Skip to main content

Israeli Settlers: a Threat to Peace

Take a look at the town of Tel Rumeida in Palestine. Peaceful at first sight, but when you take a look closer, you'll find things are not always what they seem to be. You'll find Zionist settlers who are attacking Palestinian civilians. No wonder suicide bombers go and attack civilians. I would still condone and attack on soldiers ONLY, but this series of videos led me to drop all my sympathies with Israeli settlers and their so-called "plight". Personally, I'm not surprised, but I was shocked nonetheless at what settlers can do to disturb the peace.

I slightly concur with this opinion piece.
Eretz Yisroel, a settler friendly site put up an article which I find rather interesting. It talks about Psyops used in within the settler community in order to influence both the settlers (through use of agents provocateurs) and Israeli public opinion (through information that filters as a result of these staged events) about a number of issues. While there is very much in the article I don’t agree with, mainly its ideological impetus, there is however some useful information that is worthy of being read. The author (unnamed) claims that undercover agents are posing as radical settlers and they engage in violent militant acts that then serve as evidence to portray the settlers to the Israeli common man as extremists. One of these agents also encouraged Yigal Amir to assassinate Rabin. This claim is interesting, as it implicates that the secret services of Israel had some part in the planning and implementation of this crime.

The author believes that Israel is staging events so as to aid in creating the favourable environment necessary for the implementation of the policies the government intends upon using. If the average Israeli believes that the presence of settlers in Gaza only leads to violence, because these people are extremists and against peace, they will not protest against the Gaza disengagement. It also is creating an environment of hostility between the two segments of Israeli society, those living in Israel proper, and those who are living in the occupied territories. It is preparing a scenario of the logic of a civil war, making it an unavoidable prospect.

Here are a few excerpts:

“The second task was to deal with 'labeling' the segment of Israeli population which would be need to be relocated as 'outside the national consensus'. The West Bank and Gaza 'settlers' became 'opponents of peace', 'extremists', and for merely holding on to what had been Israeli government policy for years, they were labeled 'dangerous radicals'.”

“But when the PM Ariel Sharon resurrected the spirit of Oslo (which is basically an Israeli retreat) in the form of his policy of 'Disengagement', he once again hit a potentially hard sell with the Israeli public. Normally when a country redraws its borders, the residents remain where they are. In a bold step, Sharon insists that the Jewish residents of Gaza and portions of the West Bank be expelled. He has even threatened to use military force against Israeli civilians who wish to remain in their homes in Gaza and the West Bank. New legislation requiring up to three years in prison for anyone who resists evacuation is being pushed through the Knesset. Sharon has claimed that by the end of the year 2005, "Gaza will be free of Jews" - a phrase that upset a portion of the Israeli public being reminiscent of phrases used during WWII. As time past, Sharon hit more and more resistance to his policies.”

Arutz Sheva writes: “As tensions over the withdrawal/expulsion plan intensify, talk of a civil war or violence between Jews is also heating up. Some fear another Avishai Raviv-type provocation against the right-wing.”

“MK Tzvi Hendel, a resident of Gush Katif, said that the alleged attackers "cause harm not only to our cause, but also to the entire country. But they are only a tiny fraction of the entire populace, and they must be related to in this manner. It's actually the Prime Minister who sees fit to mention Judea, Samaria and Gaza and extremist Kach members in the same breath. A citizen who hears the Prime Minister make such an equation is liable to believe him... I don't see anyone being arrested. I'm beginning to think that this is another case of [Shabak agent-provocateur] Avishai Raviv, and that [these incidents] serve Sharon's ultimate objective of de-legitimizing all of us."Avishai Raviv (pictured above) is believed to have encouraged Yigal Amir to assassinate Yitzchak Rabin in 1995. Among other evidence, two high school girls said they heard Raviv goad Yigal Amir into assassinating Rabin. Raviv was similarly the driving force behind the fictitious Eyal organization, which "took credit" for attacks against Arabs that never occurred - leading to the ostracizing of the nationalist camp by many.”

“The police department plans to grant "immunity" to police officers charged by settlers with undue violence during the expulsion from Gaza. So reports the Yediot Acharonot newspaper today. The report states that the police believe that the settlers plan to "intimidate" policemen from carrying out the evacuation by filing illegitimate complaints charging them with undue violence and the like. The police will therefore not suspend these policemen, in keeping with long-running custom, but will rather investigate the charges even as the policemen continue to carry out their jobs.”
I concur with it in the sense that Israeli settlers are in fact extremists... well, a lot of them are, as per the Tel Rumeida project.

According to BBC's Kathryn Westcott,
There are about 240,000 settlers in the West Bank, populating some 120 fully fledged settlements and dozens of "outposts". These are little more than mobile homes or prefabricated buildings on isolated hilltops. Huge Jewish blocks split the West Bank into isolated Palestinian land, and a number of key settlements would have to be abandoned to make way for a viable, contiguous Palestinian state. At the moment, the massive Ariel settlement to the north, the Jerusalem settlements - where a further 160,000 settlers live - and those around Hebron would divide a Palestinian state into three separate areas or "cantons".

[...]

The continued building of Jewish homes in the West Bank is a major obstacle to a renewed peace process. According to the Israeli human rights group, Peace Now, some 60 outposts, some of them uninhabited, have been established since Mr Sharon came to power. So far, Mr Sharon has said he will dismantle some settlements that are seen as illegal under Israeli law - this will apply mostly to such outposts. Jewish settlements, themselves, contravene international humanitarian law, which prohibits an occupying power transferring citizens from its own territory to occupied territory. (This is laid down in the Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49). According to the Israeli human rights group B'tselem, Israeli governments over the past 20 years have used a complex legal and bureaucratic mechanism to take control of more than 50% of the land in the West Bank. This has been used to either establish settlements or create reserves of land for future settlement expansion.
It is very obvious that these settlers and the settlements themselves are cutting up the West Bank and continuing the policy of creating bantustans out of West Bank towns.


Now you're wondering why the Palestinians protest and attack with such sheer brutality. If it's anyone who does not want peace, it's not Palestine, but Israel. Israel's sponsorship for these settlers and the settler violence and harrassment that goes on almost daily in places like Hebron are inexcusable and indefensible. The Israeli Army barely tries to stop them. These videos are concrete proof of what the settlers are doing and are up to. Thus, the myth that the Israelis want peace has been extinguished.

Salaam, from
Saracen

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Politics as an "Outflow of Culture": Unmasking Racism in today's Socioeconomic Scene

A common yet grave fallacy is to assume that (the actions of) (part of) the infrastructure of a particular country at a particular time and place is derived from a singular cause, of which a metaphysical nature attributed to said cause would be even more so. That said, attributing (a perception of) (failed) politics as an "outflow" of a country's culture is in my honest opinion a crock of bull. I'm not denying that culture and politics are related: there clearly is a relationship between the two in the broader historical context. However, this reductionist outlook panders to more than your garden variety racism, itself being built on misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Why is that? First of all, consider that politics and culture are mutually exclusive concepts, although their definitions may not appear to be so on the surface. Politics (according to the pseudo-omniscient Wikipedia [1] ) is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The...

Book Review: "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond

Jared Diamond is sort of a rock star in the sphere of biogeography (and science in general depending on your perspective). He is more a doom-sayer than a soothe-sayer, a prophet warning of the destruction of society and mankind as a whole. His magnum opus and prophetic text " Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" has received accolades from a variety of sources, the least of which was the Pulitzer Prize in 1998. Having read that book myself, I came into his lesser-known essay " The Third Chimpanzee " with the expectation that it would be entertaining and enlightening at the same time. Gladly, I was not disappointed, but a glaring issue exists that I will address later. The first book published by Jared Diamond, " The Third Chimpanzee " explores the progression of human evolution in four parts. In the first, he explores the biological premises of our relationship to two other primate species, the common and pygmy chimpanzees (now c...

On "Leviathan", by Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (Part 1: On Man)

Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan , or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil,  is a veritable juggernaut (pun intended) of a book. It is Hobbes' magnum opus, having been circulated widely by the turn of the 17th and 18th Centuries at a time when England was plunged into civil war. Rather than rebel against the new political order (a war crime according to Hobbes which I will revisit later in this post), Hobbes' central thesis is to submit to the absolute authority of an established commonwealth (preferably, in Hobbes' point of view, a "Christian" one), which he compares to the overwhelming biblical sea monster, the Leviathan. Having just finished reading it, I would like to convey my thoughts on his central themes in as short a post as allowed by the breadth of the knowledge he passed on with this read. For this post, I will stick to part 1 (On Man), and deal with the subsequent parts of the book in later posts. Summary of P...