb]

Most of the desert of Palestine was given to Israel by the UN (the Negev desert, that large triangle that goes down to Eilat).

You missed his point. However, sure, the UN gave Israel the Negev which cut Palestinians off from the Gulf of Aqaba, even though Palestinians owned far more land in the Negev at the time of the partition.

Even the small desert part could be made fertile if the Palestinians wanted … the Israeli settlers did so, but the Palestinians destroyed everything and allowed the cultivated area to return to desert, when the settlers left.

I'd ask you to prove your claim here that everything was destroyed, but I know you can't.

UNWRA handouts have propped up the Gaza economy, apparently giving no incentive for agricultural development.

Rather, Gaza's attempts to build their economy though agriculture have been rotting under Israeli blockade:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/18/AR2006031801329.html

Why don't the very rich Arab countries provide such relief?

Why do you ingore that they do? Here is one example:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/19/saudis-offer-1-billion-to-repair-gaza/

Unfortunately, they like their Palestinian neighbours even less than the Americans do.

The Arab nations aren't the ones backing Israel's conquest of Palestine with diplomatic, economic and military aid, is is us Americans who do that. Again, the Arab League backs the peaceful resolution to the conflict on the basis of international law as outlined in the Saudi Initiative, and as they constantly vote for peaceful resolution at the UN along with the rest of the world every year, while we only offer refusal along with hollow gestures of sympathy.

They don't back it with money.

What, you want them to pay Israel to respect international law? Or are you just rambling on with your absurd claim that Arab nations don't give Palestinians aid?

And again, Egypt's tin-pot dictatorship is propped up by billions in US aid to keep the population suppressed as they are increasingly enraged by Israel's treatment of Palestinians.

 

[nottheone]

egypt doesn't need muskets, they have tanks.

The analogy that went over your head was that their weapons, including their tanks, are relatively muskets compared to Israeli weapons. The Israeli's have the brains to design first class weapons and the funding (from US) to make them. You need to get past your prejudices and look at things objectively.

 

[tiny-tim]

Arab League aid promises

Why don't the very rich Arab countries provide such relief?

Why do you ingore that they do? Here is one example:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/19/saudis-offer-1-billion-to-repair-gaza/

hmm … I'll believe that when I see the actual money.

Here's a http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1215929.stm" showing that of $1bn promised by the Arab League countries six moths earlier, only $8mn had arrived …

and this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/26/AR2008072601797_pf.html" …

In 2002, when oil prices were hovering around $21 a barrel, nearly two dozen Arab nations joined to pledge yearly contributions of $660 million to support the Palestinian Authority's annual budget. Now, even with oil prices more than six times higher and the Palestinian Authority bordering on financial ruin, only a handful of Arab countries are sending even a small portion of the money they promised, according to data examined by The Washington Post.

Out of 22 Arab nations that made pledges, only three -- Algeria, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates -- have contributed funds this year, while oil-rich countries such as Libya, Kuwait and Qatar have sent nothing and still owe the Palestinian government more than $700 million in past-due pledges.
…
One senior U.S. official … said he is puzzled by their failure to meet their pledges in a period of phenomenal oil wealth.
…
Arab diplomats … said there is little trust that the Palestinian Authority will use their contributions wisely …
…
"Most of them make the pledges reluctantly, on the basis that the United States wanted them to do it," said Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland.

though I have to admit (I was unaware of this) that Saudi Arabia does appear to have fulfilled its promises …

Many members of the Arab League that committed to make annual contributions do not have oil riches and have paid on average about 4 percent of what they pledged since 2002, according to U.S. figures. But some of the worst offenders are oil producers. Through the first half of 2008, Bahrain has paid 13 percent of its total pledges, Libya 14 percent, Oman 23 percent, Kuwait 35 percent, Algeria 73 percent and the United Arab Emirates 92 percent.
Saudi Arabia has paid just shy of 100 percent …

 

[kyleb]

Sure, the Saudis are rich enough to overlook the fact that much of their charity gets sucked up Fatah's corruption and wasted by their complacency with Israel's ongoing colonization of the West Bank, while other Arab nations are more fugal, but claiming they don't give aid to Palestinians is a misrepresentation.

 

[Art]

More evidence of changing attitudes towards Israel

Britain drops Israel embassy move

The UK Foreign Office has dropped plans to move the British embassy in Tel Aviv into a skyscraper because of concerns over the building owners.

A spokeswoman said it was not satisfied with the company's involvement in settlement activity in the West Bank - which contravenes international law.

Israel's ambassador to London said the decision was "appeasement to those who slander Israel".

The UK has recently moved to toughen its policy towards Israeli settlements.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7926850.stm

And

UK restores links with Hezbollah

Britain says it is re-establishing contacts with the political wing of the Lebanese movement Hezbollah.

The move follows "positive political developments" in Lebanon, officials from the UK Foreign Office said.

It comes about 10 months after Hezbollah signed a unity accord in Lebanon and joined the government.

Only last year, the government put Hezbollah's military wing on a list of proscribed organisations over its alleged training of insurgents in Iraq.

"We are exploring certain contacts at an official level with Hezbollah's political wing, including MPs," said a spokesperson for the Foreign Office.

The spokesperson said the UK was doing "all it can" to support Lebanon's unity government, of which Hezbollah's political wing is a part.

"Our objective with Hezbollah remains to encourage them to move away from violence and play a constructive, democratic and peaceful role in Lebanese politics, in line with a range of UN Security Council Resolutions."

The spokesperson said Britain would continue to have no contact with Hezbollah's military wing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7927025.stm

 

[kyleb]

I am dissapointed that the BBC doesn't mention the name of the tycoon holds ownership in the skyscraper allong with ties to the settelment industry. At least http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5847932.ece" goes that far:

The embassy had frozen plans to move into a new tower block part-owned by Lev Leviev, Israel's wealthiest man, who made his fortune in diamonds.

And on the subject of diamonds, questions into his dealings there don't get much mainstream press, but http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/31549/":

Leviev’s alliance with Angola’s central government, which won the country’s civil war, led to his gaining primary control of the country’s rough-diamond supply in 2000. A security company contracted by Leviev was accused this year by a local human-rights monitor of participating in practices of “humiliation, whipping, torture, sexual abuse, and, in some cases, assassinations.” Leviev’s formal response to the report did not directly address the abuses but touted his charitable activities in Angola.

Also of note is http://nymag.com/realestate/vu/2007/10/38348/" :

As late as July, Mann and Leviev neither confirmed nor denied the condo rumors. They were “exploring their options.” But residents were on edge, their fears running from massive rent hikes to flat-out evictions, and for some, the worst-case scenario happened almost immediately. Over the spring and summer, as lease after lease expired and got renewed, the building’s market-rate renters saw their rents rise by jaw-dropping sums all across the price spectrum. Apartment 3KS, a two-bedroom, went from $6,000 a month to $14,865. The monthly rate for one five-bedroom went overnight from $24,000 to $35,000. It is rumored that the monthly rent for at least one particularly spacious unit rose to $54,000—an impressive figure even for the rarefied Manhattan luxury-rental market.

This goes down to the heart of what is wrong with Israel; as long as we have tycoons like that pushing the settlement industry, the possibly of a peaceful resolution to this conflict is bleak.

 

[Art]

The US is also beginning to change it's public stance in relation to Israel,

Clinton rebukes Israel over demolition plan

Orders to bulldoze Palestinian apartments in East Jerusalem spark first criticism by US Secretary of State

By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticised Israel's plans to demolish more than 80 Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem as "unhelpful" and a violation of its international obligations.

In the first public rebuke of a specific Israeli policy since the new US administration took office, Mrs Clinton indicated the plan contravened the provisions in the five-year-old internationally agreed "road-map" that calls for a halt to all settlement activity.

Mrs Clinton said after meeting the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbbas: "Clearly this kind of activity is unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the 'road-map'... It is an issue that we intend to raise with the government of Israel and the government at the municipal level in Jerusalem."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ukes-israel-over-demolition-plan-1637734.html

 

[kyleb]

That isn't a really change in stance as Rice called Israel's actions "unhelpful" too, it is just lip-service.

 

[tiny-tim]

Silwan

Mrs Clinton indicated the plan contravened the provisions in the five-year-old internationally agreed "road-map" that calls for a halt to all settlement activity.

This is probably a misreport … the 88 homes in question (in Silwan), and the surrounding area, are not intended to be settled by anyone, since they are to be an archaeological park and green area.

Nor do they appear to be part of any general policy of evicting Palestinians, since they only apply to that one specific locality, as a continuation of statutory decisions of the British (Mandate) and Jordanian occupations:
“Statutorily, since the beginning of modern city planning during the Mandate period, it was determined that the valleys surrounding the Old City (including the King’s Valley) would serve as open spaces."
In detail, from http://www.williambowles.info/isrl-pal/2005/silwan.html …

The words were written in detail in an official document produced by the municipal engineer of Jerusalem in November 2004, and since it is an instructive document, it is appropriate to quote it in full in its precise language.
“Subject: evacuation of illegal houses in the King’s Valley. The beginning of Jerusalem is the tel in the City of David. In this tel and in its surroundings are archaeological remains from the past 5,000 years. These remains have great international and national value and they provide the city with its status as one of the important cities of the world.
“The King’s Valley, which is one of the important components of the Kidron Valley, constitutes, together with the City of David tel, a complete archaeological unit in which all the sites are connected and constitute an important component for understanding the whole that is composed of various parts and eras.
“Statutorily, since the beginning of modern city planning during the Mandate period, it was determined that the valleys surrounding the Old City (including the King’s Valley) would serve as open spaces.
“This approach was also encouraged by the Israeli planning authorities. In a municipal plan for the Old City and its surroundings that was prepared in the 1970s the guidelines for planning and development were set out, land use, street networks and detailed architectural guidelines for the purpose of conserving the character of the city within the walls and the whole area of the basin of the Old City. According to this plan the area of the King’s Valley was designated as an open public area.
“In view of all of the above I hereby order the removal of the illegal construction in the King’s Valley.”

This is a normal planning move, similar to that in most major world cities, and apparently an originally Jordanian and British idea, not an Israeli invention.

 

[kyleb]

It its settlement activity, and it is of part general policy of evictions, which I have no doubt you would acknoladge were it Jews being driven out rather than Arabs. Even your the source you cited explains as much in it's opening paragraph:

The Jerusalem municipality wants to demolish an entire neighborhood in Silwan village with 88 houses and a thousand residents, in order to expose an archaeological site from the days of David’s Temple. Even though the procedure is unprecedented in scale in this case, it is not a new story. Since 1967 the State of Israel has wanted to control not only the physical area of Jerusalem but also to Judaize the east of the city, to erase its Arab characteristics and to paint its entire face in Jewish colours. The subjugation of the residents and the annexation regime it administers is not enough for the Jerusalem municipality; it must also wipe the Arab presence off the face of the earth, if not physically, then at least the signs of its identity.

It takes some extreme bigotry to condone that.

 

[Art]

It is part of a much wider pattern,

Gaza homes destruction 'wanton'

Human rights investigators say Israeli forces engaged in "wanton destruction" of Palestinian homes during the recent conflict in Gaza.

Amnesty International has told the BBC News website the methods used raised concerns about war crimes.

Israel's military said buildings were destroyed because of military "operational needs".

The Israeli Defense Forces said they operated in accordance with international law during the conflict.

However, the use of mines to destroy homes contradicted this claim, the head of the Amnesty International fact-finding mission to southern Israel and Gaza, Donatella Rovera, has argued.

Israeli troops had to leave their vehicles to plant the mines, indicating that they faced no danger and that there was no military or operational justification, she said.

Breaking the Silence, an Israeli group that gathers and circulates the testimonies of Israeli soldiers, has also told the BBC News website that its findings from the Gaza war suggested many demolitions had been carried out when there was no immediate threat.

"From the testimonies that we've gathered, lots of demolitions - buildings demolished either by bulldozers or explosives - were done after the area was under Israeli control," said Yehuda Shaul, one of the group's members.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7926413.stm?ad=1

No doubt Israeli apologists will claim it is all a misunderstanding and that the IDF were only trying to help the Palestinian owners rearrange the furniture

 

[tiny-tim]

Even your the source you cited explains as much in it's opening paragraph:

No, the source I cited was "an official document produced by the municipal engineer of Jerusalem in November 2004".

The source you are citing is an extremely biased commentary on that document, ending …

it must also wipe the Arab presence off the face of the earth, if not physically, then at least the signs of its identity.

"wiping the Arab presence off the face of the earth" is a lot to read from a policy of creating an archaeological park and trying to persuade Arab residents to move to a neighbouring hillside still inside East Jerusalem!

 

[turbo]

TT, the link you cited provides this:

The Jerusalem municipality wants to demolish an entire neighborhood in Silwan village with 88 houses and a thousand residents, in order to expose an archaeological site from the days of David’s Temple. Even though the procedure is unprecedented in scale in this case, it is not a new story. Since 1967 the State of Israel has wanted to control not only the physical area of Jerusalem but also to Judaize the east of the city, to erase its Arab characteristics and to paint its entire face in Jewish colours. The subjugation of the residents and the annexation regime it administers is not enough for the Jerusalem municipality; it must also wipe the Arab presence off the face of the earth, if not physically, then at least the signs of its identity.

As well as this:

This letter is destined to occupy a place of honour in the literature of the occupation. It is shameful and deplorable and verges on a crime against humanity. It is written in sterile language in the name of the law and universal values, but between the lines is concealed a racist and destructive ideology.

and a whole lot more damning commentary besides. If you do not want your extreme Zionist views to be opposed, it might not be a good idea to quote sources that are even-handed.

There is a lot of good and bad on both sides, but for the last 50-60 years Israel has framed the debate, to the point where every mention of "Palestinian" is followed with the mental addition of "terrorist" in the minds of many Westerners. They have dehumanized the refugee population that they created to the point that any resistance that the Palestinians raise is de-facto "terrorism" in the popular press. When civilian populations are killed in attacks on "terrorists" it is hard to figure how infants, children, women, and elderly and infirm people pose much of a risk to Israel.

 

[kyleb]

No, the source I cited was "an official document produced by the municipal engineer of Jerusalem in November 2004".

Seriously, what I quoted is the opening paragraph of the same article you quoted and linked https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2105471&postcount=151".

It is part of a much wider pattern...

Seeing the whole pattern requires looking back to 1947, and of course there is a slew of excuses for every last act of displacement between then and now, just as any colonialist movement requires.

 

[Count Iblis]

And what I am wondering about is crystal clear : when will it no longer be inappropriate for the international community to state it clearly against Israel ?

I think things are slowly changing. There is a consensus that the Palestinians must have their own state and the borders of that state will pretty much be the 1967 borders. The view that Israel has the right to use overwhelming force against minor provocations has been undermined in the last few years due to a few significant world events.

Take e.g. the recent conflict between Russia and Georgia. Georgia fired a huge number of missiles, killing about 160 civilians in a matter of hours. Nevertheless, Russia's limited military operations in the region were considered to be aggression. Then, a few months later, Israel uses far more violence and kills far more civilians to stop Hamas firing a few missiles.

Another important factor is Iran's nuclear program and the Israeli threat to attack Iran. Bush had to block Israel on a few occasions when they asked for bunkerbusters to attack Iran. They were also denied permission to overfly Iraq.

So, even the Bush admistration was becoming irritated with Israel. For domestic reasons they (and the current Obama administration) would not say anything to insult the pro-Isreal lobby. But privately, they know that Israel is the real threat in the region.

 

[tiny-tim]

TT, the link you cited provides this:

Since 1967 the State of Israel has wanted …

As well as this:

… between the lines is concealed a racist and destructive ideology.

The extreme and unreliable nature of your source (as to the Israeli government's intentions) … which you quote and place value on … is obvious from its climax:

it must also wipe the Arab presence off the face of the earth, if not physically, then at least the signs of its identity

Do you agree with your source that that is Israel's (or Jerusalem's) aim?

If you do not want your extreme Zionist views to be opposed, it might not be a good idea to quote sources that are even-handed.

i] I didn't quote it (I quoted the document of 2004), I only linked to it (I provided the first link I could find that included the document … and the fact that it was from a clearly anti-Israel source had the advantage that you were unlikely to dispute the document's accuracy).
ii] I often provide links that aren't pro-Israel.
iii] I'm not an extreme Zionist, I'm one of the overwhelming majority of supporters of the right of Israel to exist who also support a permanent two-state solution

I usually quote documents rather than opinions (and of course, I also quote from wikipedia, which has the advantage of, usually, being written by people from both sides).

When I quote opinions, it is (I think) only because the opinion is of someone whose opinion is actually of importance … for example, Hillary Clinton, or the Jordanian Foreign Minister.

Your quotation is from a one-sided and extreme opinion article by some journalist whose opinion is not of importance … and as such, is a breach of the sub-forum guidelines about quoting opinions.

… every mention of "Palestinian" is followed with the mental addition of "terrorist" in the minds of many Westerners. They have dehumanized the refugee population that they created to the point that any resistance that the Palestinians raise is de-facto "terrorism" in the popular press.

oh, so you're an anti-Westerner also

 

[kyleb]

Rather, are you are so pro-equivocating Palestinians as terrorists as a whole that you consider anyone who points out the absurdity of that as anti-Western? Granted, you can't even admit Art and I quoted the same article you did, and claim to support Palestinian statehood while supporting displacing Arabs from Palestinian territory, so I can't rightly expect an honest answer from you anyway.

 

[svastikajla]

I really don't think 'Israel', 'Palestine', 'Egypt', 'Burj Al-Araab' or any other of those has done any thing lately, as they are countries or other things defined by little other than border. I think a council of people in Israel—maybe even one person—authorized it. Funny how people keep pressing that they are past generalization when terms like this Freudianly hint away their primal thoughts to place people in such groups.

'It's funny how people speak about "the actions of America" when only 42 per cent of the country has even voted for the current, admittedly disastrous, administration.'

This thread it littered with such fine examples that give away how humans really think. It makes no sense to speak of the US in the 1800's as the same entity as now because there aren't people living there over 200 years old.

Western culture has seemed to evolved beyond using words like 'black people' in this way, but using 'children', 'Israel' or 'women' apparently still can?

 

[kyleb]

You are overlooking the difference between generalising people and and referring to the actions of a state by it's name.

As to the topic at hand, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/07/israel-palestine-eu-report-jerusalem" :

A confidential EU report accuses the Israeli government of using settlement expansion, house demolitions, discriminatory housing policies and the West Bank barrier as a way of "actively pursuing the illegal annexation" of East Jerusalem.
...

Granted, this should have been obvious to anyone paying attention since back when Israel illegally claimed annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967, so the EU is obviously a bit of a slow learner here.

 

[tiny-tim]

Rather, are you are so pro-equivocating Palestinians as terrorists as a whole

that's rubbish … you just made that up

you consider anyone who points out the absurdity of that as anti-Western?

no, i consider that anyone who thinks that westerners mentally add "terrorist" whenever they hear "Palestinian", or that westerners have dehumanized the refugee population, is anti-western

you can't even admit Art and I quoted the same article you did

d'uh … that's because i didn't quote that thoroughly biased article, i only quoted the 2004 document!

… and claim to support Palestinian statehood while supporting displacing Arabs from Palestinian territory

i only supported the Israeli attempts to persuade Arabs to move from one part of Palestinian territory to another (both in East Jerusalem) … that's not "displacing Arabs from Palestinian territory"!

 

[kyleb]

Sure, a state planing to demolish peoples homes on land they have no legal right to is just an "attempt to persuade" those people to move, and anyone who suggests otherwise is biased.

 

[Evo]

Locked pending moderation.