Hebron eviction prompts settler violence http://jta.org/ENTRY_PERMALINK_HERE/showdown-in-hebron-as-settlers-evicted/ Israeli police forcibly removed settlers from a house in Hebron, touching off violent confrontations between settlers and police, and between settlers and Palestinians. en-us dinakraft@gmail.com Copyright 2008 2008-12-04T;15:49:01-05:00 Comment by Maskil altneuland@gmail.com As with many online articles on controversial issues, the comments above play almost as important a role as the article itself in highlighting the issues. Here’s what I believe the eviction of these settlers from the building in Hebron is NOT about: - Firstly, it’s not about the ownership or occupation of this particular building. - It’s not about land for peace, appeasement, or even peace itself. - It’s not about any God-given right to the Land of Israel, or any God-forsaken corner thereof. - Finally, it’s not about any decisions taken by the High Court, activist or not. This is a struggle over some very fundamental issues for Israel and Zionism, a struggle over: - What kind of state will we have?  A vibrant, modern, democratic state, as far as possible integrated into the region and the wider family of nations, or the blighted, ugly garrison state whose violence we see depicted on our TV screens each day? - Who determines the defence, domestic and foreign policies of Israel?  Its citizens and duly elected government (however lame duck), or the radicals within the Settler movement? - Whether the State of Israel will have the monopoly over force within its territory (including occupied territories), or whether the parasitic Kingdom of Judea will be allowed to erode this further. Fortunately, there appears to be a recognition on the part of government ministers and others that this is not just about some dump in Hebron.  This is a challenge as severe as that faced by Ben Gurion with the Altalena affair, and needs to be met head on and with the same resolve. Once this crisis is over (and perhaps once a new government has been formed), Israel needs a clear official policy and legislation governing settlement in Judea, Samaria and anywhere else that formed part of historic Eretz Israel and/or Mandatory Palestine.  If such a policy is in conflict with international law, “world public opinion” or justice and morality, the Israeli public needs to be given the opportunity (by means of a referendum) to approve or reject it and its consequences. Bring on the rule of law! As with many online articles on controversial issues, the comments above play almost as important a role as the article itself in highlighting the issues.

Here’s what I believe the eviction of these settlers from the building in Hebron is NOT about:
- Firstly, it’s not about the ownership or occupation of this particular building.
- It’s not about land for peace, appeasement, or even peace itself.
- It’s not about any God-given right to the Land of Israel, or any God-forsaken corner thereof.
- Finally, it’s not about any decisions taken by the High Court, activist or not.

This is a struggle over some very fundamental issues for Israel and Zionism, a struggle over:

- What kind of state will we have?  A vibrant, modern, democratic state, as far as possible integrated into the region and the wider family of nations, or the blighted, ugly garrison state whose violence we see depicted on our TV screens each day?
- Who determines the defence, domestic and foreign policies of Israel?  Its citizens and duly elected government (however lame duck), or the radicals within the Settler movement?
- Whether the State of Israel will have the monopoly over force within its territory (including occupied territories), or whether the parasitic Kingdom of Judea will be allowed to erode this further.

Fortunately, there appears to be a recognition on the part of government ministers and others that this is not just about some dump in Hebron.  This is a challenge as severe as that faced by Ben Gurion with the Altalena affair, and needs to be met head on and with the same resolve.

Once this crisis is over (and perhaps once a new government has been formed), Israel needs a clear official policy and legislation governing settlement in Judea, Samaria and anywhere else that formed part of historic Eretz Israel and/or Mandatory Palestine.  If such a policy is in conflict with international law, “world public opinion” or justice and morality, the Israeli public needs to be given the opportunity (by means of a referendum) to approve or reject it and its consequences.

Bring on the rule of law!

]]> 2009-11-08T;20:17:00-05:00 Comment by Maskil altneuland@gmail.com As with many online articles on controversial issues, the comments above play almost as important a role as the article itself in highlighting the issues. Here’s what I believe the eviction of these settlers from the building in Hebron is NOT about: Firstly, it’s not about the ownership or occupation of this particular building. It’s not about land for peace, appeasement, or even peace itself. It’s not about any God-given right to the Land of Israel, or any God-forsaken corner thereof. Finally, it’s not about any decisions taken by the High Court, activist or not. This is a struggle over some very fundamental issues for Israel and Zionism, a struggle over: What kind of state will we have?  A vibrant, modern, democratic state, as far as possible integrated into the region and the wider family of nations, or the blighted, ugly garrison state whose violence we see depicted on our TV screens each day? Who determines the defence, domestic and foreign policies of Israel?  Its citizens and duly elected government (however lame duck), or the radicals within the Settler movement? Whether the State of Israel will have the monopoly over force within its territory (including occupied territories), or whether the parasitic Kingdom of Judea will be allowed to erode this further. Fortunately, there appears to be a recognition on the part of government ministers and others that this is not just about some dump in Hebron.  This is a challenge as severe as that faced by Ben Gurion with the Altalena affair, and needs to be met head on and with the same resolve. Once this crisis is over (and perhaps once a new government has been formed), Israel needs a clear official policy and legislation governing settlement in Judea, Samaria and anywhere else that formed part of historic Eretz Israel and/or Mandatory Palestine.  If such a policy is in conflict with international law, “world public opinion” or justice and morality, the Israeli public needs to be given the opportunity (by means of a referendum) to approve or reject it and its consequences. Bring on the rule of law! As with many online articles on controversial issues, the comments above play almost as important a role as the article itself in highlighting the issues.

Here’s what I believe the eviction of these settlers from the building in Hebron is NOT about:
Firstly, it’s not about the ownership or occupation of this particular building.
It’s not about land for peace, appeasement, or even peace itself.
It’s not about any God-given right to the Land of Israel, or any God-forsaken corner thereof.
Finally, it’s not about any decisions taken by the High Court, activist or not.

This is a struggle over some very fundamental issues for Israel and Zionism, a struggle over:

What kind of state will we have?  A vibrant, modern, democratic state, as far as possible integrated into the region and the wider family of nations, or the blighted, ugly garrison state whose violence we see depicted on our TV screens each day?
Who determines the defence, domestic and foreign policies of Israel?  Its citizens and duly elected government (however lame duck), or the radicals within the Settler movement?
Whether the State of Israel will have the monopoly over force within its territory (including occupied territories), or whether the parasitic Kingdom of Judea will be allowed to erode this further.

Fortunately, there appears to be a recognition on the part of government ministers and others that this is not just about some dump in Hebron.  This is a challenge as severe as that faced by Ben Gurion with the Altalena affair, and needs to be met head on and with the same resolve.

Once this crisis is over (and perhaps once a new government has been formed), Israel needs a clear official policy and legislation governing settlement in Judea, Samaria and anywhere else that formed part of historic Eretz Israel and/or Mandatory Palestine.  If such a policy is in conflict with international law, “world public opinion” or justice and morality, the Israeli public needs to be given the opportunity (by means of a referendum) to approve or reject it and its consequences.

Bring on the rule of law!

]]> 2009-11-08T;20:17:00-05:00 Comment by Maskil altneuland@gmail.com As with many online articles on controversial issues, the comments above play almost as important a role as the article itself in highlighting the issues. Here’s what I believe the eviction of these settlers from the building in Hebron is NOT about: - Firstly, it’s not about the ownership or occupation of this particular building. - It’s not about land for peace, appeasement, or even peace itself. - It’s not about any God-given right to the Land of Israel, or any God-forsaken corner thereof. - Finally, it’s not about any decisions taken by the High Court, activist or not. This is a struggle over some very fundamental issues for Israel and Zionism, a struggle over: - What kind of state will we have?  A vibrant, modern, democratic state, as far as possible integrated into the region and the wider family of nations, or the blighted, ugly garrison state whose violence we see depicted on our TV screens each day? - Who determines the defence, domestic and foreign policies of Israel?  Its citizens and duly elected government (however lame duck), or the radicals within the Settler movement? - Whether the State of Israel will have the monopoly over force within its territory (including occupied territories), or whether the parasitic Kingdom of Judea will be allowed to erode this further. Fortunately, there appears to be a recognition on the part of government ministers and others that this is not just about some dump in Hebron.  This is a challenge as severe as that faced by Ben Gurion with the Altalena affair, and needs to be met head on and with the same resolve. Once this crisis is over (and perhaps once a new government has been formed), Israel needs a clear official policy and legislation governing settlement in Judea, Samaria and anywhere else that formed part of historic Eretz Israel and/or Mandatory Palestine.  If such a policy is in conflict with international law, “world public opinion” or justice and morality, the Israeli public needs to be given the opportunity (by means of a referendum) to approve or reject it and its consequences. Bring on the rule of law! As with many online articles on controversial issues, the comments above play almost as important a role as the article itself in highlighting the issues.

Here’s what I believe the eviction of these settlers from the building in Hebron is NOT about:
- Firstly, it’s not about the ownership or occupation of this particular building.
- It’s not about land for peace, appeasement, or even peace itself.
- It’s not about any God-given right to the Land of Israel, or any God-forsaken corner thereof.
- Finally, it’s not about any decisions taken by the High Court, activist or not.

This is a struggle over some very fundamental issues for Israel and Zionism, a struggle over:

- What kind of state will we have?  A vibrant, modern, democratic state, as far as possible integrated into the region and the wider family of nations, or the blighted, ugly garrison state whose violence we see depicted on our TV screens each day?
- Who determines the defence, domestic and foreign policies of Israel?  Its citizens and duly elected government (however lame duck), or the radicals within the Settler movement?
- Whether the State of Israel will have the monopoly over force within its territory (including occupied territories), or whether the parasitic Kingdom of Judea will be allowed to erode this further.

Fortunately, there appears to be a recognition on the part of government ministers and others that this is not just about some dump in Hebron.  This is a challenge as severe as that faced by Ben Gurion with the Altalena affair, and needs to be met head on and with the same resolve.

Once this crisis is over (and perhaps once a new government has been formed), Israel needs a clear official policy and legislation governing settlement in Judea, Samaria and anywhere else that formed part of historic Eretz Israel and/or Mandatory Palestine.  If such a policy is in conflict with international law, “world public opinion” or justice and morality, the Israeli public needs to be given the opportunity (by means of a referendum) to approve or reject it and its consequences.

Bring on the rule of law!

]]> 2009-11-08T;20:17:00-05:00 Comment by Charles Emelogu charlesemelog@yahoo.com I am in agreement with Mr Todd Appelbaum entirely. I am surprised that the settlers can be forcefully ejected from that house when the issue of the ownership of the house has not been determined. The documents alleged to be forged have not been entirely proven to be so. The issue of ownership of the house is still to be determined and a nation hastily threw its people out! So what happens if indeed the house is found to rightly belong to the Jewish businessman? You call back the ejectees? Where are those ejectees living now? Are they happy in the new place? Israel appears to me to be too frenetic to give away every thing for peace; is this ‘peace’ worth it? Where do you place a stop sacrifices for peace? I hope Israel will not have peace with Neighbours but strife with itself. I am in agreement with Mr Todd Appelbaum entirely. I am surprised that the settlers can be forcefully ejected from that house when the issue of the ownership of the house has not been determined. The documents alleged to be forged have not been entirely proven to be so. The issue of ownership of the house is still to be determined and a nation hastily threw its people out! So what happens if indeed the house is found to rightly belong to the Jewish businessman? You call back the ejectees? Where are those ejectees living now? Are they happy in the new place? Israel appears to me to be too frenetic to give away every thing for peace; is this ‘peace’ worth it? Where do you place a stop sacrifices for peace? I hope Israel will not have peace with Neighbours but strife with itself.

]]> 2009-11-08T;20:17:00-05:00 Comment by Jerrold Goldstein jgoldstein2@sbcglobal.net The settlers and their supporters would destroy the Jewish state if they could. They have no right to defy the Israeli government’s demand that they leave a building that they illegally occupied in the midst of Hebron. The settlers goad Arab residents of Hebron into nasty confrontations that the sensible & responsible leadership of Israel does not want. I’m on the side of Israeli law and order. The settlers have become terrorists and they should be treated like the criminals they are. The settlers and their supporters would destroy the Jewish state if they could. They have no right to defy the Israeli government’s demand that they leave a building that they illegally occupied in the midst of Hebron. The settlers goad Arab residents of Hebron into nasty confrontations that the sensible & responsible leadership of Israel does not want. I’m on the side of Israeli law and order. The settlers have become terrorists and they should be treated like the criminals they are.

]]> 2009-11-08T;20:17:00-05:00 Comment by John Hanks portage@uwyo.edu This is the oldest conquest scam job.  First send in the settlers to take the land.  Then send in the troops to support them.  The timing was bad.  That’s all.  The real stunt will be tried again in a few years. This is the oldest conquest scam job.  First send in the settlers to take the land.  Then send in the troops to support them.  The timing was bad.  That’s all.  The real stunt will be tried again in a few years.

]]> 2009-11-08T;20:17:00-05:00 Comment by Paul Winter winfamly@bigpond.net.au The High Court ruled that a legally elected government could act to resolve a dispute before the dispute itself was adjudicated. Coming from a court that acts on the basis that everything is adjudicable, that ruling was hypocritical, illogical, indeed risible. Israel will not be a full democracy until both the judiciary and the legislature are reformed. The High Court ruled that a legally elected government could act to resolve a dispute before the dispute itself was adjudicated. Coming from a court that acts on the basis that everything is adjudicable, that ruling was hypocritical, illogical, indeed risible. Israel will not be a full democracy until both the judiciary and the legislature are reformed.

]]> 2009-11-08T;20:17:00-05:00 Comment by John D. Shook johndshook@bellsouth.net Jehovah G_d has already decided the West Bank ownership. Obviously some Jews don’t believe this or they would be up in arms against this corrupt Government. Jehovah G_d has already decided the West Bank ownership.
Obviously some Jews don’t believe this or they would be up in arms against this corrupt Government.

]]> 2009-11-08T;20:17:00-05:00 Comment by makdove makdove777@yahoo.com It is a mistake to believe you can buy peace with appeasment.  History has shown this kind of erroneous thinking to be deadly to peace over and over again.  All I can say is that I hope that America did not pressure this stupid eviction. It is a mistake to believe you can buy peace with appeasment.  History has shown this kind of erroneous thinking to be deadly to peace over and over again.  All I can say is that I hope that America did not pressure this stupid eviction.

]]> 2009-11-08T;20:17:00-05:00 Comment by Todd Appelbaum cupojoe@prodigy.net Enough is enough already!!  If the Hebron Jewish Community and/or one of its citizens do own the apt. compex and have the deeds to prove it, then the Supreme Court and the army clearly moved to quickly.  It appears that certain Jewish community in Israel have limited rights, and certainly the law of the land is not respecting this pious community.  The army should have waited until the lower court ruled on who owned the house. I guess it is okay that the Arab community could live with no fear among the Jewish community, but the Jews cannot live safely among the Arab community.  I guess terrorism and bad behavior is very effective.  Having no consequences to bad behavior is a horrible way to run a country.  We certain don’t raise our children that way, do we?? Israel, if you continue with this policy, you will win battles but lose the war. Enough is enough already!!  If the Hebron Jewish Community and/or one of its citizens do own the apt. compex and have the deeds to prove it, then the Supreme Court and the army clearly moved to quickly.  It appears that certain Jewish community in Israel have limited rights, and certainly the law of the land is not respecting this pious community.  The army should have waited until the lower court ruled on who owned the house. I guess it is okay that the Arab community could live with no fear among the Jewish community, but the Jews cannot live safely among the Arab community.  I guess terrorism and bad behavior is very effective.  Having no consequences to bad behavior is a horrible way to run a country.  We certain don’t raise our children that way, do we?? Israel, if you continue with this policy, you will win battles but lose the war.

]]> 2009-11-08T;20:17:00-05:00 Comment by Jeffrey I Levin jilevin@hotmail.com JTA Editors need to look at the blurb that leads to this article.  It mistakenly seems to say that 30 Jewish oranizations are planning an attack rather than preparing for such an attack. JTA Editors need to look at the blurb that leads to this article.  It mistakenly seems to say that 30 Jewish oranizations are planning an attack rather than preparing for such an attack.

]]> 2009-11-08T;20:17:00-05:00 Comment by Howard Cohn fossilh@aol.com The High Court DID NOT rule that an immediate evacuation must take place.  It ruled that it COULD take place.  There is a big difference.  Once more the courts have worked with the government to give a legal cloak to political decisions.  The evacuation could have waited for the lower court to decide if the ownership belongs to the Jews who purchased the house.  One must remember that it is a capital offense under PA law to sell property to a Jew and this is why the Arab insists that no sale took place. The High Court DID NOT rule that an immediate evacuation must take place.  It ruled that it COULD take place.  There is a big difference.  Once more the courts have worked with the government to give a legal cloak to political decisions.  The evacuation could have waited for the lower court to decide if the ownership belongs to the Jews who purchased the house.  One must remember that it is a capital offense under PA law to sell property to a Jew and this is why the Arab insists that no sale took place.

]]> 2009-11-08T;20:17:00-05:00