you gotta love them Zionists

Akrasia

Bedouins Left Homeless Following Israeli Demolitions
In other news from Israel, at least one-hundred fifty people have been left homeless after Israeli forces destroyed at least twenty homes belonging to Bedouin-Arab villagers this week. The residents had been living in the desert Bedouin villages of Atir and Um Heiran for more than fifty years. Israeli officials say they’ve been trespassing on state property that will be turned into towns for Israeli citizens.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/28/1433201

I'm sure there will be plenty of Zionist supporters to come on here and say 'but there has never been a state called Bedouinia and they have no right to the land that Israel rightfully claim for themselves, but honestly, is there any justification for this kind of behaviour?

The Israelis claim that the Bedouins are trespassing on state lands, but the only reason they are there is because they were displaced in the 1948 war and had been placed there by the Israeli state in 1956

These demolitions are just the first of many as the two villages have a combined population of about 1000 people who for 3 years have been resisting efforts to force them into inner city ghettos to make room for Israeli zionist settlements on the land.

There are also a further 43 'unrecognised' villages in the Negrev desert all of whom risk the same treatment should their land ever become desirable to the first class citizens of Israel.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/15a8af77380d45bdb866477fbd1c2bf8.htm

O'Leprosy

Akrasia wrote:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/28/1433201

I'm sure there will be plenty of Zionist supporters to come on here and say 'but there has never been a state called Bedouinia and they have no right to the land that Israel rightfully claim for themselves, but honestly, is there any justification for this kind of behaviour?

The Israelis claim that the Bedouins are trespassing on state lands, but the only reason they are there is because they were displaced in the 1948 war and had been placed there by the Israeli state in 1956

These demolitions are just the first of many as the two villages have a combined population of about 1000 people who for 3 years have been resisting efforts to force them into inner city ghettos to make room for Israeli zionist settlements on the land.

There are also a further 43 'unrecognised' villages in the Negrev desert all of whom risk the same treatment should their land ever become desirable to the first class citizens of Israel.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/15a8af77380d45bdb866477fbd1c2bf8.htm

South Africa during apartheid wasn't nearly as bad, - and ofcourse the isreali's were the only country in the world that sold S.A. arms during this period. A case of one type of rascist regeime selling to another type of rascist regeime. How all of this cannot be called ethnic cleansing is beyond me :mad:

The Saint

They'll probably say that the bedoins are traditionally nomadic so they'll be happy to wander around looking for a new place to hang out. :rolleyes:

LostinBlanch

Don't Bedouins serve in the Israeli Defense Forces as well?

You'd think if you had people fighting along side you, you'd at least let them have somewhere to live.

Zebra3

O'Leprosy wrote:

How all of this cannot be called ethnic cleansing is beyond me :mad:

Because it's being carried out by Israel (a US proxy state).

Now if it was being carried out by Serbia (a traditional friend of Russia), different story.

philologos

O'Leprosy wrote:

How all of this cannot be called ethnic cleansing is beyond me :mad:

Because it's part of the "new anti-Semitism" to call it that.

wes

Hardly unexpected and will be swept under the rug by apologists.

Mick86

Akrasia wrote:

...but honestly, is there any justification for this kind of behaviour?

Not really.

Akrasia wrote:

The Israelis claim that the Bedouins are trespassing on state lands, but the only reason they are there is because they were displaced in the 1948 war and had been placed there by the Israeli state in 1956

That's actually the Palestinians you're thinking of.

Akrasia wrote:

These demolitions are just the first of many as the two villages have a combined population of about 1000 people who for 3 years have been resisting efforts to force them into inner city ghettos to make room for Israeli zionist settlements on the land.

There are also a further 43 'unrecognised' villages in the Negrev desert all of whom risk the same treatment should their land ever become desirable to the first class citizens of Israel.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/15a8af77380d45bdb866477fbd1c2bf8.htm

In fairness the Israelis did offer to rehouse these people. The new housing mightn't be in a desireable area but that's life. Also in fairness, if a group of travellers in Ireland just decided to build a shanty town any old place without planning permission the Irish authorities would do basically the same thing as the Israelis. Hopefully the Gardai would use a little less of the iron fist but the Israelis don't do diplomacy. On the plus side they didn't bulldoze the houses with the inhabitants inside.

Dr_Teeth

Err.. a family of travellers were just paid millions for land they were just squatting on for only 20 years.

The Bedouins are an entire village of people who've been there for 50+ years, if that happened in Ireland the government would be putting in bus service, not demolishing the place. :P

Akrasia

Mick86 wrote:

That's actually the Palestinians you're thinking of.

No, it's also these particular Bedouin people. They were placed here by the Israelis, Ignored them for 50 years (even though they are Israeli Citizens) and now they are being evicted because the Zionists want to build jewish settlements on their villages.

In fairness the Israelis did offer to rehouse these people.

How nice of them to 'offer' to rehouse them into inner city ghettos and slums.

But don't you think it was a little bit unfair to simply turn up one day demolish their homes and leave 150 people homeless, presumably as a message to the rest of the village populations that they'd better 'cooperate' (do as they're told)
It's a total disgrace, mafia style behaviour

The new housing mightn't be in a desireable area but that's life.

It's called ethnic cleansing... but sure, that's life

Also in fairness, if a group of travellers in Ireland just decided to build a shanty town any old place without planning permission the Irish authorities would do basically the same thing as the Israelis.

No, the Israelis put them where they are. A better comparison would be if the Travellers were living in a permanent halting site for 50 years and then the state decided to unilaterally bulldoze their homes and force them to live in a slum hundreds of miles away.

Hopefully the Gardai would use a little less of the iron fist but the Israelis don't do diplomacy. On the plus side they didn't bulldoze the houses with the inhabitants inside.

On the plus side? On the plus side, at least Israel didn't Nuke the desert to get them out?

Sesshoumaru

wes wrote:

Hardly unexpected and will be swept under the rug by apologists.

I'm sure it will be picked up again by those who want to see Israel wiped off the map.

wes

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I'm sure it will be picked up again by those who want to see Israel wiped off the map.

So its ok to ethnically cleanse these people? Have these people tried to wipe Israel off the map?

What did they do that deserved the homes being destroyed? Being the wrong race is a piss poor excuse for destroying peoples homes and this is exactly what has happened.

Nice of you prove me completely right. Israel doing this has nothing to do with whatever there enemies are doing and doesn't make them safer.

Mick86

Well, I'm not going to try and defend the indefensible.

I would take the anti-Israeli arguments at face value if I thought that they were pro-Bedouin rather than an excuse to take a swipe at the Jews.

wes

Mick86 wrote:

Well, I'm not going to try and defend the indefensible.

I would take the anti-Israeli arguments at face value if I thought that they were pro-Bedouin rather than an excuse to take a swipe at the Jews.

:rolleyes: Well that didn't take long. Condemnation of ethnic cleansing doesn't mean anyone is taking a swipe at the Jews, but rather Israel's government.

Mick86

wes wrote:

:rolleyes: Well that didn't take long.

Maybe you should have read my first post.

Originally Posted by Akrasia
...but honestly, is there any justification for this kind of behaviour?.

Not really.

wes wrote:

Condemnation of ethnic cleansing doesn't mean anyone is taking a swipe at the Jews, but rather Israel's government.

Your actually condemning the Israeli police implementing Israeli planning laws. But ethnic cleansing sounds better for propaganda purposes. I notice that nobody highlighted the report that the homeless Bedouin were assisted by nearby Israeli villagers.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

wes

Mick86 wrote:

Your actually condemning the Israeli police implementing Israeli planning laws. But ethnic cleansing sounds better for propaganda purposes. I notice that nobody highlighted the report that the homeless Bedouin were assisted by nearby Israeli villagers.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

It is ethnic cleansing. Israels laws are racist simple as that. They discriminate against the Arab population. This very well known.

Again my condemnation is directed at government. The local villagers are decent people, thats great to hear. Still doesn't make the government effort to ethnically cleanse the Bedouins any less wrong.

Also Israel builds plenty of illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Seems to me that laws only matter when there to Israel's benefit.

Mick86

wes wrote:

It is ethnic cleansing. Israels laws are racist simple as that. They discriminate against the Arab population. This very well known.

Again my condemnation is directed at government. The local villagers are decent people, thats great to hear. Still doesn't make the government effort to ethnically cleanse the Bedouins any less wrong.

So you condemn the Israeli government forcing Jews to abandon their illegal settlements in Gaza as well then.

wes

Mick86 wrote:

So you condemn the Israeli government forcing Jews to abandon their illegal settlements in Gaza as well then.

Removing colonies in Gaza is very different.

Akrasia

Mick86 wrote:

Your actually condemning the Israeli police implementing Israeli planning laws. But ethnic cleansing sounds better for propaganda purposes. I notice that nobody highlighted the report that the homeless Bedouin were assisted by nearby Israeli villagers.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I never actually saw that report, But I do certainly applaud the actions of those villagers (if you are representing the situation correctly). Because I'm not anti semitic, I'm anti asshole.

The Israeli police aren't just 'implementing Israeli planning laws' They were clearing out the arab population to make room for a zionist settlement. That is ethnic cleansing. What else can you describe it as?

The Official Israeli response has been that they don't want the Bedouins to be living in the desert where there are no services, but that's ridiculous, because they're perfectly prepared to provide services to that exact part of the desert, just not for Bedouins, only for Zionist settlers.

kmick

Mick86 wrote:

I notice that nobody highlighted the report that the homeless Bedouin were assisted by nearby Israeli villagers.

Yeah they helped them get on the bus (at gunpoint)

Akrasia

Mick86 wrote:

So you condemn the Israeli government forcing Jews to abandon their illegal settlements in Gaza as well then.

It's a completely different situation. The Zionists who are moving into 'settlements' in Gaza are doing so for imperial reasons, specifically to force out the local population and take it for themselves.

They Shouldn't be there, their presence is Immoral. The Bedouins on the other hand had been forced to settle in the desert by the Israelis themselves who were perfectly prepared to abandon them there with no services for 50 years until they decided that they wanted that land for themselves, and now want to Force them to move to inner city Ghettos where services and social problems are just as bad if not worse than where they are now.

The zionist settlers in Gaza and the west bank are the oppressors, they can't claim to be oppressed when their plans to invade are temporarily thwarted.

Mick86

wes wrote:

Removing colonies in Gaza is very different.

No it isn't.

Israelis settlers built illegal settlements in Gaza. They were forcibly moved by the Israeli government and rightly so.

Bedouin settlers built illegal settlements in Israel. They were forcibly moved by the Israeli government who should have shown a lot more humanity in doing so.

Essentially the two events are the same.

Akrasia wrote:

The Israeli police aren't just 'implementing Israeli planning laws' They were clearing out the arab population to make room for a zionist settlement. That is ethnic cleansing. What else can you describe it as?

Urban planning.

Anyway these kind of anti-Israeli discussions are just boring. See you in the next cartoon.

philologos

Mick86 wrote:

Bedouin settlers built illegal settlements in Israel. They were forcibly moved by the Israeli government who should have shown a lot more humanity in doing so.

I thought the Bedouin were given Israeli Arab citizenship?

wes

Mick86 wrote:

No it isn't.

Israelis settlers built illegal settlements in Gaza. They were forcibly moved by the Israeli government and rightly so.

Bedouin settlers built illegal settlements in Israel. They were forcibly moved by the Israeli government who should have shown a lot more humanity in doing so.

Essentially the two events are the same.

Akrasia spelled out the difference between them in great detail, but sure no harm in me giving a go.

Removal of Israels colonies are very different to what is being done to the Bedouins. The colonies are a part of an invasion, its a world of difference between the 2.

jonny72

Mick86 wrote:

Anyway these kind of anti-Israeli discussions are just boring. See you in the next cartoon.

Anti-Israeli, Anti-American.. wonder why those phrases were invented?

Its like someone discussing Zimbabwe and someone else retorts "these kind of anti-Zimbabwe discussions are boring".

Sesshoumaru

jonny72 wrote:

Anti-Israeli, Anti-American.. wonder why those phrases were invented?

Its like someone discussing Zimbabwe and someone else retorts "these kind of anti-Zimbabwe discussions are boring".

Maybe because some people abandon logic and reason when discussing these countries? Why is Israel being held to higher standards than other countries? Why don't we have stories about China(a frequent human rights abuser) posted as often on boards.ie? Mick86 is right these Anti-Israeli rant fests are just getting boring at this stage.

jonny72

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Maybe because some people abandon logic and reason when discussing these countries? Why is Israel being held to higher standards than other countries? Why don't we have stories about China(a frequent human rights abuser) posted as often on boards.ie? Mick86 is right these Anti-Israeli rant fests are just getting boring at this stage.

Then post a story about China if you want. If you do, I won't dismiss your entire argument by calling you anti-Chinese. That would be ridiculous.

If some people are just abandoning "logic and reason" when it comes to Israel as you say, then it should be fairly easy for you to counter their arguments.

Sesshoumaru

I think its a fair question to ask why Israel is being singled out? The list of countries where human rights abuses are taking place is almost endless. Yet some people seem to have a special place in their hearts for Israel. Why is that?

Dr_Teeth

What, is that the Israeli's argument? "It's not fair that you hold us to such a high standard, so we're off to do some ethnic cleansing". Is that it? Maybe you should talk to them first..

The Saint

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I think its a fair question to ask why Israel is being singled out? The list of countries where human rights abuses are taking place is almost endless. Yet some people seem to have a special place in their hearts for Israel. Why is that?

Let me have a go at trying to answer this.
Israel is a self professed liberal democracy so therefore it it rightfully held to a higher standard than other totalitarian regimes and tinpot dictators on that endless list of countries that carry out human rights abuses. Israel is western and European/American focused so we therefore expect it to act as European and American states do as they profess having the same values(although this does not say much for the US or some European countries). There is also many threads opened about the US actions in Iraq, Guantanamo, etc, so does that mean the US is being singled out for special criticism because people are anti-American or for similar reasons that I have stated above?

Israel is also presiding over the longest running illegal occupation in the world today and continually violates international law and UN resolutions (can't think of any other country that does it to the same extent or anywhere near it). It caused the largest and longest running unresolved refugee crises in the world. Israel is fully supported by the largest power in the world as well as supported by most other western governments. Israel is percieved as not wanting peace but expansion which I think is easily domonstrable therefore perpetuating the situation.

As for the other countries that carry out human rights abuses; I'm quite happy to condemn them too and I have done so in other threads. Open one and I'll be happy to contribute. I think it's perfectly legitimate to criticise any government that does wrong. Labeling people as anti-Israeli or anti-American is created to stifle debate and has its origins in totalitarian regimes such as the Soviet Union (antisovietism). Because some people place more emphasis on Israels abuses than they do to other places doesn't negate the arguement. Calling it anti-Israeli is just refusing to engage in and changing the direction of the debate. This also places emphasis on being anti-some state which encompases in it its population as opposed to being anti-the policies of the government in that state.

karen3212

Why I am more likely to pick on Western governments. Well I am in the western world. I think it's the hypocrisy of the West that makes me sick. Well, it's like they say, you're just nuts if you want to kill and die to spread communism or religion. But, we profess to hold human rights above all else, but some of us still think it's ok and noble to kill and die to spread the ideology of freedom.

The hypocrisy of the thing, makes me sick.

Also, by letting planes land at our airport in Shannon, we are passively supporting US torture of enemy combatants, are we not? Therefore I think people here naturally pick on the West first and on their well funded allies.

I am not anti-semitic.

I am anti any ideology that has the people thinking it's ok to kill and die for an ideology.